# Abortion poll



## Patchouli

Hopefully this will give you a good range of responses. If there isn't one that meets your thinking please post in the comments. No agenda just really curious where people stand on the issue.


----------



## Marshloft

Well, I can't answer any of the questions presented because you have one missing.
Since you know scripture, I'm sure you won't be offended when I mention one.
I try really hard to not do that.
God does mention,*"That our spirit never dies." 
*Since our spirit never dies, that means we are all born with a "spirit".
So, if we all knew exactly when we received that spirit. Then that would be my
answer.
If being even then that the life of the mother would be more important than the life of the unborn child. I'm glad I have never had to make that choice.
It would totally tear me up inside to have to make that call.


----------



## wiscto

Marshloft said:


> Well, I can't answer any of the questions presented because you have one missing.
> Since you know scripture, I'm sure you won't be offended when I mention one.
> I try really hard to not do that.
> God does mention,*"That our spirit never dies."
> *Since our spirit never dies, that means we are all born with a "spirit".
> So, if we all knew exactly when we received that spirit. Then that would be my
> answer.
> If being even then that the life of the mother would be more important than the life of the unborn child. I'm glad I have never had to make that choice.
> It would totally tear me up inside to have to make that call.


You just suggested sharia law.


----------



## Evons hubby

Marshloft said:


> I'm glad I have never had to make that choice


Same here, I know what my choice would be, but I also firmly believe that only the mother to be has the right to make that choice. No one else should be able to force their choice upon her.


----------



## JJ Grandits

wiscto said:


> You just suggested sharia law.


Please explain.


----------



## wiscto

JJ Grandits said:


> Please explain.


This was a discussion about government and the legality of abortion. She wants the legality of it to be determined by when the spirit joins the body. That is religious doctrine, which is pretty much what sharia law is. It has no place in government, unless you BELIEVE in sharia law.


----------



## JJ Grandits

wiscto said:


> This was a discussion about government and the legality of abortion. She wants the legality of it to be determined by when the spirit joins the body. That is religious doctrine, which is pretty much what sharia law is. It has no place in government, unless you BELIEVE in sharia law.


I think you are reaching.

The Ten Commandments state that "Thou shall not commit murder". That is religious doctrine, but in all governments it is against the law. Therefore, according to your logic, governments should have no law against murder.
"Thou shall not steal" is another religious doctrine, therefore laws pertaining to theft should also be removed.


----------



## Marshloft

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Same here, I know what my choice would be, but I also firmly believe that only the mother to be has the right to make that choice. No one else should be able to force their choice upon her.


 Yeah, I know. It would most certainly would have to have been hers to make. And I would also have to be right there in support of what choice she made.


----------



## Marshloft

wiscto said:


> This was a discussion about government and the legality of abortion. She wants the legality of it to be determined by when the spirit joins the body. That is religious doctrine, which is pretty much what sharia law is. It has no place in government, unless you BELIEVE in sharia law.


 I don't remember anything about legality. What I mentioned was my own conundrem as to when a life begins to exist.
And you are the one who mentioned a religious law. I said "God" said it.
Now you may have found that in your other religious law that I know nothing about. And I made no suggestion of the sort. Isn't it you who can't handle others putting words in your mouth? well, sometimes it happens to the best of us. I forgive you.
Oh yeah,,,, wasn't it you that mentioned something about brain cell activity?
Ya never know, a spiritual understanding and a scientific approach just might meet at the same place. :cowboy:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JJ Grandits said:


> I think you are reaching.
> 
> The Ten Commandments state that "Thou shall not commit murder". That is religious doctrine, but in all governments it is against the law. Therefore, according to your logic, governments should have no law against murder.
> "Thou shall not steal" is another religious doctrine, therefore laws pertaining to theft should also be removed.


Murder was frowned upon before there were established "religions".

Govts should not base laws on *any* religions, but that doesn't mean some common sense prohibitions won't match some religious prohibitions, since they too are mostly just common sense

The examples you cited really have little to do with religion alone


----------



## Shine

wiscto said:


> You just suggested sharia law.


Do you have a reference that outlines his premise as of being similar to sharia law?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Do you have a reference that outlines his premise as of being similar to sharia law?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia



> The concept of crime, judicial process, justice and punishment embodied in sharia is* different from that of secular law*.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia


Search your citation for Abortion or Spirit - nothing to support the contention that was made earlier.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Search your citation for Abortion or Spirit - nothing to support the contention that was made earlier.


The "contention" was using religious principles to determine the laws is the same concept as Sharia law

The particular words don't change the overall premise


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> The "contention" was using religious principles to determine the laws is the same concept as Sharia law
> 
> The particular words don't change the overall premise


Don't pull a muscle... That's quite a reach.


----------



## Patchouli

The most interesting response to me is making it illegal no matter what, not even to save the life of the mother. If the mother isn't saved then they both die which seems rather harsh to me. I'd be curious as to the thinking of those who chose never legal under any circumstances.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Don't pull a muscle... That's quite a reach.


It's not a reach at all

It's the difference between secular and religious law

It doesn't matter if you agree or not


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I'd be curious as to the thinking of those who chose never legal under any circumstances.


That's why I wish the voting was public, although I think I can guess who the three were with a high degree of certainty


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's why I wish the voting was public, although I think I can guess who the three were with a high degree of certainty


...bet you're wrong, Captain Oblivious...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> ...bet you're wrong, Captain Oblivious...


Childish name calling is the best you can do, after reporting me for "insults"?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Childish name calling is the best you can do, after reporting me for "insults"?


Remember.. we are operating under your rules... Right?

Of course, unless you've never insinuated something about someone or actually called them names?

et tu brute?

I love how you act innocent.


----------



## wiscto

JJ Grandits said:


> I think you are reaching.
> 
> The Ten Commandments state that "Thou shall not commit murder". That is religious doctrine, but in all governments it is against the law. Therefore, according to your logic, governments should have no law against murder.
> "Thou shall not steal" is another religious doctrine, therefore laws pertaining to theft should also be removed.





Marshloft said:


> I don't remember anything about legality. What I mentioned was my own conundrem as to when a life begins to exist.
> And you are the one who mentioned a religious law. I said "God" said it.
> Now you may have found that in your other religious law that I know nothing about. And I made no suggestion of the sort. Isn't it you who can't handle others putting words in your mouth? well, sometimes it happens to the best of us. I forgive you.
> Oh yeah,,,, wasn't it you that mentioned something about brain cell activity?
> Ya never know, a spiritual understanding and a scientific approach just might meet at the same place. :cowboy:





Shine said:


> Don't pull a muscle... That's quite a reach.


The fact that governments of many kinds; many of which existed before the Ten Commandments, outlaw murder is a coincidence...not religious doctrine. 

I can't believe anyone could possibly read the poll and the original post and not know that this was about what we all think the LAW should be, so I'll wait for you to scroll up and smell the Folgers. And if YOU don't read and comprehend the OP and the poll questions themselves...you're just wasting your time.

Suggesting that we base an abortion LAW on when Christians believe the spirit enters the body is religious doctrine. Welcome to the Middle Eastern States of America everybody....highly featured here on homesteadingtoday.com. 

You think we're reaching? I swear to god I just saw you pull your leg off to reach a little further out into left field...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Remember.. *we are operating under your rules*... Right?
> 
> Of course, unless you've never insinuated something about someone or actually called them names?
> 
> et tu brute?
> 
> *I love how you act innocent*.


I don't make any rules here, so that would be your fantasy
Why keep acting like a drama queen?


----------



## JJ Grandits

This is getting middle school people. Grow up.

By the way, I'm one of the notorious "3".


----------



## Irish Pixie

My personal stance on abortion is "Abortion should be legal for any reason up to 20 weeks and only if medically necessary thereafter." But since I firmly believe that it's a woman's choice I support "Abortion should be legal for any reason and at any stage of pregnancy."

Since the poll indicated my opinion, I chose option two.


----------



## Evons hubby

Marshloft said:


> I don't remember anything about legality. What I mentioned was my own conundrem as to *when a life begins to exist.*
> And you are the one who mentioned a religious law. I said "God" said it.
> Now you may have found that in your other religious law that I know nothing about. And I made no suggestion of the sort. Isn't it you who can't handle others putting words in your mouth? well, sometimes it happens to the best of us. I forgive you.
> Oh yeah,,,, wasn't it you that mentioned something about brain cell activity?
> Ya never know, a spiritual understanding and a scientific approach just might meet at the same place. :cowboy:


Ok here's my thinking on when a life begins to exist..... Life began at some point in history. It has continued to exist since that time by reproducing itself using various biological methods. In humans the cycle begins when a female drops her egg into the hopper. Then a male drops a sperm in with it and fertilization takes place producing an embryo which eventually becomes a child. Said children grow up playing with puppy's and chasing butterflies until they mature enough and the cycle repeats itself.... Life continues on in this endless cycle passed from one generation to the next. Not sure where I read it but "Life begets life" works for me.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't make any rules here, so that would be your fantasy
> Why keep acting like a drama queen?


Gee, I do not know... Why do you play as if you are ignorant? You do not give anywhere near as much as you get so I have no idea why you complain so much.


----------



## Shine

My comment about it being a stretch referred to the choice of Sharia law being similar to what Marshloft suggested. No one even attempted to see that they were referring to their own personal conundrum and made that crystal clear that they were speaking only for themselves. 

And some here want to call my efforts "drama" - wow


----------



## arabian knight

JJ Grandits said:


> This is getting middle school people. Grow up.
> 
> By the way, I'm one of the notorious "3".


 It has been going this way ever since the new beginnings those that can't seem to get it through their heads this is a family site and not a childs play thing. We should have never ever loosened up things like this. This is now turning into just another BASH and Bash sites for the liberals to say whatever they feel like to the conservatives on here no matter how childish it is. This site will be taken out by just these FEW on here that seems to think they can RULE THE DAY no matter what.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> But since I firmly believe that it's a woman's choice I support "Abortion should be legal for any reason and at any stage of pregnancy."


_Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out_?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Irish Pixie said:


> My personal stance on abortion is "Abortion should be legal for any reason up to 20 weeks and only if medically necessary thereafter." But since I firmly believe that it's a woman's choice I support "Abortion should be legal for any reason and at any stage of pregnancy."
> 
> Since the poll indicated my opinion, I chose option two.





Jolly said:


> _Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out_?


Use the whole quote, please. Don't cherry pick what you need to misdirect what you said on another thread. 

I stand by what I said, but I never advocated killing abortion doctors either.


----------



## arabian knight

Jolly said:


> _Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out_?


I am so glad a few states are at least stopping abortions after 20 weeks. That at least is a Start. Now let all states do that and start moving it toward ending abortions.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Use the whole quote, please. Don't cherry pick what you need to misdirect what you said on another thread.
> 
> I stand by what I said, but I never advocated killing abortion doctors either.


I'm sorry, but you are deflecting.

You said that you supported terminating a pregnancy at *any* (emphasis mine) stage.

That's pretty plain.


----------



## where I want to

Since I believe it is a horribly difficult question for anyone to answer for another human, I think that the person called on to take the risk and pay the price, the pregnant woman, should make the decision for herself right up to the point a child could survive on its own. After that, the idea that an unborn child can live a damaged life no matter what gives the State an interest in the woman's pregnancy.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> I'm sorry, but you are deflecting.
> 
> You said that you supported terminating a pregnancy at *any* (emphasis mine) stage.
> 
> That's pretty plain.


So? What's your point? 

Dude, it's painfully obvious what you're trying to do when you cherry pick my posts. I never said, "that some people need killin'" in response to the assassination of an abortion doctor. You did that all on your own.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> So? What's your point?
> 
> Dude, it's painfully obvious what you're trying to do when you cherry pick my posts. I never said, "that some people need killin'" in response to the assassination of an abortion doctor. You did that all on your own.


You're deflecting again.

Man up, and own what you said.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Jolly said:


> You're deflecting again.
> 
> Man up, and own what you said.


What is painfully obvious is that it was pointed out that you advocate killing abortion providers and now to be spiteful are trying to make it seem like pixie said something she didn't by cherry picking a previous post.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> You're deflecting again.
> 
> Man up, and own what you said.


From the thread, "Anti choice people" the other thread where you're misdirecting the fact that you stated, "some people just need killin'" in response to the assassination of Dr. Tiller.

I said, "I'm not playing "what if" games with you. I don't cherry pick your posts, I quoted exactly what you said. If you regret what you said now, it's not my problem. 

*I believe it's a woman's choice to do whatever she wants with her body. Period.* There are still 9 states and DC where she can do just that legally. Period. 

Where is it legal to assassinate someone because they preform a legal procedure? You indicated that you support it cuz "some people need killin'".

I'm not playing your game, Jolly. You said what you said and no amount of spin and misdirection to what I've said is going to change that.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> From the thread, "Anti choice people" the other thread where you're misdirecting the fact that you stated, "some people just need killin'" in response to the assassination of Dr. Tiller.
> 
> I said, "I'm not playing "what if" games with you. I don't cherry pick your posts, I quoted exactly what you said. If you regret what you said now, it's not my problem.
> 
> *I believe it's a woman's choice to do whatever she wants with her body. Period.* There are still 9 states and DC where she can do just that legally. Period.
> 
> Where is it legal to assassinate someone because they preform a legal procedure? You indicated that you support it cuz "some people need killin'".
> 
> I'm not playing your game, Jolly. You said what you said and no amount of spin and misdirection to what I've said is going to change that."


Um... I don't think he is backing out. He has provided the rational that one might have for the killing of that doctor. I do not understand why you do not see this.

I would go even one further - what's say that a FATHER who has a spat with his Wife and she ups and goes to this doctor while 8 months pregnant? He finds out that she is going to kill what is to be his child, a product of their unions. What then? I know it is somewhat of a religion for your group to not answer "What if"s because this takes away from your collective stances but - hey??? What if?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Um... I don't think he is backing out. He has provided the rational that one might have for the killing of that doctor. I do not understand why you do not see this.
> 
> I would go even one further - what's say that a FATHER who has a spat with his Wife and she ups and goes to this doctor while 8 months pregnant? He finds out that she is going to kill what is to be his child, a product of their unions. What then? I know it is somewhat of a religion for your group to not answer "What if"s because this takes away from your collective stances but - hey??? What if?


Jolly is trying to rationalize his statement. He can tell himself and misdirect to my posts but he said, "some people just need killin'" in response to the assassination of Dr. Tiller. He said it, and he should own it- no spin, no misdirection. Own it. 

I'm not playing "what ifs" because it's part of his misdirection. The abortion is legal, the murder of an abortion doctor is not, it doesn't matter if the father doesn't want the pregnancy terminated. Her body, her choice. 

I don't have a religion, remember? Do you really want to go there? Again?


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Jolly is trying to rationalize his statement. He can tell himself and misdirect to my posts but he said, "some people just need killin'" in response to the assassination of Dr. Tiller. He said it, and he should own it- no spin, no misdirection. Own it.
> 
> I'm not playing "what ifs" because it's part of his misdirection. The abortion is legal, the murder of an abortion doctor is not, it doesn't matter if the father doesn't want the pregnancy terminated. Her body, her choice.
> 
> I don't have a religion, remember? Do you really want to go there? Again?


The entire crux of your argument rests on what is *legal*, not what is _right_.

Let me remind you that what is legal, is very often subject to change, and many times was not right to begin with.

Therefore, let us have our Congress Critter to submit a bill...due to the massive illegal alien problem, we'll now issue tags to all good citizens who apply, to legally kill three illegal aliens. The bill passes, the Pres signs it, and _voila!_, it's open season on illegals.

Since it's now become legal, don't forget to buy a new box of shells for your thutty-thutty, and blast those pesky illegals!


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> The entire crux of your argument rests on what is *legal*, not what is _right_.
> 
> Let me remind you that what is legal, is very often subject to change, and many times was not right to begin with.
> 
> Therefore, let us have our Congress Critter to submit a bill...due to the massive illegal alien problem, we'll now issue tags to all good citizens who apply, to legally kill three illegal aliens. The bill passes, the Pres signs it, and _voila!_, it's open season on illegals.
> 
> Since it's now become legal, don't forget to buy a new box of shells for your thutty-thutty, and blast those pesky illegals!


Your morality is not universal. Legality is. You can seriously dance, can't you? 

Which is legal, Jolly? Abortion or killing an abortion doctor?


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Your morality is not universal. Legality is. You can seriously dance, can't you?
> 
> Which is legal, Jolly? Abortion or killing an abortion doctor?


What is right, Pixie? Killing or killing a killer before he can kill?


----------



## Patchouli

Okay I can actually see the nuance in both Jolly and Pixie's posts. Pixie made it clear what her personal moral feeling on abortion was and that she supports the law as it is written. So while her personal choice on abortion would be to end it at 20 weeks she will stand by the legal choice of any other woman to do what she feels is best. I think most of us who are pro-choice think that way. Choice outweighs our personal feelings on the matter. 

I also think Jolly would not shoot an abortion doctor himself but he can understand why someone would. And he felt that Dr. Tiller deserved death even though Jolly himself would not have felt it right to kill him short of the Dr. being tried and convicted in a court of law. And then he would have happily thrown the switch. 

I can understand why a person would shoot an abortion doctor if they truly believed he was killing babies and they were saving lives. I do not condone it and I would want to see them tried and convicted and receive the death penalty if they did shoot an abortion doctor. But it is a logical response and to be honest I am surprised more pro-lifers don't commit murder as angry and hopped up as they get about abortion. I completely disagree with them but I can still see the logic they are following.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> What is right, Pixie? Killing or killing a killer before he can kill?


What is right is what is legal. I can't impose my standards on anyone else, no one can, they vary from person to person. Which is exactly why we have laws. 

As I said, your morality is not universal. Murder/homicide is a universal law in the US. 

So, again, which is legal in the US (I'll make it easier) abortion or killing an abortion doctor? Are you really so egotistical that you won't answer the question?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> *What is right*, Pixie? Killing or killing a killer before he can kill?


"Right" is minding your own business, and allowing others the freedom to make their own choices within the current laws.

Stop trying to control everything


----------



## Jolly

Patchouli said:


> Okay I can actually see the nuance in both Jolly and Pixie's posts. Pixie made it clear what her personal moral feeling on abortion was and that she supports the law as it is written. So while her personal choice on abortion would be to end it at 20 weeks she will stand by the legal choice of any other woman to do what she feels is best. I think most of us who are pro-choice think that way. Choice outweighs our personal feelings on the matter.
> 
> I also think Jolly would not shoot an abortion doctor himself but he can understand why someone would. And he felt that Dr. Tiller deserved death even though Jolly himself would not have felt it right to kill him short of the Dr. being tried and convicted in a court of law. And then he would have happily thrown the switch.
> 
> I can understand why a person would shoot an abortion doctor if they truly believed he was killing babies and they were saving lives. I do not condone it and I would want to see them tried and convicted and receive the death penalty if they did shoot an abortion doctor. But it is a logical response and to be honest I am surprised more pro-lifers don't commit murder as angry and hopped up as they get about abortion. I completely disagree with them but I can still see the logic they are following.


You know, every now and then you stumble into the Truth...:clap:


----------



## Evons hubby

Jolly said:


> What is right, Pixie? Killing or killing a killer before he can kill?


Killing is wrong, killing an abortion doctor is very wrong. If you are worried that he may kill a baby you call the law.... No one is allowed to kill someone unless they pose an immediate threat to you or someone else... I doubt this doctor was getting ready to kill anyone in the parking lot.


----------



## kasilofhome

Because many are conservative, we enjoy freedom, we are tolerant in action yet choose to use logic versus rioting, looting,force,control, etc.

Code pink.... disruptive
Black lives matter .....disruptive
All Sharpton...disruptive
Louis farrakhan... disruptive
Rev. Wright.....disruptive
Bill Ayers.... disruptive

list is just a few.
Nancy Pelosi,
Grubber,


----------



## Cornhusker

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Right" is minding your own business, and allowing others the freedom to make their own choices within the current laws.
> 
> Stop trying to control everything


Right is standing up for those who can't stand up for themselves IMHO


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Because many are conservative, we enjoy freedom, we are tolerant in action yet choose to use logic versus rioting, looting,force,*control, *etc.
> 
> Code pink.... disruptive
> Black lives matter .....disruptive
> All Sharpton...disruptive
> Louis farrakhan... disruptive
> Rev. Wright.....disruptive
> Bill Ayers.... disruptive
> 
> list is just a few.
> Nancy Pelosi,
> Grubber,


I can go along with most of this but the cons do like to control others. Particularly when it comes to topics of a sexual nature.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> Right is standing up for those who can't stand up for themselves IMHO


Do you agree with killing abortion doctors?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Killing is wrong, killing an abortion doctor is very wrong. If you are worried that he may kill a baby you call the law.... No one is allowed to kill someone unless they pose an immediate threat to you or someone else... I doubt this doctor was getting ready to kill anyone in the parking lot.


He was shot while being an usher in his church.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you agree with killing abortion doctors?


No, of course not.
I think they are scum of the Earth, and they will pay for their sins, but as long as they are in the confines of even a bad law, we can't just go killing them


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I can go along with most of this but the cons do like to control others. Particularly when it comes to topics of a sexual nature.


No, most just don't believe or support sex as a public sport.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> No, of course not.
> I think they are scum of the Earth, and they will pay for their sins, but as long as they are in the confines of even a bad law, we can't just go killing them


Thank you for being a non egotistical, non self aggrandizing person and answering my question.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> No, most just don't believe or support sex as a public sport.


I could be wrong but I don't think liberals view sex as a public sport either. They just don't care what goes on between consenting adults.


----------



## kasilofhome

Conservatives are not holding parades on sexual themes.
Can't say they dress up as a penis or vagina to protest.
Seems homosexuals outed each other to promote an agenda of sexuality is not private... it's a cause.... don't come out on your own we will make that choice to out you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Conservatives are not holding parades on sexual themes.
> Can't say they dress up as a penis or vagina to protest.
> Seems homosexuals outed each other to promote an agenda of sexuality is not private... it's a cause.... don't come out on your own we will make that choice to out you.


Oh, this is about gays not sex as a public sport. Are you saying there are no gay conservatives? Cuz I know several.


----------



## susieneddy




----------



## kasilofhome

Code pink is not gay... they just in your face dressing and interrupt event in Vagina.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> Right is standing up for those who can't stand up for themselves IMHO


You can "stand up for" any cause you like.
You can't force anyone else to go along

Even here, well over half favor keeping abortions legal


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Code pink is not gay... they just in your face dressing and interrupt event in Vagina.


Is wearing the color pink, and sometimes tiaras, in your face dressing? I think you meant Virginia?

ETA: Maybe you did mean vagina. I just Googled and they do dress up in pink vagina costumes. Some are really quite creative.


----------



## Jolly

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Killing is wrong, killing an abortion doctor is very wrong. If you are worried that he may kill a baby you call the law.... No one is allowed to kill someone unless they pose an immediate threat to you or someone else... I doubt this doctor was getting ready to kill anyone in the parking lot.


No, don't substitute words. Or if you do, substitute "Wayne Gacy" for "abortion doctor".

As I said, this is situational ethics...can you kill a killer before he kills?


----------



## Woolieface

Patchouli said:


> The most interesting response to me is making it illegal no matter what, not even to save the life of the mother. If the mother isn't saved then they both die which seems rather harsh to me. I'd be curious as to the thinking of those who chose never legal under any circumstances.


In a personal decision, I would not condone abortion for any reason, and I sure hesitated at answering otherwise. The only reason I do is because in matters of legality, though it might show a great deal of cowardice, it isn't illegal to not run into a burning building to save your own child. 

My trust for the life of mother and child would be in God's hands. choosing a mother over a child or a child over a mother puts me in His place, where I don't belong. That aside, not everyone trusts in Him and not everyone would put their life on the line to save their own flesh and blood, and in secular legality, there's no forcing courage and we are not authorized to forfeit anyone's life for that. So that, I leave to a higher court.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> No, don't substitute words. Or if you do, substitute "Wayne Gacy" for "abortion doctor".
> 
> As I said, this is situational ethics...can you kill a killer before he kills?


Would you kill a killer before he kills?

If it's just "situational ethics" why won't you answer my question?


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you for being a non egotistical, non self aggrandizing person and answering my question.


Yeah, I love you, too. 

C'mere, sugar...:kissy:


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Would you kill a killer before he kills?


If I would have had a gun at the time, I would have.

As it was, I had to throw my shirt away because of the blood stains.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> If I would have had a gun at the time, I would have.
> 
> As it was, I had to throw my shirt away because of the blood stains.


Yet you still won't answer the question. You had no problem saying that "some people need killin'" tho. 

And rather than standing up for what you believe in you'd hide what you did. That _is_ telling.



Jolly said:


> Yeah, I love you, too.
> 
> C'mere, sugar...:kissy:


I'm not your sugar. Is making inappropriate comments a "thing" where you come from too?


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Yet you still won't answer the question. You had no problem saying that "some people need killin'" tho.
> 
> And rather than standing up for what you believe in you'd hide what you did. That _is_ telling.
> 
> I'm not your sugar. Is making inappropriate comments a "thing" where you come from too?


I think I've made it pretty clear where I stand and what I believe in.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go feed the chickens.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> I think I've made it pretty clear where I stand and what I believe in.
> 
> Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go feed the chickens.


Yes, you have. Clear about your character too.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't have a religion, remember? Do you really want to go there? Again?


um... did I bring up religion or did you?

Oh - I see what troubled you, is the word "religion" now ver boten?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> I know it is somewhat of a religion for your group to not answer "What if"s because this takes away from your collective stances but - hey??? What if?


Your wording leaves a lot to be desired. No god, no christ, no allah, no YHWH, no religion. Not a type of religion, not a sort of religion, not somewhat of a religion, no religion. 

Am I a bit sensitive about it with you? Yup, I am.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> um... did I bring up religion or did you?
> 
> Oh - I see what troubled you, is the word "religion" now ver boten?


Not unless you use it as a weapon. I feel you did...


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Killing is wrong, killing an abortion doctor is very wrong. If you are worried that he may kill a baby you call the law.... No one is allowed to kill someone unless they pose an immediate threat to you or someone else... I doubt this doctor was getting ready to kill anyone in the parking lot.


Ya know, many are on board with this Killing is Killing kick but will jump right off of that bandwagon the moment a woman wants to kill her unborn child. That is a leap right there, I would almost qualify it as a paradox in that this does not follow logic, "I am against killing but I am for killing."


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can "stand up for" any cause you like.
> You can't force anyone else to go along
> 
> Even here, well over half favor keeping abortions legal


I am thinking that you misunderstood the intended meaning for "Stand Up".


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Not unless you use it as a weapon. I feel you did...


Who owns the meanings of words - the speaker or the hearer?

BTW - once again you failed to answer my question which is something that you seem to require of others. Remember - Yes or No?

...and it was such a simple question.

From Dictionary.com:

Religion - dot three: the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practice

Fits perfectly in my statement using the word not to denote the spiritual portion but just a set of beliefs.

I used the word correctly with no intent to harm another but you took it as an offense - you really must get out more...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Who owns the meanings of words - the speaker or the hearer?
> 
> BTW - once again you failed to answer my question which is something that you seem to require of others. Remember - Yes or No?
> 
> ...and it was such a simple question.


The only question you asked is "did I bring up religion or did you?" You answered it yourself. Do you require one from me as well? You brought up religion. 

Was there a question I missed? Other than "Who owns the meanings of words - the speaker or the hearer?" which you just asked. To which I say, both.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> The only question you asked is "did I bring up religion or did you?" You answered it yourself. Do you require one from me as well? You brought up religion.
> 
> Was there a question I missed?


Well, you could re-read what I wrote but I understand that goes against your grain so yes, there is a question that you missed: Is the word "religion" never to be spoken in public for fear of offending someone who does not understand all of its meanings?


----------



## Shine

Post Lag - duplicate.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Who owns the meanings of words - the speaker or the hearer?
> 
> BTW - once again you failed to answer my question which is something that you seem to require of others. Remember - Yes or No?
> 
> ...and it was such a simple question.
> 
> From Dictionary.com:
> 
> Religion - dot three: *the body of persons* adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practice
> 
> Fits perfectly in my statement using the word not to denote the spiritual portion but just a set of beliefs.
> 
> I used the word correctly with no intent to harm another but you took it as an offense - you really must get out more...


Psst. Read your own definition- I'm just one person. No religion means no religion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Well, you could re-read what I wrote but I understand that goes against your grain so yes, there is a question that you missed: Is the word "religion" never to be spoken in public for fear of offending someone who does not understand all of its meanings?


I understand completely the definition you quoted, it didn't work cuz there's just me.  

Use any word you'd like, if I don't like it I'll tell you all about it. K?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I am thinking that you misunderstood the intended meaning for "Stand Up".


That doesn't surprise me, but you're wrong


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> That doesn't surprise me, but you're wrong


*He's* been wrong about a couple things already.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Well, you could re-read what I wrote but I understand that goes against your grain so yes, there is *a question that you missed*: Is the word "religion" never to be spoken in public for fear of offending someone who does not understand all of its meanings?


She answered that one already
You seem to be replaying the same routine you did with me


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I understand completely the definition you quoted, it didn't work cuz there's just me.
> 
> Use any word you'd like, if I don't like it I'll tell you all about it. K?


Watch me not care.. K?


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Psst. Read your own definition- I'm just one person. No religion means no religion.


ah, but once again you err, you and some others have formed a cliche in as far as you tag team others, identify with the same points of a number of arguments and operate as an easily defined "group" - so - too bad... it fits.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Yet you still won't answer the question. You had no problem saying that "some people need killin'" tho.
> 
> And rather than standing up for what you believe in you'd hide what you did. That _is_ telling.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not your sugar. Is making inappropriate comments a "thing" where you come from too?


All right, hon, I'm back. :duel:

You'd try to start an argument in an empty house, wouldn't you? :grumble:

Do you know what the old sayin', "some people just need killin" means? It can be an literal posit or it can be a general observation. Or, you can watch _Slingblade_ and pick it up from Billy Bob Thornton's (it's an old Texas saying, so Billy was familiar with it) lines.

Anyway, today is a good day, because you learned something. Feel free to use the saying, as you wish.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> She answered that one already
> You seem to be replaying the same routine you did with me


Well hot-diggity... You're in error too. She danced her way out of it and failed to provide a reasonable answer. Did you teach her those steps?


----------



## Shine

Jolly said:


> All right, hon, I'm back. :duel:
> 
> You'd try to start an argument in an empty house, wouldn't you? :grumble:
> 
> Do you know what the old sayin', "some people just need killin" means? It can be an literal posit or it can be a general observation. Or, you can watch _Slingblade_ and pick it up from Billy Bob Thornton's (it's an old Texas saying, so Billy was familiar with it) lines.
> 
> Anyway, today is a good day, because you learned something. Feel free to use the saying, as you wish.


Watch the spinning Twist=o=matic get used on this too...


----------



## Jolly

Shine said:


> Watch the spinning Twist=o=matic get used on this too...


Actually, I'm growing rather fond of her. I tend to give folks I like a nick-name. I'm seriously considering naming her "Big Red".


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Actually, I'm growing rather fond of her. I tend to give folks I like a nick-name. I'm seriously considering naming her "Big Red".


Another inappropriate post. Are you going for a record?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> ah, but once again you err, you and some others have formed a cliche in as far as you tag team others, identify with the same points of a number of arguments and operate as an easily defined "group" - so - too bad... it fits.


So you say...


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> So you say...


Now see, that right yonder!... there is some common ground between us...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Watch the spinning Twist=o=matic get used on this too...


You'll wait forevah as I have nothing to twist. I'm not the one that wants abortion doctors dead for performing legal procedures.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Now see, that right yonder!... there is some common ground between us...


So you say...


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> You'll wait forevah as I have nothing to twist. I'm not the one that wants abortion doctors dead for performing legal procedures.


No but you'll give a healthy woman a piggy-back ride to the abortion clinic to get rid of her unfortunate "mistake"...

You see... this is the issue, I had to live my whole life under this "thumb". My father reminded me time and time again that I was a "mistake" - that I was an "accident" - I've got some skin in this game.

I thank the Good Lord in Heaven that abortion was frowned upon in my time.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> No but you'll give a healthy woman a piggy-back ride to the abortion clinic to get rid of her unfortunate "mistake"...
> 
> You see... this is the issue, I had to live my whole life under this "thumb". My father reminded me time and time again that I was a "mistake" - that I was an "accident" - I've got some skin in this game.
> 
> I thank the Good Lord in Heaven that abortion was frowned upon in my time.


Yup, that's my stand on abortion. I'd drive her to the clinic though, bad hip. 

I'll relay a personal story too, I've paid for a two abortions. Friends of my daughter that weren't as careful as they should have been. I don't regret it a minute.


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> No but you'll give a healthy woman a piggy-back ride to the abortion clinic to get rid of her unfortunate "mistake"...
> 
> You see... this is the issue, I had to live my whole life under this "thumb". My father reminded me time and time again that I was a "mistake" - that I was an "accident" - I've got some skin in this game.
> 
> I thank the Good Lord in Heaven that abortion was frowned upon in my time.


My kid's father gave me two choices, abort my third child and stay married or he'd leave. 

I picked single parent of 3 who's owed child support could reduce the national debt and he wonders why the kids want nothing to do with him. 

I made the choice that was right for me but that doesn't mean what was right for me is right for everybody so I'm still pro choice.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Well hot-diggity... You're in error too. She danced her way out of it and failed to provide *a reasonable answe*r. Did you teach her those steps?


Proving once again that the questions are in fact answered, but you act as if they weren't because you don't* like* the answer.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you for being a non egotistical, non self aggrandizing person and answering my question.


You're welcome


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Proving once again that the questions are in fact answered, but you act as if they weren't because you don't* like* the answer.


I see no proof.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I see no proof.


Of course you don't, which was the whole point


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Another inappropriate post. Are you going for a record?


Y'all don't use nicknames up there in YankeeLand? We use them all the time down here. We've got names we use among the family, names we use as terms of endearment, names for folks in the community and names that seem to fit certain personalities.

Would you rather yours be a family-type thing (after all, we are one big family here) or a simple term of endearment? I'm pretty flexible, but Big Red just has a ring, y'all know? Or I can just shorten it to "Red", I guess...You act like you need a bit of fun in your life.

Maybe there's something else, more appropriate?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Of course you don't, which was the whole point


Ah, one leg in your debate triad, Point out that there was a truth delivered when there was none. Makes sense...


----------



## Jolly

I'm tellin' ya, a bear-free zone helps with the blood pressure...


----------



## Jolly

Check the polling numbers out.

That's a pretty big majority that doesn't want to allow abortions (except for the life of the mother - and that's very rare) past 12 weeks.

Lot of folks there who apparently want to tell a woman what to do with her body... hmmm....


----------



## wiscto

I love it when you guys lose a debate and start acting like a bunch of twelve year olds so you can feel like you're controlling the conversation. Did you boys write your names on your backpacks? Good boys.


----------



## Jolly

wiscto said:


> I love it when you guys lose a debate and start acting like a bunch of twelve year olds so you can feel like you're controlling the conversation. Did you boys write your names on your backpacks? Good boys.


Are you keeping score?

If so, how do you score this?


----------



## wiscto

Read.


----------



## Jolly

I do.


----------



## wiscto

Read again.


----------



## Jolly

I did.


----------



## wiscto

Again.


----------



## Txsteader

Patchouli said:


> I can understand why a person would shoot an abortion doctor if they truly believed he was killing babies and they were saving lives.


And I applaud you for saying it. :clap: :clap: :clap:

Jolly's words were clearly being unfairly twisted. The threat of reporting him for making terrorist threats was just over the top ridiculous.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

While I feel it should only be available for the most extreme circumstances where the life of the mother and child are likely to be ended should it go any further 

I am willing to compromise on rape, incest , and life of the mother and partially because rape and incest result in so few terminated pregnancies.
life of the mother , now this one would have to be a medical need not a she doesn't want to go on bed rest for 6 weeks , the moment you consent to penis entering into vagina you took the gamble and you pay the piper if you don't like the results , like wise men should also be taking responsibility for their actions.

having held my 19 week old daughter in my hand , she was delivered at 20 weeks , when we had gone for the ultrasound they could not find the heart beat checked again , nothing , labor was induced and she was delivered , holding her in my hand there is absolutely no question , she was a person at 19 weeks all of her fingers all of her toes , face , eyes , mouth, nose, ears, even tinny little ear lobes .


----------



## Evons hubby

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> While I feel it should only be available for the most extreme circumstances where the life of the mother and child are likely to be ended should it go any further
> 
> I am willing to compromise on rape, incest , and life of the mother and partially because rape and incest result in so few terminated pregnancies.
> life of the mother , now this one would have to be a medical need not a she doesn't want to go on bed rest for 6 weeks , the moment you consent to penis entering into vagina you took the gamble and you pay the piper if you don't like the results , like wise men should also be taking responsibility for their actions.
> 
> having held my 19 week old daughter in my hand , she was delivered at 20 weeks , when we had gone for the ultrasound they could not find the heart beat checked again , nothing , labor was induced and she was delivered , holding her in my hand there is absolutely no question , she was a person at 19 weeks all of her fingers all of her toes , face , eyes , mouth, nose, ears, even tinny little ear lobes .


I find it very nice of you to be willing to compromise on the rape and incest part.... Considering the fact that you have absolutely no say in the matter whatsoever!


----------



## Woolieface

dag nab. I just read that we're in a competition. I feel I wasn't giving it my all, in that case.
:gaptooth:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> I'm tellin' ya, a bear-free zone helps with the blood pressure...


And yet you still talk about me almost every day


----------



## Guest

Woolieface said:


> dag nab. I just read that we're in a competition. I feel I wasn't giving it my all, in that case.
> :gaptooth:


It has become somewhat the devils play ground for a few. Disclaimer ; "devil" not used biblically, only in a rhetorical metaphoric way. Yep BFF rhetoric. Timers on.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Check the polling numbers out.
> 
> That's a pretty big majority that doesn't want to allow abortions (except for the life of the mother - and that's very rare) past 12 weeks.


The poll I see says 50 % want them to remain legal

Top three categories:

5.08%
30.51%
15.25%

That's more than half


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> The poll I see says 50 % want them to remain legal
> 
> Top three categories:
> 
> 5.08%
> 30.51%
> 15.25%
> 
> That's more than half


He did say after 12 weeks so that 15.25 addition is not accurate related to his statement.


----------



## Guest

Jolly said:


> Check the polling numbers out.
> 
> That's a pretty big majority that doesn't want to allow abortions (except for the life of the mother - and that's very rare) *past 12 weeks*.
> 
> Lot of folks there who apparently want to tell a woman what to do with her body... hmmm....


That's the words


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> He did say after 12 weeks so that 15.25 addition is *not accurate *related to his statement.


His statement is not accurate in relation to the fact that the majority wants them to remain legal.


----------



## Marshloft

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> While I feel it should only be available for the most extreme circumstances where the life of the mother and child are likely to be ended should it go any further
> 
> I am willing to compromise on rape, incest , and life of the mother and partially because rape and incest result in so few terminated pregnancies.
> life of the mother , now this one would have to be a medical need not a she doesn't want to go on bed rest for 6 weeks , the moment you consent to penis entering into vagina you took the gamble and you pay the piper if you don't like the results , like wise men should also be taking responsibility for their actions.
> 
> having held my 19 week old daughter in my hand , she was delivered at 20 weeks , when we had gone for the ultrasound they could not find the heart beat checked again , nothing , labor was induced and she was delivered , holding her in my hand there is absolutely no question , she was a person at 19 weeks all of her fingers all of her toes , face , eyes , mouth, nose, ears, even tinny little ear lobes .


 Carefull, anything you say, can, and will be used against you.
Even if it means twisting your words around to mean something 
totally different from your original post.
Just sayin.


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> His statement is not accurate in relation to the fact that the majority wants them to remain legal.


I think it's a fair statement that there are more meddlers than people who tend to their own business.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think it's a fair statement that there are more meddlers than people who tend to their own business.


Without a doubt, even though they constantly deny it


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think it's a fair statement that there are more meddlers than people who tend to their own business.



Very good, so you should choose no laws at all concerning abortion, I can respect that on the assumption you feel there is no victim. I disagree with victimless crimes also. Do you have caveats that would make you a meddler?


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> Very good, so you should choose no laws at all concerning abortion, I can respect that on the assumption you feel there is no victim. I disagree with victimless crimes also. Do you have caveats that would make you a meddler?


Apparently there were two others who feel the same as I do on this matter... At least they voted for the number one option. I think there should be some laws or regulations though. I think they should be performed in a relatively sterile setting by a qualified doctor, we have seen more than enough of the "back room" abortions by auntie May who lives down by the river during those black days when an abortion was illegal.


----------



## Evons hubby

Marshloft said:


> Carefull, anything you say, can, and will be used against you.
> Even if it means twisting your words around to mean something
> totally different from your original post.
> Just sayin.


That's Fer sure!


----------



## Woolieface

dlmcafee said:


> It has become somewhat the devils play ground for a few. Disclaimer ; "devil" not used biblically, only in a rhetorical metaphoric way. Yep BFF rhetoric. Timers on.


Got to disclaim everything these days...

"the devil has not been approved by the FDA......." 
wait, no... that's not true.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I find it very nice of you to be willing to compromise on the rape and incest part.... Considering the fact that you have absolutely no say in the matter whatsoever!


I hate to call anyone a statistical abnormality but so few rape and incest cases end in abortion as it is that it really isn't worth not leaving in if it will get a bill passed the state house.

what my hard line pro life friends can't seem to understand is that they need to take a lesson from the liberals , and play the chipping away game , make progress every time you can , don't give up ground but don't through your hands in the air and say if we can't save them all then no deal.
there have been a few times when they had bill that could have passed both state houses and been singed by the governor that left the exceptions of rape incest , life of mother 

and so a bill that could have saved thousands of lives is scrapped because it can't save everyone 

lives will be lost and that is very sad , but saving as many lives as possible should be the first goal always looking to save more but start with where the largest change can be made with the least work


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

as long as we are on the subject of saving lives , anyone who considers themselves pro life should step up and support a house or charity where young women who do become pregnant can go and receive proper health care, counseling , and help with adoption options if that is something they choose , or training so that they can be better prepared for the duties of motherhood.

I know where I live being an unwed mother does not carry the social stigma it once did not as much as it did , we should be very careful not to judge or use harsh words or tone with young ladies that would make them want to seek an abortion or hide a pregnancy and rather do what we can to support them through a scarey time in their lives helping to make the decision easier for them to not abort

make choosing life the easier option , what I tend to see and do not agree with is a single sided approach to making abortion harder or impossible to get , this has the good intentions of saving life but , this is not good it doesn't solve the problem , young women have sex they get pregnant , they are scared they are embarrassed they are likely not getting the support they should from the father. foster a nurturing environment where they can get medical care prenatal care , a safe place to live rather than seeking some back room abortion.

an unintended pregnancy does not need to end in a death sentence for anyone.


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Apparently there were two others who feel the same as I do on this matter... At least they voted for the number one option. I think there should be* some laws or regulations* though. I think they should be performed in a relatively sterile setting by a qualified doctor, we have seen more than enough of the "back room" abortions by auntie May who lives down by the river during those black days when an abortion was illegal.


So there are caveats. If there is no victim what's wrong with Aunt May, for the mother having the right and willingness to aborte, and the sole owner of her own body should she not be able to choose the method and assistant she desires? Should society be required to pay for her decision that effected no one other than herself?


----------



## Shine

OK... to this point - what do we have?

The only option listed that is the current law is option #2 - it is coming in at 27%

Option one expands option two but it is only coming in at 4.5%

Option 3 which reduces the possible date to 12 weeks, [3 months] is not currently the law but IMO it is better that what we have now, is coming in at 20% or so.

These three options remove the "medically necessary" caveat and allow elective abortions. Collectively they come in at just under 50%. This runs about average with the Polls that I have read. 

However, if you remove the one that sets the starting date at 3 weeks and the one that allows any abortion then you reduce what is here and now to 3 out of ten people. If you remove only the third option then you have just over 3 out of 10 people.

Now if we look at the poll as to what is wanted, the majority seems to wants to reduce the number of weeks that are allowed by looking at the ones that voted for the third option on down. Collectively, those wanting more restrictions than what is currently allowed tallies in at almost 70% - 7 out of 10.

Congrats HT!!!!! I am not so crazy after all...


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> OK... to this point - what do we have?
> 
> The only option listed that is the current law is option #2 - it is coming in at 27%
> 
> Option one expands option two but it is only coming in at 4.5%
> 
> Option 3 which reduces the possible date to 12 weeks, [3 months] is not currently the law but IMO it is better that what we have now, is coming in at 20% or so.
> 
> These three options remove the "medically necessary" caveat and allow elective abortions. Collectively they come in at just under 50%. This runs about average with the Polls that I have read. However, if you remove the one that sets the starting date at 3 weeks and the one that allows any abortion then you reduce what is here and now to 3 out of ten people. If you remove only the third option then you have just over 3 out of 10 people.
> 
> Now if we look at the poll as to what is wanted, the majority seems to wants to reduce the number of weeks that are allowed by looking at the ones that voted for the third option on down. Collectively, those wanting more restrictions than what is currently allowed tallies in at almost 70% - 7 out of 10.
> 
> Congrats HT!!!!! I am not so crazy after all...


Only 10% of abortions are done late term. We know that the majority of people don't want late term abortion except for medical reasons.

We can agree that the majority think there are reason for abortion though they may disagree on those reasons. That would lead us to believe that abortion is here to stay. The timing and reasons are up for debate. I think we should be looking for ways to facilitate abortion being earlier or not needed at all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Very good, so *you should choose* no laws at all concerning abortion, I can respect that on the assumption you feel there is no victim. I disagree with victimless crimes also. Do you have caveats that would make you a meddler?


You should choose to stop telling others what to do
People can make their own choices without your help


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The *only option listed that is the current law is option #2* - it is coming in at 27%


That's incorrect, since states have different laws.


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> You should choose to stop telling others what to do
> People can make their own choices without your help




Ironic:nana:


----------



## kasilofhome

Shine and I didn't even Vote....


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> You should choose to stop telling others what to do
> 
> People can make their own choices without your help



You should choose not to meddle. It was a discussion between Myself and the one I quoted. Your intelligent opinion would have been nice but I have yet to see those. Your hate is evident. Philosophical debates are not your cup of tea? If not don't enter, they usually require your own thoughts not your governments and thinking outside the box.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Ironic:nana:


That's what I was pointing out
I'm glad you could see it too


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> *You should choose not to meddle*. It was a discussion *between Myself and the one I quoted.*
> 
> *Your intelligent opinion would have been nice but I have yet to see those*.
> 
> *Your hate is evident.*
> 
> Philosophical debates are not your cup of tea? *If not don't enter*, they usually require your own thoughts not your governments and thinking outside the box.


I seem to recall you mentioning me specifically in other posts when I wasn't involved at all, so why can't I reply to you?



> Originally Posted by dlmcafee View Post
> It has become somewhat the devils play ground for a few. Disclaimer ; "devil" not used biblically, only in a rhetorical metaphoric way. Yep BFF rhetoric. Timers on.


It's your typical method of name calling and veiled insults, while feigning superiority, and trying to exert control.

Why pretend it's anything else?


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> I seem to recall you mentioning me specifically in other posts when I wasn't involved at all, so why can't I reply to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's your typical method of name calling and veiled insults, while feigning superiority, and trying to exert control.
> 
> 
> 
> Why pretend it's anything else?



I don't pretend. I said what I said. No control here in fact I advocate far less to none.


----------



## kasilofhome

bear.. question does you wife do much canning? I imagine she does.


----------



## Patchouli

Jolly said:


> You know, every now and then you stumble into the Truth...:clap:


And you are the King of the back handed compliment.


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> No, most just don't believe or support sex as a public sport.


I am starting to worry about Alaska from some of your posts...... Schools schedule sex for their students up there and sex is a public sport.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> bear.. question does you wife do much canning? I imagine she does.


I'm sure you imagine lots of things, but it has nothing to do with this topic


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> So there are caveats. If there is no victim what's wrong with Aunt May, for the mother having the right and willingness to aborte, and the sole owner of her own body should she not be able to choose the method and assistant she desires? Should society be required to pay for her decision that effected no one other than herself?


True she should be able to choose when where and whom she wants to deal with, I respectfully withdraw my suggestion to regulate who is allowed to practice medicine. 

Oh and no society should not be expected to pay her bills.


----------



## Guest

Thank you we are on similar tracks then..


----------



## Evons hubby

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> I hate to call anyone a statistical abnormality but so few rape and incest cases end in abortion as it is that it really isn't worth not leaving in if it will get a bill passed the state house.
> 
> what my hard line pro life friends can't seem to understand is that they need to take a lesson from the liberals , and play the chipping away game , make progress every time you can , don't give up ground but don't through your hands in the air and say if we can't save them all then no deal.
> there have been a few times when they had bill that could have passed both state houses and been singed by the governor that left the exceptions of rape incest , life of mother
> 
> and so a bill that could have saved thousands of lives is scrapped because it can't save everyone
> 
> lives will be lost and that is very sad , but saving as many lives as possible should be the first goal always looking to save more but start with where the largest change can be made with the least work


Any state can pass any bill they choose. The tricky part is constructing said bill in such a manner that it does not violate any of our good citizens rights lest it be struck down like all those previous laws were with the roe v wade decision.


----------



## Patchouli

Woolieface said:


> In a personal decision, I would not condone abortion for any reason, and I sure hesitated at answering otherwise. The only reason I do is because in matters of legality, though it might show a great deal of cowardice, it isn't illegal to not run into a burning building to save your own child.
> 
> My trust for the life of mother and child would be in God's hands. choosing a mother over a child or a child over a mother puts me in His place, where I don't belong. That aside, not everyone trusts in Him and not everyone would put their life on the line to save their own flesh and blood, and in secular legality, there's no forcing courage and we are not authorized to forfeit anyone's life for that. So that, I leave to a higher court.


Thanks for the answer.  Just out of curiosity do you use any sort of healthcare? Most of the people I have known over the years who took it that far in leaving it up to God did not use any medical care at all.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Any state can pass any bill they choose. The tricky part is constructing said bill in such a manner that it does not violate any of our good citizens rights lest it be struck down like all those previous laws were with the roe v wade decision.



correct they must pass supreme court muster but as I recall the supreme court said that anything that would pass their standards would have an exception for medical necessity life of the mother. 

so what we are seeing is a two fold political strategy , first how can the politicians write it so that they can get as close to what the supreme court will find acceptable mostly by going past and letting it go back to the supreme court to see how they will need to change it to make it allowable. metaphorically testing the fence rather than just not trying to cross it.

while at the same time working every angle to make it not profitable for an abortion clinic to operate, like requiring that they have admitting privileges to a hospital. a waiting period , requiring specific information be presented to the mother requiring that the mother have an ultrasound and hear the heart beat. 


I see this as some what counter productive , I think they should have written a law that fairly loosely allows for the "medical need" and passed it , you can save more lives with a bill that allows more loosely a medical exception than to spend another 10 years bickering over the details of exactly what constitutes a medical need.

let the abuse if there is any of the exception for medical need tell you how it needs to be defined in a later supplemental bill

start by closing the flood gates , then worry about patching the small holes in the levee 

now clearly I see unborn children as people , who have committed no capital offense , received no due process, there for can not receive the death penalty under the constitution.

so lets pick a time when is it a person ?

on one end conception ,implantation , first missed period , a heart beat, 12 weeks , 20 weeks , age of viability , 36 weeks , 40 weeks and finally a person is a person when it is fully delivered and the hole body is out of it's mother. I may have missed a few mile markers but feel free to add where you think a person is a person. what defines it?

while considering when a person is a person lets explore the question when is it necessary to induce labor to deliver the body of the unborn child that died of natural causes in the womb or do some other medical procedure that is more than just let the body purge it's self with what is essentially a very heavy period? 

one more thing to consider in your time calculation , at what point would we prosecute a person who stuck a pregnant woman whom then lost her child?

then because we need some way to measure it to quantify or qualify , a test , what is the test , a positive pregnancy test administered by a licensed MD , or is it if ultrasound can find a heart beat ?


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

when declaring a persons death , pulse , respiration and pupil response are the criteria used to call time of death.

it seems then logical as a secular state , the heart beat would be the indication of life it is something that can be measured and given a time while so many other criteria can not.

I think to simplify things while a person may well be a person before the heart beat is measurable with ultrasound , it surely is measurable sign of life. it may not be perfect but it is certainly measurable.

I would propose a bill that started life when there was a measurable heart beat just as we consider a person dead when they no longer have a heart beat for a time beyond when it is viable that a person could be resuscitated or lacks pulse , respiration and pupil response.


----------



## painterswife

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> when declaring a persons death , pulse , respiration and pupil response are the criteria used to call time of death.
> 
> it seems then logical as a secular state , the heart beat would be the indication of life it is something that can be measured and given a time while so many other criteria can not.
> 
> I think to simplify things while a person may well be a person before the heart beat is measurable with ultrasound , it surely is measurable sign of life. it may not be perfect but it is certainly measurable.
> 
> I would propose a bill that started life when there was a measurable heart beat just as we consider a person dead when they no longer have a heart beat for a time beyond when it is viable that a person could be resuscitated or lacks pulse , respiration and pupil response.


A beating heart does not mean there is a person. A body with no higher brain function has no real rights.


----------



## Evons hubby

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> correct they must pass supreme court muster but as I recall the supreme court said that anything that would pass their standards would have an exception for medical necessity life of the mother.
> 
> so what we are seeing is a two fold political strategy , first how can the politicians write it so that they can get as close to what the supreme court will find acceptable mostly by going past and letting it go back to the supreme court to see how they will need to change it to make it allowable. metaphorically testing the fence rather than just not trying to cross it.
> 
> while at the same time working every angle to make it not profitable for an abortion clinic to operate, like requiring that they have admitting privileges to a hospital. a waiting period , requiring specific information be presented to the mother requiring that the mother have an ultrasound and hear the heart beat.
> 
> 
> I see this as some what counter productive , I think they should have written a law that fairly loosely allows for the "medical need" and passed it , you can save more lives with a bill that allows more loosely a medical exception than to spend another 10 years bickering over the details of exactly what constitutes a medical need.
> 
> let the abuse if there is any of the exception for medical need tell you how it needs to be defined in a later supplemental bill
> 
> start by closing the flood gates , then worry about patching the small holes in the levee
> 
> now clearly I see unborn children as people , who have committed no capital offense , received no due process, there for can not receive the death penalty under the constitution.
> 
> so lets pick a time when is it a person ?
> 
> *on one end conception ,*implantation , first missed period , a heart beat, 12 weeks , 20 weeks , age of viability , 36 weeks , 40 weeks and finally a person is a person when it is fully delivered and the hole body is out of it's mother. I may have missed a few mile markers but feel free to add where you think a person is a person. what defines it?
> 
> while considering when a person is a person lets explore the question when is it necessary to induce labor to deliver the body of the unborn child that died of natural causes in the womb or do some other medical procedure that is more than just let the body purge it's self with what is essentially a very heavy period?
> 
> one more thing to consider in your time calculation , at what point would we prosecute a person who stuck a pregnant woman whom then lost her child?
> 
> then because we need some way to measure it to quantify or qualify , a test , what is the test , a positive pregnancy test administered by a licensed MD , or is it if ultrasound can find a heart beat ?


Ok, lemme take this in small bites.
The time a person is a person can be debated forever without coming to a positive decision as long as it's pre live birth, which seems to be the current standard. This is also backed up somewhat by the fourteenth amendment. I am quite certain there is not any argument that once a child is actually born that it is a person with the full protection of the law. 
Now, with that being said, as to your question about someone being prosecuted for striking a pregnant woman and causing her to lose the child.... 
As I understand it the mother is in charge, since she had decided to keep her child her choice makes it a criminal act to cause her or the child bodily harm.

Now to the part I bolded. Why start with conception? Why not go back a wee bit earlier to when this child making process actually begins... That being when mom lays that egg?


----------



## Patchouli

The question of when it becomes a person is why we have these abortion debates.  Pro-lifers generally fall into the at conception definition. The rest of us vary widely which explains all the responses to my poll. 

My answer to your question would be I don't know. Science can not answer the question. Religion really asks at what point do we have a soul and it's answers vary. The Jews believe and the Law supports this, that your soul is given when you first draw breath. Christian thought has actually varied through the ages.* Islam believes at 120 days gestation. Buddhists are at conception and Hindus believe in the 7th month. 

My personal opinion would be at quickening. That is generally at around 18-20 weeks. I had 3 children and one early miscarriage. I can say in my opinion there was nothing there in the miscarriage and that is the biggest reason I support abortion, especially in the first 12 weeks. 

As for my 3 children I can also say that they each had distinctive personalities before they were born. Their activity, sleep patterns and even reactions to the Doppler to check for a heartbeat were all different once we passed that 20 week point. Before that the ultrasounds really showed no difference at all. So in my opinion while they may have had potential to be persons from conception they were not truly persons until they reached quickening. 

*If you are interested in a look at the historical view of Christians on when a fetus has a soul this is a good basic coverage: http://www.christianethicstoday.com/cetart/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.main&ArtID=1087


----------



## Jolly

painterswife said:


> A beating heart does not mean there is a person. A body with no higher brain function has no real rights.


I beg to differ.

You might have read part of my conversation with Wistco, talking about microencephalics. I'm very familiar with a ward which has several patients that were born with so little brain as to have no higher brain function - mostly just a limbic brain that controls autonomic functions

Yet, they are born and we take care of them until they die, sometimes for several years.

And as such, they have rights. We feed them, so they shall not starve, We treat them when they are ill. They deserve care, and we provide it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Yet, *they are born* and we take care of them until they die, sometimes for several years.
> 
> And as such, they have rights.


There's the reason why they have "rights"
They have nothing to do with abortions


----------



## Woolieface

Patchouli said:


> Thanks for the answer.  Just out of curiosity do you use any sort of healthcare? Most of the people I have known over the years who took it that far in leaving it up to God did not use any medical care at all.


no, I don't.


----------



## sisterpine

"our soul never dies" then it makes sense that when our earthly body dies our soul either goes where all good souls go or perhaps is retreaded, you know what I mean, into another body.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, lemme take this in small bites.
> The time a person is a person can be debated forever without coming to a positive decision as long as it's pre live birth, which seems to be the current standard. This is also backed up somewhat by the fourteenth amendment. I am quite certain there is not any argument that once a child is actually born that it is a person with the full protection of the law.
> Now, with that being said, as to your question about someone being prosecuted for striking a pregnant woman and causing her to lose the child....
> As I understand it the mother is in charge, since she had decided to keep her child her choice makes it a criminal act to cause her or the child bodily harm.
> 
> Now to the part I bolded. Why start with conception? Why not go back a wee bit earlier to when this child making process actually begins... That being when mom lays that egg?


I started with conception because the female of our species drops egg(s) with every cycle approximately 28-30 days with out both egg and sperm successfully uniting there is no child , I next went with implantation because I see that as the next mile marker a egg and sperm could successfully unite and if there is no implantation the egg even a fertilized one is still purged with the next cycle the mother unaware that it ever was 

I choose heart beat because it is easily quantifiable there is or is not a heart beat and it very much seems to be a standard by which we measure life at the end of life 

also pregnancy math is horrible easily off by a week or two even 3 and different people seem to mature at different rates all my living children went 41 weeks one with a 2 week adjustment at the 20 week ultrasound another with a 1 week adjustment all were induced labors. I had thought that when my mother told me I was 43 weeks maybe she had miss counted but by my third I was a believer some kids ,some families just take longer. likewise a friends children were 35 and 36 weeks with such a variation in weeks , going by weeks alone seems like poor measure especially when children as young as 25 weeks have lived something not even thought possible not that long ago.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's the reason why they have "rights"
> They have nothing to do with abortions



well actually it does , because by that measure if you jam a knife in a babies brain when it is crowning during natural child birth at a full 40 weeks, just inches and a breath from where you place it's rights as born, it is ok by your standard. 

and that is basically what late term abortion is , kill it before it has a chance to come out alive.

if it is necessary that an abortion happen it would make more sense to deliver the child hole then if it dies it dies giving it basic care a temperature controlled space , food or IV and a chance to breath , then it dies of a natural cause insufficient organ development to survive on it's own.


----------



## Tricky Grama

wiscto said:


> You just suggested sharia law.


That is so off base.
So, I'm thinking unborn babies must be breaking sharia law b/c at PP (& other abortion clinics)they get limbs torn off for robbing someone of nutrients.

My compromise, at the present time, is no abortion after 4-6 wks unless the life of the mother is at stake.
I'm not for abortion at all, really, except for the AM after pill b/c I don't consider it abortion...but over-turning Roe vs Wade is not gonna happen soon so that is my compromise.


----------



## Farmerga

Lets be real, even if Roe V. Wade was overturned, all that would happen would be that the issue of the legality of abortion would return to the states. Some states would, no doubt, outlaw it, except for very specific instances. Some would not. As it would stop some of the killing, we should support its overturn, but, it wouldn't be the end of the battle.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Shine said:


> No but you'll give a healthy woman a piggy-back ride to the abortion clinic to get rid of her unfortunate "mistake"...
> 
> You see... this is the issue, I had to live my whole life under this "thumb". My father reminded me time and time again that I was a "mistake" - that I was an "accident" - I've got some skin in this game.
> 
> I thank the Good Lord in Heaven that abortion was frowned upon in my time.


Found quite a few stories like that not too long ago, seems there's lots of folks who either were failed abortions or were gonna be & someone chickened out at last moment...ask all those how they feel about that fallicy of a woman's "right" to do whatever w/her body-when its not even her body, anyone knows.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Y'all don't use nicknames up there in YankeeLand? We use them all the time down here. We've got names we use among the family, names we use as terms of endearment, names for folks in the community and names that seem to fit certain personalities.
> 
> Would you rather yours be a family-type thing (after all, we are one big family here) or a simple term of endearment? I'm pretty flexible, but Big Red just has a ring, y'all know? Or I can just shorten it to "Red", I guess...You act like you need a bit of fun in your life.
> 
> Maybe there's something else, more appropriate?


Where I live you call someone by their name. No inappropriate nick names from strangers. A nick name is reserved for friends and family, and you are neither to me. As this is an international forum calling me "big red" "red" or anything other than "Irish Pixie" is demeaning, and totally inappropriate. Calling me "sugar" "honey" "sweetie" etc.. is completely and totally inappropriate in any setting. It's derogatory and gives the impression that you are a misogynist. 

Did I make that plain enough, or do you need further information?


----------



## kasilofhome

Cultural differences seem to abound.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> Where I live you call someone by their name. No inappropriate nick names from strangers. A nick name is reserved for friends and family, and you are neither to me. As this is an international forum calling me "big red" "red" or anything other than "Irish Pixie" is demeaning, and totally inappropriate. Calling me "sugar" "honey" "sweetie" etc.. is completely and totally inappropriate in any setting. It's derogatory and gives the impression that you are a misogynist.
> 
> Did I make that plain enough, or do you need further information?


How are you with "sour puss"?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> How are you with "sour puss"?


It's not Irish Pixie so I don't like it and don't think it's appropriate. 

It's one of those respect things... like you the confederate flag and the Civil War, IIRC. You wanted everyone to respect what it meant to you, correct? Even if the other person's opinion about it was different than yours? You were rather hot under the collar about it, weren't you?


----------



## Cornhusker

I've been called worse names I guess.
I called my little granddaughter Cupcake once...she looked at me like I was stupid, leaned in real close and whispered "My name is McKennah".
I guess she didn't want to embarrass me in front of her mom


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> It's not Irish Pixie so I don't like it and don't think it's appropriate.
> 
> It's one of those respect things... like you the confederate flag and the Civil War, IIRC. You wanted everyone to respect what it meant to you, correct? Even if the other person's opinion about it was different than yours? You were rather hot under the collar about it, weren't you?


Not really, I think you have me confused with someone else.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> I've been called worse names I guess.
> I called my little granddaughter Cupcake once...she looked at me like I was stupid, leaned in real close and whispered "My name is McKennah".
> I guess she didn't want to embarrass me in front of her mom


Why name call at all? I don't, or at least give a valiant effort not to. It's demeaning and not necessary. 

Jolly only posted it to misdirect attention from his nasty statement of supporting the death of abortion doctors anyway, in my opinion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Not really, I think you have me confused with someone else.


I don't think so, but that's OK. I think you get my point.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't think so, but that's OK. I think you get my point.


Ok, just curious here, is Irish Pixie your real name or is it more like a nick name?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, just curious here, is Irish Pixie your real name or is it more like a nick name?


On HT Irish Pixie is my real name.  I'm not using my given name because of the propensity of stalkers. There are enough of them gleaning for information as it is.

ETA: Don't be a donkey. If Irish Pixie were a nickname I gave it to myself. I'm not being derogatory or demeaning if I give myself a screen name.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> On HT Irish Pixie is my real name.  I'm not using my given name because of the propensity of stalkers. There are enough of them gleaning for information as it is.
> 
> ETA: Don't be a donkey. If Irish Pixie were a nickname I gave it to myself. I'm not being derogatory or demeaning if I give myself a screen name.


Not being a donkey, I was just curious.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Not being a donkey, I was just curious.


Curious or facetious? Perhaps a bit of both?


----------



## kasilofhome

But is it politically correct could it be demeaning to the pixies


----------



## Evons hubby

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, just curious here, is Irish Pixie your real name or is it more like a nick name?





Yvonne's hubby said:


> Not being a donkey, I was just curious.





Irish Pixie said:


> Curious or facetious? Perhaps a bit of both?


I was pretty sure I said curious..... I do know the difference between curious and facetious.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> well actually it does , because by that measure if you jam a knife in a babies brain when it is crowning during natural child birth at a full 40 weeks, just inches and a breath from where you place it's rights as born, it is ok by your standard.
> 
> and that is basically what late term abortion is , kill it before it has a chance to come out alive


What you described is already illegal, so it's rather pointless to mention it again.

I've never said any of it is "OK" 
I've said it's *no one's choice* but the mother's

Less than 2% of abortions are "late term" and many of them are for medical reasons.

The vast majority are done in the first 12 weeks


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> *Lets be real*, even if Roe V. Wade was overturned, all that would happen would be that the issue of the legality of abortion would return to the states. Some states would, no doubt, outlaw it, except for very specific instances. Some would not. As* it would stop some of the killing*, we should support its overturn, but, it wouldn't be the end of the battle.


If you want to be "real", restricting abortions leads to more overall deaths


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you want to be "real", restricting abortions leads to more overall deaths


Assumption: No Supporting citations or info.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Assumption: No *Supporting citations or info*.


No assumptions
Documented fact

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion


> The legality of abortion is one of the main determinants of its safety. Countries with restrictive abortion laws have significantly* higher rates of unsafe abortion* (and *similar overall abortion rates*) compared to those where abortion is legal and available.[9][10][85][86][87][88]
> 
> For example, the 1996 legalization of abortion in South Africa had an immediate positive impact on the frequency of abortion-related complications,[89] with abortion-related deaths dropping by more than 90%.[90]





> On average, the incidence of abortion is similar in countries with restrictive abortion laws and those with more liberal access to abortion. However, restrictive abortion laws are associated with increases in the percentage of abortions which are performed unsafely.[


----------



## Guest

In the early 1970s there were estimated over 800,000 abortions performed in the U.S. With the death of 200 mothers aborting. That percentage is 0.025. More die from work related injuries. The drastic decrease was attributed to better antibiotics and awareness.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> In the early 1970s there were estimated over 800,000 abortions performed in the U.S. With the death of 200 mothers aborting. That percentage is 0.025. More die from work related injuries. The drastic decrease was attributed to better antibiotics and awareness.


What year in the 70s? Before or after Roe v. Wade? Better yet, do you have a link?


----------



## Guest

Yes before roe v wade. I'll post it later I'm on iPhone and link I read it from I have at home,,, just thought it was interesting


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> In the early 1970s there were estimated over 800,000 abortions performed in the U.S. With the death of 200 mothers aborting. That percentage is 0.025. More die from work related injuries. The drastic decrease was attributed to better antibiotics and awareness.


Shine would say:


> Originally Posted by Shine View Post
> Assumption: No Supporting citations or info.


Antibiotics and awareness didn't change that much


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> Shine would say:
> 
> 
> 
> Antibiotics and awareness didn't change that much



I said I would supply the link I read them at. Don't fall of that stump, may hurt the precious.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> Antibiotics and awareness didn't change that much


I'll bet dollars to donuts the "change" was Roe v. Wade and safer abortions.


----------



## Guest

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html

Here ya go, and no where did I say that roe v wade did or did not have an effect. I just doubted the theory that the deaths would significantly raise. Interesting and not written in an anti abortion stance.

Note the chart at the bottom and the estimated abortion have remained fairly constant.


----------



## Irish Pixie

From https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html

Some excellent information here. 

Illegal Abortions Were Common
Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.
*One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women&#8212;nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.*
Poor women and their families were disproportionately impacted. A study of low-income women in New York City in the 1960s found that almost one in 10 (8%) had ever attempted to terminate a pregnancy by illegal abortion; almost four in 10 (38%) said that a friend, relative or acquaintance had attempted to obtain an abortion. Of the low-income women in that study who said they had had an abortion, eight in 10 (77%) said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, with only 2% saying that a physician had been involved in any way.
These women paid a steep price for illegal procedures. In 1962 alone, nearly 1,600 women were admitted to Harlem Hospital Center in New York City for incomplete abortions, which was one abortion-related hospital admission for every 42 deliveries at that hospital that year. In 1968, the University of Southern California Los Angeles County Medical Center, another large public facility serving primarily indigent patients, admitted 701 women with septic abortions, one admission for every 14 deliveries.
A clear racial disparity is evident in the data of mortality because of illegal abortion: In New York City in the early 1960s, one in four childbirth-related deaths among white women was due to abortion; in comparison, abortion accounted for one in two childbirth-related deaths among nonwhite and Puerto Rican women.
Even in the early 1970s, when abortion was legal in some states, a legal abortion was simply out of reach for many. Minority women suffered the most: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in 1972 alone, 130,000 women obtained illegal or self-induced procedures, 39 of whom died. Furthermore, from 1972 to 1974, the mortality rate due to illegal abortion for nonwhite women was 12 times that for white women.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> I said I would supply the link I read them at.


You replied about the link while I was typing my response.



> Don't fall of that stump, may hurt the precious.


You just can't resist can you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html
> 
> Here ya go, and no where did I say that roe v wade did or did not have an effect. *I just doubted the theory that the deaths would significantly raise*. Interesting and not written in an anti abortion stance.
> 
> Note the chart at the bottom and the estimated abortion have remained fairly constant.


I'm not sure why you'd "doubt it " when you used the same source I posted that showed deaths *decreased* when abortions were legalized

https://www.*guttmacher*.org/



> Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated *829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967*.


That's twice as many as PP does in one year with 700 clinics



> By making abortion legal nationwide, Roe v. Wade has had a dramatic impact on the health and well-being of American women.
> 
> *Deaths from abortion have plummeted, and are now a rarity* (see chart). In addition, women have been able to have abortions earlier in pregnancy when the procedure is safest: The proportion of abortions obtained early in the first trimester has risen from 20% in 1970 to 56% in 1998


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not sure why you'd "doubt it " when you used the same source I posted that showed deaths *decreased* when abortions were legalized
> 
> https://www.*guttmacher*.org/
> 
> 
> 
> That's twice as many as PP does in one year with 700 clinics


I pointed out you used the shock and awe argument when the true drastic decrease in death of abortion mothers occurred before roe v wade. Your tunnel vision is amazing, never will I expect anything less from one such as you.
0.025% is that greater than the 2 you toute as "only" the percentage of late term abortions.


----------



## Fennick

I voted "none of the above" because I think you missed one out between 12 and 20 weeks. My opinion would be: _Abortion should be legal for any reason up to *16* weeks and only if medically necessary thereafter_.

My reason for that is because for some women (young girls in particular) 12 weeks is often too soon for them to know they're pregnant unless they get a medical check up but between 12 - 16 weeks pregnancy becomes evident even without a medical confirmation. After 16 (_maybe_ 17) weeks I think it's too late to get an abortion unless it's medically necessary.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> No assumptions
> Documented fact
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion


wikipedia?? you're kidding - right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> I pointed out you used the shock and awe argument when *the true drastic decrease in death of abortion mothers occurred before roe v wade.*
> 0.025% is that greater than the 2 you toute as "only" the percentage of late term abortions.


I never said any thing about Roe V Wade 

I'm talking about the difference in whether or not abortions are legal



> For example, the *1996* legalization of abortion in South Africa had an immediate positive impact on the frequency of abortion-related complications,[89] with *abortion-related deaths dropping by more than 90%*.[90]


The source *you* posted seems to agree:


> Abortion Mortality
> The number of deaths from abortion has *declined dramatically since Roe v. Wade*.





> Your tunnel vision is amazing, never will I expect anything less from *one such as you*.


Says the one who always throws out a personal jab in nearly every post.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> wikipedia?? you're kidding - right?


Read the footnotes.
(That's the list of original sources at the bottom of the article)

Or just complain about my source, while offering no real data of your own.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> I never said any thing about Roe V Wade
> 
> I'm talking about the difference in whether or not abortions are legal
> 
> 
> 
> The source *you* posted seems to agree:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the one who always throws out a personal jab in nearly every post.


Are we discussing Africa or the U.S., Roe v Wade, planned parenthood, and your assumption legalized abortion and the significant decreased mortality rate of abortion mothers. 

I'm not complaining of your jabs, they keep my faith, they even sometimes spur me to learn. 

You seem to assume I am against the whole legal thing, when in reality I can think something so vile and discussing to me needs not my control or support of man's laws. Your opinions are yours and count the same as mine, none.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Are we discussing Africa or the U.S., Roe v Wade, planned parenthood, and your *assumption* legalized abortion and the significant decreased mortality rate of abortion mothers.


I'm discussing "abortions"

I made no assumptions, and posted my sources, which turned out to be the same organization you sourced.



> I'm not complaining of *your jabs*, they keep my faith, they even sometimes spur me to learn.


You are the one continually making things personal, so let's not play that game


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm discussing "abortions"
> 
> I made no assumptions, and posted my sources, which turned out to be the same organization you sourced.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one continually making things personal, so let's not play that game


Ok you quote S. Africa, I get ya, if I had know we were speaking of that countries laws I would not have doubted your opinion that the significant decrease in deaths were related to legalization. Let's is used in the plural form, we shall see.


----------



## Farmerga

Why are we discussing making a vile act, that results in the horrible death of an unborn human child, safer? It should be a crime. That is simple. We shouldn't worry about how safe it is to commit a crime. I am under no illusions that making it illegal will stop all abortions, but, we MUST not make it an easy thing to do. Abortion is vial, wrong, results in the death of an innocent child, and should only be the option of last resort when the life of the mother is at risk.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Why are we discussing making a vile act, that results in the horrible death of an unborn human child, safer? It should be a crime. That is simple. We shouldn't worry about how safe it is to commit a crime. I am under no illusions that making it illegal will stop all abortions, but, we MUST not make it an easy thing to do. Abortion is vial, wrong, results in the death of an innocent child, and should only be the option of last resort when the life of the mother is at risk.


Cuz who cares how many _women_ die as long as the unborn don't, right?  I'll never understand the pro unborn.

Your argument is illogical, abortion is legal. It has been legal for over 40 years, and it's my opinion that it will be legal for at least 40 more.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Fennick said:


> I voted "none of the above" because I think you missed one out between 12 and 20 weeks. My opinion would be: _Abortion should be legal for any reason up to *16* weeks and only if medically necessary thereafter_.
> 
> My reason for that is because for some women (young girls in particular) 12 weeks is often too soon for them to know they're pregnant unless they get a medical check up but between 12 - 16 weeks pregnancy becomes evident even without a medical confirmation. After 16 (_maybe_ 17) weeks I think it's too late to get an abortion unless it's medically necessary.


Where is your documentation for your last paragraph? Tests can determine pregnancy far earlier.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Cuz who cares how many _women_ die as long as the unborn don't, right?  I'll never understand the pro unborn.
> 
> Your argument is illogical, abortion is legal. It has been legal for over 40 years, and it's my opinion that it will be legal for at least 40 more.


Not what I said, not what I meant. I say that danger to the criminal, during the commission of a crime, should not enter into the equation. In other words, the woman, seeking an illegal abortion, would be knowingly committing a crime and should be prepared for the consequences of said action. We should not make things legal in order to make things safer for the criminal. 

True, abortion is currently legal. And it will, likely be legal for some time to come, but, nothing about using abortion as a form of birth control is logical.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> nothing about using abortion as a form of birth control is logical.


Of course abortion is a logical form of birth control. If the other methods always worked there would be no need for it. Abortion works after all other methods from abstinence to tubal ligation have failed for whatever reasons.


----------



## arabian knight

Farmerga said:


> Not what I said, not what I meant. I say that danger to the criminal, during the commission of a crime, should not enter into the equation. In other words, the woman, seeking an illegal abortion, would be knowingly committing a crime and should be prepared for the consequences of said action. We should not make things legal in order to make things safer for the criminal.
> 
> True, abortion is currently legal. And it will, likely be legal for some time to come, but, nothing about using abortion as a form of birth control is logical.


No there is not one thing logical in this mess called abortion. Nothing. And just to have a abortion cause a person was too lazy or Dumb to use birth control is not right at all. Don't Have Unprotected Sex. Plain and simple, or don't have ANY sex at all just to have the enjoyment of it. There ar many items on the market to 'pleasure' ones self without having a sex partner to get ones jollies from.


----------



## Evons hubby

arabian knight said:


> No there is not one thing logical in this mess called abortion. Nothing. *And just to have a abortion cause a person was too lazy or Dumb to use birth control is not right at all. Don't Have Unprotected Sex. Plain and simple, or don't have ANY sex at all just to have the enjoyment of it.* There ar many items on the market to 'pleasure' ones self without having a sex partner to get ones jollies from.


With a straight face you can write this and still say abortion is illogical? :hysterical:

What makes you think people don't use a wide variety of birth control methods and still end up with an unwanted pregnancy?


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course abortion is a logical form of birth control. If the other methods always worked there would be no need for it. Abortion works after all other methods from abstinence to tubal ligation have failed for whatever reasons.


 
Sure it is, and genocide is a logical form of crowd control as well.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Sure it is, and genocide is a logical form of crowd control as well.


I truly hope you are joking.


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I truly hope you are joking.


Historically it has shown to be a very effective way to reduce the populace of the unwanted people. Disgusting and evil yes, but effective.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I truly hope you are joking.


Just taking your thought, that abortion is a logical form of birth control, to the next logical level. I no more think that genocide is logical than I think that abortion is logical. Both abortion for birth control and genocide for crowd control are effective, but, not logical.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Just taking your thought, that abortion is a logical form of birth control, to the next logical level. I no more think that genocide is logical than I think that abortion is logical. Both abortion for birth control and genocide for crowd control are effective, but, not logical.


And certainly not in the same category. They are about equal as swatting a fly and dropping nukes on a major city..... Yeah something dies either way but it's not the same at all. As with any discussion abortion needs to stay on its own level.


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> Historically it has shown to be a very effective way to reduce the populace of the unwanted people. Disgusting and evil yes, but effective.


Yes genocide is effective (or can be) for population control of an unwanted group of people. The difference here is one situation calls for the mass slaughter of large numbers of living breathing people, the other normally calls for the disposal of an individual fetus that is not aware of its own existence.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And certainly not in the same category. They are about equal as swatting a fly and dropping nukes on a major city..... Yeah something dies either way but it's not the same at all. As with any discussion abortion needs to stay on its own level.


Nope, both genocide and abortion kills human beings in large numbers. The only difference is that, with genocide, someone has to look them in the eye before they kill them.


----------



## painterswife

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes genocide is effective (or can be) for population control of an unwanted group of people. The difference here is one situation calls for the mass slaughter of large numbers of living breathing people, the other normally calls for the disposal of an individual fetus that is not aware of its own existence.


Most of the time it is barely a fetus. De I also think people need to look up the meaning of genocide.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Nope, both genocide and abortion kills human beings in large numbers. The only difference is that, with genocide, someone has to look them in the eye before they kill them.


Do you honestly believe those pilots looked anyone in the eye before dropping those bombs?


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Do you honestly believe those pilots looked anyone in the eye before dropping those bombs?


 What bombs? The Communists on China and Russia did indeed look into the eyes of the millions they killed as did the NAZI's. 

If you are speaking of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, that was not genocide, that was war.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Why are we discussing making a vile act, that results in the horrible death of an unborn human child, safer? It should be a crime. That is simple. We shouldn't worry about how safe it is to commit a crime. I am under no illusions that making it illegal will stop all abortions, but, we MUST not make it an easy thing to do. Abortion is vial, wrong, results in the death of an innocent child, and should only be the option of last resort when the life of the mother is at risk.


Because most don't share your opinion


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> Where is your documentation for your last paragraph? Tests can determine pregnancy far earlier.


Tests only work if they are taken.

Younger girls whose birth control has failed may not be smart enough to realize they need a test in those first weeks, or may be afraid to tell their parents.

The fact that tests are available doesn't mean everyone will use them


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> No there is not one thing logical in this mess called abortion. Nothing. And just to have a abortion cause a person was *too lazy or Dumb to use birth control *is not right at all. *Don't Have Unprotected Sex.* Plain and simple, or don't have ANY sex at all just to have the enjoyment of it. There ar many items on the market to 'pleasure' ones self without having a sex partner to get ones jollies from.


You haven't made an effort to learn anything at all about this topic, have you?


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Why are we discussing making a vile act, that results in the horrible death of an unborn human child, safer? It should be a crime. That is simple. We shouldn't worry about how safe it is to commit a crime. I am under no illusions that making it illegal will stop all abortions, but, we MUST not make it an easy thing to do. Abortion is vial, wrong, results in the death of an innocent child, and *should only be the option of last resort when the life of the mother is at risk*.


I am fairly certain this is the case in nearly all abortions. I really don't think many women go out and get themselves pregnant so they can go get an abortion, it really can't be all that much fun. Abortion becomes the measure of last resort when other methods of birth control has failed them.


----------



## Shine

As it stands right now:

For the top two which would accept how it is now and less restriction: 30
For the Four under the top 2 which would opt for more restriction than there is now: 53 [almost 64%]

Not including the "None of the Above" category.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> As it stands right now:
> 
> *For the top two which would accept how it is now* and less restriction: 30
> For the Four under the top 2 which would opt for more restriction than there is now: 53 [almost 64%]
> 
> Not including the "None of the Above" category.


The top *three* choices represent what is currently legal, and are currently at 49.49%


----------



## Shine

Funny... I don't know of any states that restrict elective abortions after 12 weeks... Well - God Bless those legislators.


----------



## arabian knight

Shine said:


> Funny... I don't know of any states that restrict elective abortions after 12 weeks... Well - God Bless those legislators.


 But many now are stopping them at 29 weeks unless the mothers life is at risk. But stopping at 20 weeks is a start.
Now if states would start cutting back on THEIR tax payers money going to PP it also would be a good thing as well.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Now if states would start cutting back on THEIR tax payers money going to PP it also would be a good thing as well.


If you cut back on funding those providing birth control it's going to increase the number of abortions. Think about things before you parrot the hype


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Funny... I don't know of any states that restrict elective abortions after 12 weeks... Well - God Bless those legislators.


Can you clarify your statement? It's unclear.

Here is a list of abortion restrictions per state: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=1&


----------



## arabian knight

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you cut back on funding those providing birth control it's going to increase the number of abortions. Think about things before you parrot the hype


And nothing like that has happened in WI since at least 5 PP places have SHUT their doors. Governor Walker cut the budget so much the places have closed UP. 
And oh my goodness is HE running for POTUS? I think he is. Oh my. And I do believe thew polls are saying he is in 3rd place and 4th in some other polls. I do believe that is true. 
Now we need more then ever a person like that in the WH to set this country back to where the funding fathers wanted this country to be.


----------



## Irish Pixie

arabian knight said:


> And nothing like that has happened in WI since at least 5 PP places have SHUT their doors. Governor Walker cut the budget so much the places have closed UP.
> And oh my goodness is HE running for POTUS? I think he is. Oh my. And I do believe thew polls are saying he is in 3rd place and 4th in some other polls. I do believe that is true.
> Now we need more then ever a person like that in the WH to set this country back to where the funding fathers wanted this country to be.


Got a link that the amount of abortions hasn't went up? If you cut funding for birth control the amount of abortions will increase.

This isn't the political forum and we're discussing abortion.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Can you clarify your statement? It's unclear.
> 
> Here is a list of abortion restrictions per state: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=1&


Well, BFF stated that the Top Three options are already the law, so I was asking for blessings to be bestowed upon the Legislators of the Three states that restrict abortions at twelve weeks or less. 

Hope that clears up my statement.

To add to that, other than the "None of the above" option, it would seem that the Four Options under the Top Two would select the twelve week restriction should abortion remain legal and that option being all that was available.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course abortion is a logical form of birth control. If the other methods always worked there would be no need for it. Abortion works after all other methods from abstinence to tubal ligation have failed for whatever reasons.


Really? so you are saying its the last resort? I think links have been provided showing NO b.c was used sometimes, failure of b.c. is not that much.


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> Really? so you are saying its the last resort? I think links have been provided showing NO b.c was used sometimes, failure of b.c. is not that much.


I am sure that "sometimes" no other birth control was used, Will you not agree that quite often it was and simply failed? I know of several cases when condoms were used but oopsie now theres a pregnancy to be dealt with. Practicing abstinence as a form of birth control is very risky to say the least. It is quite unrealistic to think normal adults are not going to have sex.


----------



## no really

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am sure that "sometimes" no other birth control was used, Will you not agree that quite often it was and simply failed? I know of several cases when condoms were used but oopsie now theres a pregnancy to be dealt with. Practicing abstinence as a form of birth control is very risky to say the least. It is quite unrealistic to think normal adults are not going to have sex.


I always wonder why condoms are considered birth control, minimal STD protection but very little in the way of birth control. I think it is time there is a true male birth control.


----------



## Evons hubby

no really said:


> I always wonder why condoms are considered birth control, minimal STD protection but very little in the way of birth control. I think it is time there is a true male birth control.


I am sure there will be something developed and on the market when males start getting pregnant. 
Vasectomies arent very good either. My dad had one right after I came along, and it was succesful, he never fathered any more children, but my little brother and sister found their way into our mother just the same. Both were dead ringers of one of the neighbors. oopsie!


----------



## TMTex

Well, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I always default to a citizen's rights. 

It doesn't make sense to me to withhold abortion if the mother's health is at risk in any case. Rape, incest and such seems like a logical reason as well. Anyone arguing against this is simply whacko in my opinion.

If the fetus is damaged in some way or the mother has some other compelling reason to not bear the child, I think she should be also given the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am sure that "sometimes" no other birth control was used, Will you not agree that quite often it was and simply failed? I know of several cases when condoms were used but oopsie now theres a pregnancy to be dealt with. Practicing abstinence as a form of birth control is very risky to say the least. It is quite unrealistic to think normal adults are not going to have sex.


I know of cases as well. Most cases are forgotten pills, forgotten 'foam', whatever. Did those who you know abort? The ones I know did not either.
Many folks are responsible.


----------



## kasilofhome

US
Tissue Supply Company Says Itâs Cutting Ties With Planned Parenthood After Release of Controversial Videos
Aug. 14, 2015 4:24pm	Jon Street
0
SHARES
Share ThisTweet This
A research supply company says itâs severing ties with Planned Parenthood following the release of a series of videos that appear to show Planned Parenthood executives discussing the sale of fetal tissue



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...nthood-after-release-of-controversial-videos/


It is worth standing up because evil can only be hidden for so long.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> And *nothing like that has happened in WI* since at least 5 PP places have SHUT their doors. Governor Walker cut the budget so much the places have closed UP.
> And oh my goodness is HE running for POTUS? I think he is. Oh my. And I do believe thew polls are saying he is in *3rd place and 4th* in some other polls. I do believe that is true.
> Now we need more then ever a person like that in the WH to set this country back to where the funding fathers wanted this country to be.


So where's your proof the numbers haven't gone up?

Where's your evidence the clinics closed due to funding cuts?

It really makes no difference if (oh my goodness) he's running for President, because he's not going to get the nomination, much less win the general election

Show some facts to back up your claims for a change, or it's all just the usual rambling


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> US
> Tissue Supply Company Says Itâs Cutting Ties With Planned Parenthood After Release of Controversial Videos
> Aug. 14, 2015 4:24pm	Jon Street
> 0
> SHARES
> Share ThisTweet This
> A research supply company says itâs severing ties with Planned Parenthood following the release of a series of videos that appear to show Planned Parenthood executives discussing the sale of fetal tissue
> 
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...nthood-after-release-of-controversial-videos/
> 
> 
> It is worth standing up because evil can only be hidden for so long.


I hear Cheerios no longer has GMO ingredients 

(Let's don't mention they never did)


----------



## kasilofhome

Is someone demanding a reply...


----------



## arabian knight

> Wisconsin Right to Life officials told LifeNews Wisconsin abortions have decreased 68% from their all-time high in 1980 and 60% since Wisconsin began requiring abortion reporting in 1987.
> *
> &#8220;The 4.4% decrease in Wisconsin abortions in 2012 is fantastic news for babies and their mothers who choose life for them,&#8221; stated Barbara L. Lyons, Executive Director of Wisconsin Right to Life.*





> *Armacost said the new law is on sound constitutional footing*. Nine other states have passed laws requiring abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges. Missouri&#8217;s admitting privilege law was challenged and upheld by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.





> *It marks the third year in a row that abortions have gone down. Prior to an increase between 2008 and 2009, abortions had dropped for five straight years.*





> *After Walker signed the bill, the Planned Parenthood abortion business shut down one clinic in Appleton and another facility end abortions at another center in Green Bay.*


 And the report I posted said now it is up to 5~!

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/08/19/wisconsin-abortions-decline-4-4-percent-after-pro-life-laws-signed/


----------



## arabian knight

kasilofhome said:


> Is someone demanding a reply...


And there it is all in black and white. LOL


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Wisconsin abortions have decreased 68% from their all-time high in *1980* and 60% since Wisconsin began requiring abortion reporting in *1987*.





> Quote:
> It marks the third year in a row that abortions have gone down. Prior to an increase between *2008 and 2009*, *abortions had dropped for five straight years*.


So your source is saying abortions have been steadily declining in WI *since 1980*

That doesn't prove the funding cuts in *2011* had anything to do with it, and it doesn't take into account the women could have simply gone to a neighboring state.

You should read the *details* before deciding your source supports your claim



> *And there it is all in black and white. LOL*


----------



## RichNC

arabian knight said:


> And there it is all in black and white. LOL


Has is crossed your mind that they just drive or find someone to drive them to either Illinois or Minnesota...???


----------



## Bearfootfarm

RichNC said:


> Has is crossed your mind that they just drive or find someone to drive them to either Illinois or Minnesota...???


Abortions went up in MN:

http://www.mccl.org/mn-abortion-stats.html


----------



## Cornhusker

Bearfootfarm said:


> Abortions went up in MN:
> 
> http://www.mccl.org/mn-abortion-stats.html


Bragging?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> Bragging?


That's ridiculous

It's just the facts

Abortion rates have gone down in most places over the last few decades, so claiming the drop in WI was due to funding cuts alone is not realistic.

It's largely due to better education and better access to BC, which many here seem to be against


----------



## Cornhusker

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's ridiculous
> 
> It's just the facts
> 
> Abortion rates have gone down in most places over the last few decades, so claiming the drop in WI was due to funding cuts alone is not realistic.
> 
> It's largely due to better education and better access to BC, which many here seem to be against


That's ridiculous
Nobody is against birth control
We just don't think we should have to pay for yours
The government is taking away personal responsibility, is it any wonder people are irresponsible?
When you were growing up, did your mommy give you everything you wanted and make excuses for your bad behavior?
Did your parents expect the neighbors or the government to pay for your upbringing, food clothes and of course birth control?
Or did your parents teach you personal responsibility and consequences?
Which way is better?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> That's ridiculous
> Nobody is against birth control
> We just don't think we should have to pay for yours


Anyone wanting to close PP is wanting to cut off a lot of BC since abortion is only about 3% of their total operation

You'll end up paying more for welfare if BC and abortions are ended, so complaining about the money makes no sense. 

It's not like your tax bill will go down if they defund PP



> Did your parents expect the neighbors or the government to pay for your upbringing, food clothes and of course birth control?
> Or did your parents teach you personal responsibility and consequences?
> Which way is better


All that rhetoric won't change the reality 
You can talk all day about what people "should" do , but in the end , they won't change their behavior


----------



## Cornhusker

Bearfootfarm said:


> All that rhetoric won't change the reality
> You can talk all day about what people "should" do , but in the end , they won't change their behavior


Nope, as long as we keep doing what we are doing, they won't change a thing.
Maybe we should change our behavior, force them to change theirs?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Nope, as long as we keep doing what we are doing, they won't change a thing.
> Maybe we should change our behavior, *force them* to change theirs?


So after running around in all these circles, it still ends up with you wanting to force others to meet your demands, which is something you cannot do.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> Nope, as long as we keep doing what we are doing, they won't change a thing.
> Maybe we should change our behavior, *force them to change theirs*?


How you going to do that?


----------



## kasilofhome

Well, stealing a pack of cigarettes because the government won't pay for it is one thing... stealing an abortion when the mommy wants one ...and uncle Sam says no ...you pay for it. Too many will have to pay for it or adopt the baby .


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> So after running around in all these circles, it still ends up with you wanting to force others to meet your demands, which is something you cannot do.


If, in one's opinion, a heartfelt opinion, someone is doing what is wrong, should one just curl up into a fetal position and do nothing? If you feel strongly about something - and someone is violating that - do you curl up into a fetal position and do nothing?


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> I know of cases as well. Most cases are forgotten pills, forgotten 'foam', whatever. Did those who you know abort? The ones I know did not either.
> Many folks are responsible.


Some did, some didn't.... My bio mother was one who did. I would have had an older sister had she not terminated that pregnancy.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> If, in one's opinion, a heartfelt opinion, someone is doing what is wrong, should one just curl up into a fetal position and do nothing? If you feel strongly about something - and someone is violating that - do you curl up into a fetal position and do nothing?


Obama comes to mind... He does many things that rubs me raw, but you don't see me plotting his demise.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> How you going to do that?


We could stop rewarding poor behavior, stop paying for everything, make them actually put in some effort to improve their own lives for starters.
But no, we'll pay for birth control, abortions, their medical bills, housing, cars and cell phones.


----------



## kasilofhome

Two more state aborting support to plan parenthood.

Keeping the stories in front is working:happy:


----------



## Patchouli

Fennick said:


> I voted "none of the above" because I think you missed one out between 12 and 20 weeks. My opinion would be: _Abortion should be legal for any reason up to *16* weeks and only if medically necessary thereafter_.
> 
> My reason for that is because for some women (young girls in particular) 12 weeks is often too soon for them to know they're pregnant unless they get a medical check up but between 12 - 16 weeks pregnancy becomes evident even without a medical confirmation. After 16 (_maybe_ 17) weeks I think it's too late to get an abortion unless it's medically necessary.


I put it at 20 weeks since that is when fetal abnormalities are usually found through testing. I hadn't thought of 16 weeks, the 2 most common stances for those who do want to keep it legal is 12 or 20 weeks. 

Thanks for replying and letting me know your answer.


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> Two more state aborting support to plan parenthood.
> 
> Keeping the stories in front is working:happy:


It probably won't last long, those states will cave if they are threatened with losing federal money. 


> The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) told state officials in Louisiana and Alabama that their plans to cancel Medicaid provider agreements may illegally restrict beneficiary access to services.
> 
> 
> Federal laws require state Medicaid programs to cover family planning services and supplies for anyone of child-bearing age, according to a HHS spokesperson, who added that ending current arrangements with Planned Parenthood would limit beneficiariesâ access to care and services from providers of their choice.


https://www.rt.com/usa/312393-hhs-defends-planned-parenthood/


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Quote:
> The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) told state officials in Louisiana and Alabama that their plans to cancel Medicaid provider agreements may illegally *restrict beneficiary access to services*.


Some don't seem to mind denying healthcare to others if it means they get to shut down PP for perceived "crimes"


----------



## Patchouli

Bearfootfarm said:


> Some don't seem to mind denying healthcare to others if it means they get to shut down PP for perceived "crimes"


The thing that blows my mind the most is that decreasing the availability of cheap or free birth control inevitably leads to increased abortion. If they succeed in shutting down Planned Parenthood they will be directly responsible for the extra abortions.


----------



## kasilofhome

US
Governors in Arkansas, Utah Take Sharp Action Against Planned Parenthood: &#8216;The Allegations&#8230;Are Deeply Troubling&#8217;
Aug. 14, 2015 9:55pm	Oliver Darcy
3K
SHARES
Share ThisTweet This
Two Republican governors ordered agencies in their states to cut ties with Planned Parenthood Friday, contending the abortion provider no longer represents the values of their states.


Two MORE states..
Plan parenthood does not have a monopoly in health care....


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Two MORE states..
> Plan parenthood does not have a monopoly in health care...


No one ever said they did, but closing 700 clinics would have a large effect on those who need their services the most.

It would likely lead to an increase in abortions or an increase in welfare babies, and either will end up costing more in the long run



> &#8216;The Allegations&#8230;Are Deeply Troubling&#8217;


Cutting funds based on mere allegations is *more* troubling
I suspect it won't really happen though


----------



## Patchouli

Oh Arkansas passes stupid stuff all the time and then we the tax payers get to cover the costs of the courts shooting down the nonsense. Hopefully Asa will do the smart thing here. We already have a buttload of stuff from this last legislature that has to go to court.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Some don't seem to mind denying healthcare to others if it means they get to shut down PP for perceived "crimes"


OK... free health care or low cost health care... Why cannot I receive these benefits? Should I pay for others to provide these healthcare measures to others so that they do not kill their children? If that is the gambit then I will accept this burden.


----------



## kasilofhome

Affordable health care..... what's that?


----------



## kasilofhome

http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/factsheets/2011/08/affordable-care-act-women.html


Women Can Receive Preventive Care Without Copays. Beginning on August 1, 2012, about 1 in 3 women, or 47 million, under the age of 65 gained guaranteed access to additional preventive services, like mammograms and birth control, with no out-of-pocket costs. See a list of preventive services for women. (Preventive services benefits apply if you're in a new health plan that was created or changed substantially after March 23, 2010.)

For example, if the healthcare law were not in place, the average out-of-pocket cost for a mammogram would be $39 and for birth control $78-$185 per year.[1] Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, millions of women can access these services without cost sharing like copayments, co-insurance, and deductibles. 

Women Pay Lower Health Care Costs. Before the law, women could be charged more for individual insurance policies simply because of their gender. For example, a 22-year-old woman could be charged 150% the premium that a 22-year-old man paid. In 2014, insurers will no longer be able to charge women higher premiums than they charge men. The law takes strong action to control health care costs, including helping states crack down on excessive premium increases and making sure most of your premium dollars go for your health care.


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/factsheets/2011/08/affordable-care-act-women.html
> 
> 
> Women Can Receive Preventive Care Without Copays. Beginning on August 1, 2012, about 1 in 3 women, or 47 million, under the age of 65 gained guaranteed access to additional preventive services, like mammograms and birth control, with no out-of-pocket costs. See a list of preventive services for women. (Preventive services benefits apply if you're in a new health plan that was created or changed substantially after March 23, 2010.)
> 
> For example, if the healthcare law were not in place, the average out-of-pocket cost for a mammogram would be $39 and for birth control $78-$185 per year.[1] Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, millions of women can access these services without cost sharing like copayments, co-insurance, and deductibles.
> 
> Women Pay Lower Health Care Costs. Before the law, women could be charged more for individual insurance policies simply because of their gender. For example, a 22-year-old woman could be charged 150% the premium that a 22-year-old man paid. In 2014, insurers will no longer be able to charge women higher premiums than they charge men. The law takes strong action to control health care costs, including helping states crack down on excessive premium increases and making sure most of your premium dollars go for your health care.


And women are getting that healthcare through PP. Which is why the federal government said the states can't shut them out since they are legitimate providers and they may be the only ones in their area.


----------



## kasilofhome

How is states refusing to put money in to ppl shutting them down?

Good charitable pro choice people can donate to them all they want to make up any shortage......if they find it to be so valuable the private sector of supporter will step up.


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> How is states refusing to put money in to ppl shutting them down?
> 
> Good charitable pro choice people can donate to them all they want to make up any shortage......if they find it to be so valuable the private sector of supporter will step up.


Read my quote again. We are not talking about donations: 



> The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) told state officials in Louisiana and Alabama that their *plans to cancel Medicaid provider agreements* may illegally restrict beneficiary access to services.
> 
> 
> Federal laws require state *Medicaid* programs to cover family planning services and supplies for anyone of child-bearing age, according to a HHS spokesperson, who added that ending current arrangements with Planned Parenthood would limit beneficiariesâ access to care and services from providers of their choice.


----------



## kasilofhome

MAY... why that word?
Are there no other medical providers but ppl?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> OK... free health care or low cost health care... *Why cannot I receive these benefits?* Should I pay for others to provide these healthcare measures to others so that they do not kill their children? If that is the gambit then I will accept this burden.


You can get those benefits if you qualify
You will pay the same either way


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> How is states refusing to put money in to ppl shutting them down?


Ask AK

He was bragging about 4 or 5 clinics being closed in WI due to funding cuts


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> *MAY... why that word*?
> Are there no other medical providers but ppl?


Because that's the proper word to use


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

I found this exchange subtly profound as, I think, reading between the lines reveals one of the fundamental disconnects between the sides in this and many other discussion we have here:



kasilofhome said:


> How is states refusing to put money in to ppl shutting them down?
> 
> Good charitable pro choice people can donate to them all they want to make up any shortage......if they find it to be so valuable the private sector of supporter will step up.





Patchouli said:


> Read my quote again. We are not talking about donations:
> 
> 
> 
> The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) told state officials in Louisiana and Alabama that their plans to cancel Medicaid provider agreements may illegally restrict beneficiary access to services.
> 
> Federal laws require state Medicaid programs to cover family planning services and supplies for anyone of child-bearing age, according to a HHS spokesperson, who added that ending current arrangements with Planned Parenthood would limit beneficiariesâ access to care and services from providers of their choice.
Click to expand...

Kasilofhome is saying that if we cut public funding of PP then, presumably because the services they provide are currently legal, the private-sector supporters of who PP is and what they do can and should step up with their donation dollars to fund them and keep them solvent.

Patchouli's response (And, please don't take any of this as a personal dig, Patchouli. It just happened to be your reply that painted the illustration. I've always found you to be one of the few fair and reasonable members of "the other side" to debate with, and I sincerely beg your pardon.)...Patchouli's response was, in-essence, that the issue at hand has nothing to do with donations, but, rather, that the states in question may be illegally blocking Medicaid payments that _should_ be paying for these services. 

From "the right's" side, if "the left" sees what the non-profit service provider does as valuable, and provided their own private donations to keep it running, then the provider wouldn't have to file Medicaid claims, thereby not having to accept the public funds taken from those who are unsupportive of their services. Instead, they could just provide the services free/cheap, offsetting the costs by donations from people who support them.

But that's not the way our government sees things, and their conduct of the last 80 years or so have been shaping the public's expectations of what the government's place is. Instead of a country where the free decide what to do with their dollars, our government has taken it upon themselves to tell us what is best, and simply takes the free's dollars to apply to it.

We're told what sort of energies and technologies we should be supporting by providing certain companies with tax breaks. We're supporting the institution of marriage by providing tax breaks to married couples. And, now, we're even giving the public's stolen dollars to medical service providers who perform procedures that a large segment of the populace find morally and spiritually reprehensible. 

It shouldn't matter if 51% find PP's services valuable, or even if 99% of the population find bacon to be a tasty breakfast treat. Our government was not designed, according to its founding documents, to be deciding winners and losers, and guiding the public moral/spiritual code. This is exactly the reason we were founded as republic rather than a democracy. 

In a pure democracy, the majority's power dictates to the minority. In a well-structured republic, like ours is/was, the minority has recourse by writ of the cellular government with a power-structure compartmentalized to favor the autonomy of smaller and more personal state and local governments.

Those that wish to end a practice which they view as overt murder are accused of "meddling", by a group that won't accept 'no' for an answer when it comes to demanding that everyone, in every town in every state, forks over their dollars to pay to keep them open.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Cornhusker said:


> That's ridiculous
> Nobody is against birth control
> We just don't think we should have to pay for yours
> The government is taking away personal responsibility, is it any wonder people are irresponsible?
> When you were growing up, did your mommy give you everything you wanted and make excuses for your bad behavior?
> Did your parents expect the neighbors or the government to pay for your upbringing, food clothes and of course birth control?
> Or did your parents teach you personal responsibility and consequences?
> Which way is better?


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Cornhusker said:


> Nope, as long as we keep doing what we are doing, they won't change a thing.
> Maybe we should change our behavior, force them to change theirs?


Maybe since b.c. is FREE PP is not needed at all. Transfer those tax dollars to the other clinics that actually DO women's H.C.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> The thing that blows my mind the most is that decreasing the availability of cheap or free birth control inevitably leads to increased abortion. If they succeed in shutting down Planned Parenthood they will be directly responsible for the extra abortions.


How so? B.c. is FREE. F*R*E*E*! So is women's healthcare. No need for PP. Put those funds towards the clinics that actually provide H.C. for women.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> And women are getting that healthcare through PP. Which is why the federal government said the states can't shut them out since they are legitimate providers and they may be the only ones in their area.


No need to. They don't do mammograms anyway. Funnel the funds to the other clinics that actually care about women.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> No need to. They don't do mammograms anyway. Funnel the funds to the other clinics that actually care about women.


My local clinic ( Not PP ) does not do mammograms either. All mammograms are sent to the hospital in all our clinics. So that is another ridiculous reason to say they don't care about women's health.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> How so? B.c. is FREE. F*R*E*E*! So is women's healthcare. No need for PP. Put those funds towards the clinics that actually provide H.C. for women.


Do you have a link that indicates ALL birth control is free to ALL women? Even if the birth control itself is free, it requires a prescription and that requires an office visit. The office visit is not free for many women. Planned Parenthood's sliding fee scale makes it so low income women can get birth control easily. 

A link to ALL women's healthcare being free would be great as well. 

My healthcare is paid through my husband's employer, definitely not free.


----------



## kasilofhome

kasilofhome said:


> http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/factsheets/2011/08/affordable-care-act-women.html
> 
> 
> Women Can Receive Preventive Care Without Copays. Beginning on August 1, 2012, about 1 in 3 women, or 47 million, under the age of 65 gained guaranteed access to additional preventive services, like mammograms and birth control, with no out-of-pocket costs. See a list of preventive services for women. (Preventive services benefits apply if you're in a new health plan that was created or changed substantially after March 23, 2010.)
> 
> For example, if the healthcare law were not in place, the average out-of-pocket cost for a mammogram would be $39 and for birth control $78-$185 per year.[1] Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, millions of women can access these services without cost sharing like copayments, co-insurance, and deductibles.
> 
> Women Pay Lower Health Care Costs. Before the law, women could be charged more for individual insurance policies simply because of their gender. For example, a 22-year-old woman could be charged 150% the premium that a 22-year-old man paid. In 2014, insurers will no longer be able to charge women higher premiums than they charge men. The law takes strong action to control health care costs, including helping states crack down on excessive premium increases and making sure most of your premium dollars go for your health care.


Covered pix


----------



## Irish Pixie

Quote:
Originally Posted by kasilofhome View Post
http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/...act-women.html

Women Can Receive Preventive Care Without Copays. Beginning on August 1, 2012, *about 1 in 3 women*, or 47 million, under the age of 65 gained guaranteed access to additional preventive services, like mammograms and birth control, with no out-of-pocket costs. See a list of preventive services for women. (Preventive services benefits apply if you're in a new health plan that was created or changed substantially after March 23, 2010.)

For example, if the healthcare law were not in place, the average out-of-pocket cost for a mammogram would be $39 and for birth control $78-$185 per year.[1] Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, millions of women can access these services without cost sharing like copayments, co-insurance, and deductibles. 

Women Pay Lower Health Care Costs. Before the law, women could be charged more for individual insurance policies simply because of their gender. For example, a 22-year-old woman could be charged 150% the premium that a 22-year-old man paid. In 2014, insurers will no longer be able to charge women higher premiums than they charge men. The law takes strong action to control health care costs, including helping states crack down on excessive premium increases and making sure most of your premium dollars go for your health care.

Covered pix

_____________________________________

So in your world "about 1 in 3" is ALL women? Huh. 

Anyway, in the post I quoted it said ALL birth control and healthcare for women was free. It's not.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one ever said they did,* but closing 700 clinics would have a large effect on those who need their services the most.*
> 
> It would likely lead to an increase in abortions or an increase in welfare babies, and either will end up costing more in the long run
> 
> 
> 
> Cutting funds based on mere allegations is *more* troubling
> I suspect it won't really happen though


Looking at the map of PP locations most are located in larger metropolitan areas and the rest are located in cities and towns with government health care clinics and offices. How will de-funding them equate to effect a large number of health issues? You and PP claim only 3 percent of their business is abortions and not their significant function.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> Looking at the map of PP locations most are located in larger metropolitan areas and the rest are located in cities and towns with government health care clinics and offices. How will refunding them equate to effect a large number of health issues? You and PP claim only 3 percent of their business is abortions and not their significant function.


At least until other venues are available isn't the reasonable assumption that pregnancies will increase?


----------



## TripleD

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one ever said they did, but closing 700 clinics would have a large effect on those who need their services the most.
> 
> It would likely lead to an increase in abortions or an increase in welfare babies, and either will end up costing more in the long run
> 
> 
> 
> Cutting funds based on mere allegations is *more* troubling
> I suspect it won't really happen though


So get all those welfare babies aborted so we don't have to keep them up ??? Pretty crude thought process....


----------



## Guest

Irish Pixie said:


> At least until other venues are available isn't the reasonable assumption that pregnancies will increase?


Why, The care is available in their location through the health clinics?


----------



## Evons hubby

TripleD said:


> So get all those welfare babies aborted so we don't have to keep them up ??? Pretty crude thought process....


We have heard from several on this board that they dont like feeding and caring for yet another generation from the cradle to the grave. I have even noticed that some of those are the same ones apposed to providing BC to young women.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> Why, The care is available in their location through the health clinics?


In all areas? Do you think, just maybe, that Planned Parenthood might be the only place in an area that provides low cost birth control? I'll betcha it is in some areas. So, based on this scenario would the lack of easily accessible, low cost or free birth control increase or decrease the rate of abortion?


----------



## TripleD

Yvonne's hubby said:


> We have heard from several on this board that they dont like feeding and caring for yet another generation from the cradle to the grave. I have even noticed that some of those are the same ones apposed to providing BC to young women.


That was my first post in this thread. Cradle to the grave is here to stay because they can get a lot for free and we have to pay for it.


----------



## Guest

Irish Pixie said:


> In all areas? Do you think, just maybe, that Planned Parenthood might be the only place in an area that provides low cost birth control? I'll betcha it is in some areas. So, based on this scenario would the lack of easily accessible, low cost or free birth control increase or decrease the rate of abortion?


A lack of availability would. I agree, but there is not that lack in the areas covered by Planned Parenthood. There is one location in West Virginia in a metro area of Parkersburg and bc is available through clinic state wide, including that small city. 
Interesting to note WV only has that one location on the Ohio/WV border. Plenty of poor here, real poor but mostly not of color.


----------



## Evons hubby

TripleD said:


> That was my first post in this thread. Cradle to the grave is here to stay because they can get a lot for free and we have to pay for it.


I have made several posts in this thread and several others..... it doesnt change the facts. I still recall many posts about being forced to pay for those on welfare and they dont like it at all, yet they insist we expand the welfare rolls by not allowing those moms to be a simple procedure that would eliminate part of the problem. I have heard it said that if one is not part of the solution, they may well be part of the problem.


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> A lack of availability would. I agree, but there is not that lack in the areas covered by Planned Parenthood. There is one location in West Virginia in a metro area of Parkersburg and bc is available through clinic state wide, including that small city.
> Interesting to note WV only has that one location on the Ohio/WV border. Plenty of poor here, real poor but mostly not of color.


Ok, curious here, what does color have to do with PP providing health care services to the poor?


----------



## kasilofhome

So, if plan parenthood is the only place .... where are they currently sending people out for the referals?

Hum... rural alaska

http://freeclinicdirectory.org/alaska_care/kenai_peninsula_ak_county.html


ervices kenai.
Women&#8217;s Health | Kenai Medicenter
kenaidoctor.com/services/womens-health
Women&#8217;s Health &#8220;Each stage in the cycle of a woman&#8217;s life brings changes. These changes are rites of passage that bring challenges and opportunities.&#8221;
Kidney Tumor Â· Kidney Or Bladder Stone Â· General Services Â· Family Medicine
Kenai, AK Womens Health Clinic | Womens Health Clinic ...
www.peninsulacommunityhealth.net/womens_health_clinic.html
Call Peninsula Community Health Services at (888) 454-5821 now for Kenai, AK Womens Health Clinic services you can rely on!
Kenai Health Center - Central Peninsula Hospital
www.cpgh.org/KenaiHealthCenter
Central Peninsula Hospital's Kenai Health Center was built as a partnership between the hospital, the State of Alaska Division of Public Health, the City of Kenai and ...
Women Health Services
Bing Local

1
Curves Â· Website Â· (907) 260-7775
34851 Kenai Spur Hwy, Soldotna, AK 99&#8230; Â· Directions
2
Woman's Way Midwifery Â· (907) 262-9446
154 W Marydale Ave, Soldotna, AK 99669 Â· Directions
More listings
Women's Clinic Anchorage - Alaska Women's Health PC
www.akwomenshealth.com
For over 25 years, our practice has provided quality health care for women of all ages in Anchorage and surrounding areas.
Womens Health Clinic in Soldotna, Alaska with Reviews ...
www.yellowpages.com &#8250; Soldotna, AK
50+ items Â· Find 2 listings related to Womens Health Clinic in Soldotna on YP.com. See reviews, photos, directions, phone numbers and more for Womens Health Clinic &#8230;
Health Services Â· Kenai Peninsula College
www.kpc.alaska.edu &#8250; &#8230; &#8250; Counseling & Health &#8250; Student Health Clinic
Student Health Clinic Services. Call 262-0347 for an appointment. Walk-ins are welcome. Urgent care treatment: Sinusitis; Ear infections; Headaches; Bronchitis
Central Peninsula Womens Health in Soldotna, Alaska with ...
www.yellowpages.com/soldotna-ak/central-peninsula-womens-health
Find 2 listings related to Central Peninsula Womens Health in Soldotna on YP.com. See reviews, photos, directions, phone numbers and more for Central Peninsula Womens ...
Women's Center of the Peninsula
womenscenterofthepeninsula.com
An obstetrician, also commonly known as OB/GYN, offers a variety of women&#8217;s health services. ... Soldotna, AK 99669. Women's Center of the Peninsula.


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have made several posts in this thread and several others..... it doesnt change the facts. I still recall many posts about being forced to pay for those on welfare and they dont like it at all, yet they insist we expand the welfare rolls by not allowing those moms to be a simple procedure that would eliminate part of the problem. I have heard it said that if one is not part of the solution, they may well be part of the problem.


You confuse me. Reading a lot of your posts I assumed you were pretty much a strict constitutionalist. Are you one that interprets the general welfare clause as pertaining to individual welfare? I apologize if assumed wrong, and the answer would only clear my understanding of your support.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> So, if plan parenthood is the only place .... where are they currently sending people out for the referals?
> 
> Hum... rural alaska
> 
> http://freeclinicdirectory.org/alaska_care/kenai_peninsula_ak_county.html
> 
> 
> ervices kenai.
> Womenâs Health | Kenai Medicenter
> kenaidoctor.com/services/womens-health
> Womenâs Health âEach stage in the cycle of a womanâs life brings changes. These changes are rites of passage that bring challenges and opportunities.â
> Kidney Tumor Â· Kidney Or Bladder Stone Â· General Services Â· Family Medicine
> Kenai, AK Womens Health Clinic | Womens Health Clinic ...
> www.peninsulacommunityhealth.net/womens_health_clinic.html
> Call Peninsula Community Health Services at (888) 454-5821 now for Kenai, AK Womens Health Clinic services you can rely on!
> Kenai Health Center - Central Peninsula Hospital
> www.cpgh.org/KenaiHealthCenter
> Central Peninsula Hospital's Kenai Health Center was built as a partnership between the hospital, the State of Alaska Division of Public Health, the City of Kenai and ...
> Women Health Services
> Bing Local
> 
> 1
> Curves Â· Website Â· (907) 260-7775
> 34851 Kenai Spur Hwy, Soldotna, AK 99â¦ Â· Directions
> 2
> Woman's Way Midwifery Â· (907) 262-9446
> 154 W Marydale Ave, Soldotna, AK 99669 Â· Directions
> More listings
> Women's Clinic Anchorage - Alaska Women's Health PC
> www.akwomenshealth.com
> For over 25 years, our practice has provided quality health care for women of all ages in Anchorage and surrounding areas.
> Womens Health Clinic in Soldotna, Alaska with Reviews ...
> www.yellowpages.com âº Soldotna, AK
> 50+ items Â· Find 2 listings related to Womens Health Clinic in Soldotna on YP.com. See reviews, photos, directions, phone numbers and more for Womens Health Clinic â¦
> Health Services Â· Kenai Peninsula College
> www.kpc.alaska.edu âº â¦ âº Counseling & Health âº Student Health Clinic
> Student Health Clinic Services. Call 262-0347 for an appointment. Walk-ins are welcome. Urgent care treatment: Sinusitis; Ear infections; Headaches; Bronchitis
> Central Peninsula Womens Health in Soldotna, Alaska with ...
> www.yellowpages.com/soldotna-ak/central-peninsula-womens-health
> Find 2 listings related to Central Peninsula Womens Health in Soldotna on YP.com. See reviews, photos, directions, phone numbers and more for Central Peninsula Womens ...
> Women's Center of the Peninsula
> womenscenterofthepeninsula.com
> An obstetrician, also commonly known as OB/GYN, offers a variety of womenâs health services. ... Soldotna, AK 99669. Women's Center of the Peninsula.


How would I know? Your post is specific to Alaska, you'd know much better than I. I live in New York.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, curious here, what does color have to do with PP providing health care services to the poor?


It doesn't. There are a whole bunch of people on here that reference it anyway.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yep, a very rural place .....not like my former New York digs... yet look at the options...


My my my... facts not rainbows.

Major hubs of society have even more options... thus my posting is to show facts that support that there are plenty of options.


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> You confuse me. Reading a lot of your posts I assumed you were pretty much a strict constitutionalist. Are you one that interprets the general welfare clause as pertaining to individual welfare? I apologize if assumed wrong, and the answer would only clear my understanding of your support.


I do not interpret the general welfare clause to be anything other than what the constitution says it is... the power to levy taxes in order to pay the just debts incurred by our government.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Yep, a very rural place .....not like my former New York digs... yet look at the options...
> 
> 
> My my my... facts not rainbows.
> 
> Major hubs of society have even more options... thus my posting is to show facts that support that there are plenty of options.


If you say so... :facepalm:


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, curious here, what does color have to do with PP providing health care services to the poor?


Just an interesting note, if pp was for the poor and WV being one of the poorest states in the country (49th) and most are located in locations of color, would color be one of the deciding factors? Most likely denied, but it can be questioned can it not?


----------



## kasilofhome

Local results for women health care free clinics in new york city
Bing Local
191
Accurate STD Testing New York
www.accuratehivstdtesting.com
22 W 23rd St Fl 2, New York, NY 10010 Â· (732) 807-2968
Directions Â· Details
192
Edmund Kwan M.D.
www.dredmundkwan.com
1016 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10028 Â· (212) 734-4488
Directions Â· Details Â· 8 Yelp reviews
193
W Care Medical Associates
westcaremedical.org
315 W 57th St Ste 304, New York, NY 10019 Â· (212) 579-3223
Directions Â· Details Â· 1 review
194
Lotempio Maria D
lotempioplasticsurgery.com
630 3rd Ave Rm 601, New York, NY 10017 Â· (212) 427-2020
Directions Â· Details
195
Passport Health Brooklyn
www.passporthealthusa.com
185 Montague St Fl 11b, Brooklyn, NY 11201 Â· (718) 858-8424
Directions Â· Details
196
Barbara Mitchell, LCSW
www.barbaramitchelllcsw.com
51 E 42nd St Rm 407, New York, NY 10017 Â· (212) 867-5507
Directions Â· Details
197
Berger Alan Dc Pc
Bing Local
150 E 32nd St Ste 102, New York, NY 10016 Â· (212) 689-6252
Directions Â· Details Â· 1 Yelp review
198
Hahnemann Health Associates
hahnemannhealth.com
50 Park Ave # 1e, New York, NY 10016 Â· (212) 684-2290
Directions Â· Details
199
NYC Alliance against Sexual Assault
nycagainstrape.org
32 Broadway, New York, NY 10004 Â· (212) 229-0345
Directions Â· Details
200
Breast Thermography Nyc
www.breastthermographynyc.com
230 W 79th St, New York, NY 10024 Â· (212) 712-2742
Directions Â· Details

Note I got tired and stopped at 230 clinics... but there was at least five more pages of free clinics for women's health...

Plan parenthood is not the only place for care.


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I do not interpret the general welfare clause to be anything other than what the constitution says it is... the power to levy taxes in order to pay the just debts incurred by our government.


Fair enough, but you support those monies being paid to buisnesses like Planed Parenthood?


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> Just an interesting note, if pp was for the poor and WV being one of the poorest states in the country (49th) and most are located in locations of color, would color be one of the deciding factors? Most likely denied, but it can be questioned can it not?


Anything can be questioned, but I am not sure about that whole "most are located in locations of color" thing. Where did we pick up that tidbit of information?


----------



## kasilofhome

Well, is it not about health care needs being met? Or have many been duped that plan parenthood was the only player... cause it's not true. In fact pp NEEDS, to send out for real care to these places.


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> Fair enough, but you support those monies being paid to buisnesses like Planed Parenthood?


PP is not a business, its a nonprofit organization that provides low cost health care to women in need. just thought we should clear up that point first. 

As to my supporting those funds going to PP I do not. I also do not support about 90 percent of all our other funds going to support any charities, including SS, Medicare, Food stamps and all the other unconstitutional programs..... but, since I dont have a say in that and our moneys are going to be spent anyway I believe we should be fair about it and provide services equally, not just to those that some "approve" of.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Local results for women health care free clinics in new york city
> Bing Local
> 191
> Accurate STD Testing New York
> www.accuratehivstdtesting.com
> 22 W 23rd St Fl 2, New York, NY 10010 Â· (732) 807-2968
> Directions Â· Details
> 192
> Edmund Kwan M.D.
> www.dredmundkwan.com
> 1016 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10028 Â· (212) 734-4488
> Directions Â· Details Â· 8 Yelp reviews
> 193
> W Care Medical Associates
> westcaremedical.org
> 315 W 57th St Ste 304, New York, NY 10019 Â· (212) 579-3223
> Directions Â· Details Â· 1 review
> 194
> Lotempio Maria D
> lotempioplasticsurgery.com
> 630 3rd Ave Rm 601, New York, NY 10017 Â· (212) 427-2020
> Directions Â· Details
> 195
> Passport Health Brooklyn
> www.passporthealthusa.com
> 185 Montague St Fl 11b, Brooklyn, NY 11201 Â· (718) 858-8424
> Directions Â· Details
> 196
> Barbara Mitchell, LCSW
> www.barbaramitchelllcsw.com
> 51 E 42nd St Rm 407, New York, NY 10017 Â· (212) 867-5507
> Directions Â· Details
> 197
> Berger Alan Dc Pc
> Bing Local
> 150 E 32nd St Ste 102, New York, NY 10016 Â· (212) 689-6252
> Directions Â· Details Â· 1 Yelp review
> 198
> Hahnemann Health Associates
> hahnemannhealth.com
> 50 Park Ave # 1e, New York, NY 10016 Â· (212) 684-2290
> Directions Â· Details
> 199
> NYC Alliance against Sexual Assault
> nycagainstrape.org
> 32 Broadway, New York, NY 10004 Â· (212) 229-0345
> Directions Â· Details
> 200
> Breast Thermography Nyc
> www.breastthermographynyc.com
> 230 W 79th St, New York, NY 10024 Â· (212) 712-2742
> Directions Â· Details
> 
> Note I got tired and stopped at 230 clinics... but there was at least five more pages of free clinics for women's health...
> 
> Plan parenthood is not the only place for care.


The first link is only for STD testing. Nothing else offered. The second link is strictly plastic surgery, the third link is for travel, work and deployment vaccines and exams. The fourth is a social worker. 

I got tired of checking the links you obviously didn't after that. Based on the info provided I'd say my point of PP being the only place for low cost or free birth control is at least possible, yes?


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Well, is it not about health care needs being met? Or have many been duped that plan parenthood was the only player... cause it's not true. In fact pp NEEDS, to send out for real care to these places.


Yep, health care is important to everyone. And no, I think most are well aware that PP is not the only player at the table.... but they are an important one to many of those in need.


----------



## gapeach

2 nineteen year olds, one of them my great nephew, found that they were parents to be this week. They have about a 2 yr relationship, the girl was on birth control but said it started making her feel bad, so had not been taking it. She is Catholic so there was never an option of abortion. She immediately told her parents and they support her. Nobody is jumping up and down in happiness. Both were college students so that will have to be put on hold but I find myself being proud of them for taking the responsibility to have this baby. They could have kept it a secret and had an abortion. She is only 12 wks.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> 2 nineteen year olds, one of them my great nephew, found that they were parents to be this week. They have about a 2 yr relationship, the girl was on birth control but said it started making her feel bad, so had not been taking it. She is Catholic so there was never an option of abortion. She immediately told her parents and they support her. Nobody is jumping up and down in happiness. Both were college students so that will have to be put on hold but I find myself being proud of them for taking the responsibility to have this baby. They could have kept it a secret and had an abortion. She is only 12 wks.


What's your point? It was her choice and she chose to continue the pregnancy. That's what the pro choice supporters has said from the beginning of every abortion thread ever started on HT.


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Anything can be questioned, but I am not sure about that whole "most are located in locations of color" thing. Where did we pick up that tidbit of information?


Well if you take the zipcode of the clinic and check the demographics of those zipcodes you may find your answer. But as I said it has been and will continue to be denied. What I have found through my own surfing and looking points in the direction of the word "most". Maybe I am wrong, maybe not but a whole lot of people of color come to the same question.


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> 2 nineteen year olds, one of them my great nephew, found that they were parents to be this week. They have about a 2 yr relationship, the girl was on birth control but said it started making her feel bad, so had not been taking it. She is Catholic so there was never an option of abortion. She immediately told her parents and they support her. Nobody is jumping up and down in happiness. Both were college students so that will have to be put on hold but I find myself being proud of them for taking the responsibility to have this baby. They could have kept it a secret and had an abortion. She is only 12 wks.


Glad to hear they made that choice, I am also glad they had a choice.


----------



## arabian knight

dlmcafee said:


> You confuse me. Reading a lot of your posts I assumed you were pretty much a strict constitutionalist. Are you one that interprets the general welfare clause as pertaining to individual welfare? I apologize if assumed wrong, and the answer would only clear my understanding of your support.


It better not. Cause that is not what is meant, not by a long shot.


----------



## Tiempo

gapeach said:


> 2 nineteen year olds, one of them my great nephew, found that they were parents to be this week. They have about a 2 yr relationship, the girl was on birth control but said it started making her feel bad, so had not been taking it. She is Catholic so there was never an option of abortion. She immediately told her parents and they support her. Nobody is jumping up and down in happiness. Both were college students so that will have to be put on hold but I find myself being proud of them for taking the responsibility to have this baby. They could have kept it a secret and had an abortion. She is only 12 wks.


I'm not trying to be a jerk, but a couple of things stuck out for me here.

1) Abortion was not an option as she is Catholic, but birth control was? (No biggie, to each their own, but how people pick and choose their doctrine according to what suits them always kind of confuses me)

2) She's a college student, yet she quit using birth control as it, 'started making her feel bad', the presumption being from the way it's worded that she just went without an alternate method and continued having sex?

I hope she wasn't surprised to find herself pregnant.

ETA That said, I wish them both well.


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> PP is not a business, its a nonprofit organization that provides low cost health care to women in need. just thought we should clear up that point first.
> 
> As to my supporting those funds going to PP I do not. I also do not support about 90 percent of all our other funds going to support any charities, including SS, Medicare, Food stamps and all the other unconstitutional programs..... but, since I dont have a say in that and our moneys are going to be spent anyway I believe we should be fair about it and provide services equally, not just to those that some "approve" of.


Buisness / Organization, I conceed that point you are right. 

I do not see as it being fair at all for acceptance of one cause over another. Would that not be someone's form of control?


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> Well if you take the zipcode of the clinic and check the demographics of those zipcodes you may find your answer. But as I said it has been and will continue to be denied. What I have found through my own surfing and looking points in the direction of the word "most". Maybe I am wrong, maybe not but a whole lot of people of color come to the same question.


Ok, I am not going to "deny" your claim, simply because I do not know, and am not about to look up the demographics on 700 or so locations. Lets assume you are correct.... what difference does it make? I am also inclined to believe that if what you claim is true that is because those are the areas where they can get the most bang for their buck. By centering in low income areas of metropolitan areas (which happen to be populated by more people of color) than in rural areas, more people, regardless of color are going to benefit from their services.


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> I do not see as it being fair at all for acceptance of one cause over another. Would that not be someone's form of control?


I am not very clear on what you are trying to say here. Who is trying to control what?


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, health care is important to everyone. And no, I think most are well aware that PP is not the only player at the table.... but they are an important one to many of those in need.


Why?

Name brand value

They provide limited services, and out source much, middle man their prices are not special. 

The public has been duped due to massive funding for blanket advertising.


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I am not going to "deny" your claim, simply because I do not know, and am not about to look up the demographics on 700 or so locations. Lets assume you are correct.... what difference does it make? I am also inclined to believe that if what you claim is true that is because those are the areas where they can get the most bang for their buck.* By centering in low income areas of metropolitan areas* (which happen to be populated by more people of color) than in rural areas, more people, regardless of color are going to benefit from their services.


That sir was my point, those areas and pretty much all other areas are serviced by your government clinics providing the same services except abortion. Supporting such an organization legal as it maybe is not a function the government should be involved in at all. Let them prosper or fail on their own just not with my dime.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Why?
> 
> Name brand value
> 
> They provide limited services, and out source much, middle man their prices are not special.
> 
> The public has been duped due to massive funding for blanket advertising.


They musta put that advertising on someone elses blankets.... I have never seen any ad for PP... ever! I would never have known they existed had it not been for the anti abortion crowd creating so many news stories with their protests.


----------



## kasilofhome

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=3CA0FCC6AA914BDD4A073CA0FCC6AA914BDD4A07

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=CF51118A60315846D627CF51118A60315846D627

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=D493A32F9595E740EE24D493A32F9595E740EE24

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=92FA4211CF7B68B914AB92FA4211CF7B68B914AB

How many do you need? 

Other ppl expense

The financial ties between Planned Parenthood and Democrats run deep, with the taxpayer-funded women's health care and abortion provider's employees and political arms donating at least $25 million to party lawmakers over the past 15 years, according to a FoxNews.com analysis.

The money, which flowed through an extensive web of Planned Parenthood employees, political action committees and soft-money donors accounts for 99 percent of all political donations linked to Planned Parenthood, leaving little doubt about the partisan preference of the organization. Amid calls for ending the organization's roughly $500 million in annual federal funding, Planned Parenthood may need its political muscle more than ever.


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> That sir was my point, those areas and pretty much all other areas are serviced by your government clinics providing the same services except abortion. Supporting such an organization legal as it maybe is not a function the government should be involved in at all. Let them prosper or fail on their own just not with my dime.


Since "your dime" is not being spent on any abortions, how is providing all the other services they provide any less important than those that our government provides in their clinics? If its cheaper for them to help out with PP than setting up their own government clinics in those areas why shouldnt they help out PP and save some of your dimes?


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am not very clear on what you are trying to say here. Who is trying to control what?


Are you denying that there is a loud outcry from supporters of planned parenthood when the suggestion of federally de-funding the organization is tabled.


----------



## gapeach

Tiempo said:


> I'm not trying to be a jerk, but a couple of things stuck out for me here.
> 
> 1) Abortion was not an option as she is Catholic, but birth control was? (No biggie, to each their own, but how people pick and choose their doctrine according to what suits them always kind of confuses me)
> 
> 2) She's a college student, yet she quit using birth control as it, 'started making her feel bad', the presumption being from the way it's worded that she just went without an alternate method and continued having sex?
> 
> I hope she wasn't surprised to find herself pregnant.
> 
> ETA That said, I wish them both well.


I am not Catholic but I do know a lot of Catholics who believe in using certain forms of birth control, and one is pill. Not IUDS because they could potentially be killing an egg every month. I used to go to a Catholic doctor and he said that he saw no reason not to used the foam method.

I guess the girl thought it would not happen to her. Both are not going back to school now and trying to find jobs.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=3CA0FCC6AA914BDD4A073CA0FCC6AA914BDD4A07
> 
> http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=CF51118A60315846D627CF51118A60315846D627
> 
> http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=D493A32F9595E740EE24D493A32F9595E740EE24
> 
> http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=92FA4211CF7B68B914AB92FA4211CF7B68B914AB
> 
> How many do you need?
> 
> Other ppl expense
> 
> The financial ties between Planned Parenthood and Democrats run deep, with the taxpayer-funded women's health care and abortion provider's employees and political arms donating at least $25 million to party lawmakers over the past 15 years, according to a FoxNews.com analysis.
> 
> The money, which flowed through an extensive web of Planned Parenthood employees, political action committees and soft-money donors accounts for 99 percent of all political donations linked to Planned Parenthood, leaving little doubt about the partisan preference of the organization. Amid calls for ending the organization's roughly $500 million in annual federal funding, Planned Parenthood may need its political muscle more than ever.


So now I have seen an ad for PP, thanks for providing that. I had never seen one up until you provided it to me. Are you perhaps in the antiabortion group? So far thats the only ones providing my education as to who and what PP is about. Yall are doing a great job getting the word out.


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Since "your dime" is not being spent on any abortions, how is providing all the other services they provide any less important than those that our government provides in their clinics? If its cheaper for them to help out with PP than setting up their own government clinics in those areas why shouldnt they help out PP and save some of your dimes?


Clinics are in those areas already and my dime does help support those orginizations that preform abortions as part of their services. In this day and age the other services are readily available elsewhere at government and non government facilities at no cost to the poor.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Not worth it.


----------



## Tiempo

**** made a mistake, looking for more precise info.


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> Are you denying that there is a loud outcry from supporters of planned parenthood when the suggestion of federally de-funding the organization is tabled.


Ok, this only adding to my confusion about your previous comment. I cannot for the life of me figure out why those in support of PP would be upset by politicians taking defunding of PP off the agenda???


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> Clinics are in those areas already and my dime does help support those orginizations that preform abortions as part of their services. In this day and age the other services are readily available elsewhere at government and non government facilities at no cost to the poor.


If there were adequate clinics available in those areas PP would not be in existence or needed. And your dimes are not being spent on abortions. Those costs are carefully monitored and kept separate from the other 97 percent of PPs finances.


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, this only adding to my confusion about your previous comment. I cannot for the life of me figure out why those in support of PP would be upset by politicians taking defunding of PP off the agenda???


Place it on the table for debate. Semantics, regional maybe propose would be a better word for you.


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> MAY... why that word?
> Are there no other medical providers but ppl?


There very well may not be any other providers in their area.


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If there were adequate clinics available in those areas PP would not be in existence or needed. And your dimes are not being spent on abortions. Those costs are carefully monitored and kept separate from the other 97 percent of PPs finances.


Nope goes to pp to support their operation, their operation preform abortions, what specific booking column you put it on still effects the whole. I do not want it within an arms reach let alone a 1/2" column. But thanks I do understand you better. 

I myself am very much opposed to abortion as a whole, but somewhat an enigma being pro choice with out my financial nor moral support.


----------



## Patchouli

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I found this exchange subtly profound as, I think, reading between the lines reveals one of the fundamental disconnects between the sides in this and many other discussion we have here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kasilofhome is saying that if we cut public funding of PP then, presumably because the services they provide are currently legal, the private-sector supporters of who PP is and what they do can and should step up with their donation dollars to fund them and keep them solvent.
> 
> Patchouli's response (And, please don't take any of this as a personal dig, Patchouli. It just happened to be your reply that painted the illustration. I've always found you to be one of the few fair and reasonable members of "the other side" to debate with, and I sincerely beg your pardon.)...Patchouli's response was, in-essence, that the issue at hand has nothing to do with donations, but, rather, that the states in question may be illegally blocking Medicaid payments that _should_ be paying for these services.
> 
> From "the right's" side, if "the left" sees what the non-profit service provider does as valuable, and provided their own private donations to keep it running, then the provider wouldn't have to file Medicaid claims, thereby not having to accept the public funds taken from those who are unsupportive of their services. Instead, they could just provide the services free/cheap, offsetting the costs by donations from people who support them.
> 
> But that's not the way our government sees things, and their conduct of the last 80 years or so have been shaping the public's expectations of what the government's place is. Instead of a country where the free decide what to do with their dollars, our government has taken it upon themselves to tell us what is best, and simply takes the free's dollars to apply to it.
> 
> We're told what sort of energies and technologies we should be supporting by providing certain companies with tax breaks. We're supporting the institution of marriage by providing tax breaks to married couples. And, now, we're even giving the public's stolen dollars to medical service providers who perform procedures that a large segment of the populace find morally and spiritually reprehensible.
> 
> It shouldn't matter if 51% find PP's services valuable, or even if 99% of the population find bacon to be a tasty breakfast treat. Our government was not designed, according to its founding documents, to be deciding winners and losers, and guiding the public moral/spiritual code. This is exactly the reason we were founded as republic rather than a democracy.
> 
> In a pure democracy, the majority's power dictates to the minority. In a well-structured republic, like ours is/was, the minority has recourse by writ of the cellular government with a power-structure compartmentalized to favor the autonomy of smaller and more personal state and local governments.
> 
> Those that wish to end a practice which they view as overt murder are accused of "meddling", by a group that won't accept 'no' for an answer when it comes to demanding that everyone, in every town in every state, forks over their dollars to pay to keep them open.



No offense given.  I see it from a different perspective though. First plenty of people do donate to PP. As funding has dropped from state/federal sources donors have stepped up to make up the difference. 

Most healthcare entities that do provide charitable healthcare also rely in large part on Medicare and Medicaid payments. Children's hospitals pull in huge donations but they wouldn't survive without Medicaid. Same for Catholic hospitals and other religious ones.

The majority of Americans get their healthcare paid for through a third party of some sort. Medicaid covers all healthcare costs for the poor. Medicaid should not be politicized. No one should be able to step in between a woman and her healthcare provider because they don't like part of their business. 

One of the biggest problems I have with the Republicans is this need they have to step into other people's private business and make decisions for them about sex, birth control and healthcare.


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> Yep, a very rural place .....not like my former New York digs... yet look at the options...
> 
> 
> My my my... facts not rainbows.
> 
> Major hubs of society have even more options... thus my posting is to show facts that support that there are plenty of options.



In my rural area the county health department would be our only option for women's healthcare and contraception within at least 30 miles. On the other hand in Little Rock the health department is nowhere near the poorest area of town. Planned Parenthood is right smack in the middle of it. We have a sorry minimal public transport system so closer is better.


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> Place it on the table for debate. Semantics, regional maybe propose would be a better word for you.


To table a motion is to take it out of the debate.... Not a regional thing... Roberts rules of order.


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> Nope goes to pp to support their operation, their operation preform abortions, what specific booking column you put it on still effects the whole. I do not want it within an arms reach let alone a 1/2" column. But thanks I do understand you better.
> 
> I myself am very much opposed to abortion as a whole, but somewhat an enigma being pro choice with out my financial nor moral support.


I am also very much apposed to abortion, almost as apposed to it as I am apposed to denying a woman's right to choose for herself.


----------



## kasilofhome

Patchouli said:


> In my rural area the county health department would be our only option for women's healthcare and contraception within at least 30 miles. On the other hand in Little Rock the health department is nowhere near the poorest area of town. Planned Parenthood is right smack in the middle of it. We have a sorry minimal public transport system so closer is better.


Really



Local results for women's healthcare little rock
Bing Local
76
NAT Drug & DNA Paternity Testing Lab
www.detectlab.com
320 Executive Ct, Little Rock, AR 72205 Â· (501) 725-2722
Directions Â· Details
77
Jimmy Chang MD
Bing Local
3343 Springhill Dr, North Little Rock, AR 72117 Â· (501) 758-9251
Directions Â· Details
78
A Clinic For Women
Bing Local
9 Kingston Dr, Little Rock, AR 72227 Â· (501) 663-5055
Directions Â· Details
79
Legal Paternity Testing
www.dnapaternitytestinginc.info
500 S University Ave, Little Rock, AR 72205 Â· (501) 377-9355
Directions Â· Details
80
DR Dean Moutos MD
Bing Local
9101 Kanis Rd Ste 300, Little Rock, AR 72205 Â· (501) 663-5858
Directions Â· Details
81
Little Rock Compassion Center
lrcompassioncenter.org
3618 W Roosevelt Rd, Little Rock, AR 72204 Â· (501) 296-9114
Directions Â· Details
82
Davis, Katrina MD
katrinadavis.md.com
4301 W Markham St # 783, Little Rock, AR 72205 Â· (501) 296-1800
Directions Â· Details
83
Deslauriers S Killeen MD
Bing Local
11825 Hinson Rd Ste 101, Little Rock, AR 72212 Â· (501) 221-1050
Directions Â· Details
84
Life Uniform
www.scrubsandbeyond.com
6000 W. Markham St., Ste.2153 Park Plaza Mall, Little Rock, AR 72205 Â· (501) 664-1394
Directions Â· Details
85
St. Vincent Doctors Hospital
Bing Local
6101 Saint Vincent Cir, Little Rock, AR

I found 85


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Really
> 
> 
> 
> Local results for women's healthcare little rock
> Bing Local
> 76
> NAT Drug & DNA Paternity Testing Lab
> www.detectlab.com
> 320 Executive Ct, Little Rock, AR 72205 Â· (501) 725-2722
> Directions Â· Details
> 77
> Jimmy Chang MD
> Bing Local
> 3343 Springhill Dr, North Little Rock, AR 72117 Â· (501) 758-9251
> Directions Â· Details
> 78
> A Clinic For Women
> Bing Local
> 9 Kingston Dr, Little Rock, AR 72227 Â· (501) 663-5055
> Directions Â· Details
> 79
> Legal Paternity Testing
> www.dnapaternitytestinginc.info
> 500 S University Ave, Little Rock, AR 72205 Â· (501) 377-9355
> Directions Â· Details
> 80
> DR Dean Moutos MD
> Bing Local
> 9101 Kanis Rd Ste 300, Little Rock, AR 72205 Â· (501) 663-5858
> Directions Â· Details
> 81
> Little Rock Compassion Center
> lrcompassioncenter.org
> 3618 W Roosevelt Rd, Little Rock, AR 72204 Â· (501) 296-9114
> Directions Â· Details
> 82
> Davis, Katrina MD
> katrinadavis.md.com
> 4301 W Markham St # 783, Little Rock, AR 72205 Â· (501) 296-1800
> Directions Â· Details
> 83
> Deslauriers S Killeen MD
> Bing Local
> 11825 Hinson Rd Ste 101, Little Rock, AR 72212 Â· (501) 221-1050
> Directions Â· Details
> 84
> Life Uniform
> www.scrubsandbeyond.com
> 6000 W. Markham St., Ste.2153 Park Plaza Mall, Little Rock, AR 72205 Â· (501) 664-1394
> Directions Â· Details
> 85
> St. Vincent Doctors Hospital
> Bing Local
> 6101 Saint Vincent Cir, Little Rock, AR
> 
> I found 85


Paternity testing and workwear for nurses and Doctors. That is wonderful health care options for women.

That post makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yep, they are I went near the bottom and hid nothing 

But hers the beginning of 12 pages to pick from...


Little Rock Women's â¦
Little Rock Healthcarâ¦
North Little Rock Woâ¦
United Healthcare Litâ¦
Women's Clinic Littlâ¦
Arkansas OB/GYN | The Woman's Clinic in Little Rock, Arkansas
www.arobgyn.com
... which has been at the forefront of care for women ... Submit questions regarding general health or ... 9601 Baptist Health Drive; Suite 1200; Little Rock ...
Women's Health Center - Little Rock, AR - MedicineNet
www.medicinenet.com âº â¦ âº women's health article
Little Rock Arkansas Obstetrician-Gynecologist Doctors physician directory - Learn about women's health - medical, health and wellness for women - from female â¦
Welcome to the West Little Rock Women's Center
wlrwomens.com
... and Jami Smith APN and the staff of West Little Rock Women's Center can meet the gynecologic ... the best decisions to address their specific health ...
Womens Health Center - Little Rock, AR, (Arkansas)
www.healthgrades.com âº â¦ âº Arkansas (AR) âº Little Rock
Womens Health Center, a Medical Group Practice located in Little Rock, Arkansas, (AR)
Little Rock Women Clinic - Yellowpages.com
www.yellowpages.com âº Little Rock, AR
40+ items Â· Find 21 listings related to Women Clinic in Little Rock on YP.com. See reviews, photos, directions, phone numbers and more for Women Clinic locations in Little Rockâ¦
1
2
3
4
5


----------



## Irish Pixie

Patchouli never said that there weren't _any_ women's healthcare providers in Little Rock, she said that "On the other hand in Little Rock the health department is nowhere near the poorest area of town. Planned Parenthood is right smack in the middle of it. We have a sorry minimal public transport system so closer is better." Did you check on a map to see if any of the links you provided (I haven't checked due to the last epic fail) were in the poorest section of town?


----------



## kasilofhome

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...4623AD0CA4A49D967F101638BF1E7&selectedIndex=0


A map with the major women health care clinics

Some transportation
entral Arkansas Transit
Skip Navigation Links HomeHome /Travel Tools/Local Services/Central Arkansas Transit
Print A A A More




Map data Â©2015 Google
Terms of Use

Map
Get Directions
Contact Information
DOWNTOWN
310 E. Capitol Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 501-375-1163
www.cat.org
Description
CAT is a vital component of the economic fabric of our area, serving the transport needs of residents, persons with disabilities and senior citizens. 

CAT operates daily bus services throughout the area and The River Rail Electric Street Car system that serves downtown Little Rock and North Little Rock.


----------



## Patchouli

They are not. Trust me I have spent the last 15 years here and I know Little Rock backwards and forwards. None of the actual healthcare providers in her muddled list are in the poorer neighborhoods. 

Kasilof your Google Fu needs some work.  At least make an effort to cull your search down to clinics, hospitals and doctors rather than anything and everything vaguely healthcare related.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...4623AD0CA4A49D967F101638BF1E7&selectedIndex=0
> 
> 
> A map with the major women health care clinics


Your link shows maps from many different places- Cooperstown is kinda sorta near where I live in New York.


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...4623AD0CA4A49D967F101638BF1E7&selectedIndex=0
> 
> 
> A map with the major women health care clinics


That is actually more worthless than your healthcare providers list......


----------



## kasilofhome

Some can find problems and no solutions...Some roll up their sleeves and find a solution.....


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Some can find problems and no solutions...Some roll up their sleeves and find a solution.....


What does this mean? That Patchouli is right that only Planned Parenthood is in the poorest section of Little Rock AR?


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> Some can find problems and no solutions...Some roll up their sleeves and find a solution.....



 And some want to take a perfectly good solution that has been highly effective for 73 years now and destroy it because of political nit picking.


----------



## kasilofhome

it's time to MoveOn .com to o care....


----------



## kasilofhome

So, I have facts and you are emotional...


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> So, I have facts and you are emotional...


Your "facts" are not facts at all. All the links you've provided on this thread are not relevant, at all.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> it's time to MoveOn .com to o care....


Is this code of some sort?


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> To table a motion is to take it out of the debate.... Not a regional thing... Roberts rules of order.



Ok I admit my terminology was incorrect, feel better now. I tried to explain what I meant oh well, I tried the reasonable discussion and failed. Shalom


----------



## kasilofhome

Well there are other systems .. I had to learn mason rules.


----------



## kasilofhome

Irish Pixie said:


> Your "facts" are not facts at all. All the links you've provided on this thread are not relevant, at all.


Yea, sure

a specified area was stated as an example... addressed with facts..
Sorry if the reality is not fitting your agenda.


----------



## kasilofhome

Affordable health care no longer limits women.... that was one of the selling points
Now, since that cow was purchased.... why not milk it.


----------



## Guest

Patchouli said:


> They are not. Trust me I have spent the last 15 years here and I know Little Rock backwards and forwards. None of the actual healthcare providers in her muddled list are in the poorer neighborhoods.
> 
> Kasilof your Google Fu needs some work.  At least make an effort to cull your search down to clinics, hospitals and doctors rather than anything and everything vaguely healthcare related.



Do you know the distance between pp and little rocks health care clinics from what their site reports there a 3 and what do you consider a reasonable distance?


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Yea, sure
> 
> a specified area was stated as an example... addressed with facts..
> Sorry if the reality is not fitting your agenda.


The "links" that you said you women's healthcare, weren't. The "links" for the map to prove that PP wasn't the only low cost women's healthcare facility brought up maps from all over the country. None of your "facts" were facts related to anything in this thread. 

Reality? Seriously? *You* want to comment about reality? :facepalm:


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Affordable health care no longer limits women.... that was one of the selling points
> Now, since that cow was purchased.... why not milk it.


More code that's relevant in your reality?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Irish Pixie said:


> The "links" that you said you women's healthcare, weren't. The "links" for the map to prove that PP wasn't the only low cost women's healthcare facility brought up maps from all over the country. None of your "facts" were facts related to anything in this thread.
> 
> Reality? Seriously? *You* want to comment about reality? :facepalm:


Hey...wanna lion meat sammich?


----------



## kasilofhome

Patchouli said:


> They are not. Trust me I have spent the last 15 years here and I know Little Rock backwards and forwards. None of the actual healthcare providers in her muddled list are in the poorer neighborhoods.
> 
> Kasilof your Google Fu needs some work.  At least make an effort to cull your search down to clinics, hospitals and doctors rather than anything and everything vaguely healthcare related.


Women's health care involves more than butchering unborn.


----------



## kasilofhome

basketti said:


> Hey...wanna lion meat sammich?


Cecil burger sounds great.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Women's health care involves more than butchering unborn.


Planned Parenthood offers much more than abortion. Fact.


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> Yea, sure
> 
> a specified area was stated as an example... addressed with facts..
> Sorry if the reality is not fitting your agenda.


Reality is your "facts" actually disproved your point.  None of your healthcare facilities are in the poorer neighborhoods of Little Rock. Planned Parenthood is right smack in the middle of it.


----------



## kasilofhome

No, they out source to medical clinics... per their site.
Birth control.... good Lord Fred Meyer has it.
7 11 has some...
Pap smears... not limited to pp.

Get over it PLAN PARENTHOOD is just a tainted chain of non profit out of fashion.


----------



## kasilofhome

As stated what is close.... next door to every home.

My son no longer has to fly to get to a dentist or doctor.
It's now 30 mile to on new place and 32 miles to the other one... we're kinda in the middle.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> No, they out source to medical clinics... per their site.
> Birth control.... good Lord Fred Meyer has it.
> 7 11 has some...
> Pap smears... not limited to pp.
> 
> Get over it PLAN PARENTHOOD is just a tainted chain of non profit out of fashion.


Who's Lord Fred Meyer? 

Do you understand that in some areas the only low cost women's healthcare provider is Planned Parenthood? Providers of free or low cost women's healthcare are like a great pair of black leather pumps, they _never_ go out of fashion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> As stated what is close.... next door to every home.
> 
> My son no longer has to fly to get to a dentist or doctor.
> It's now 30 mile to on new place and 32 miles to the other one... we're kinda in the middle.


What does your son's dentist or doctor have to do with low cost or free women's healthcare providers in Little Rock, AR?


----------



## kasilofhome

Crow sandwiches being served


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Crow sandwiches being served


Don't eat crow! Your lack of fact wasn't _that_ bad!


----------



## Patchouli

Have you ever been to a big city in the lower 48 Kasilof? Ever been to a poverty stricken inner city neighborhood? They may have a gas station or 2 but 7-11 does not offer free birth control. No pharmacies. No grocery stores. No Dollar stores. No doctor's offices, clinics, etc. A lot of people don't have reliable transportation. Or any at all. So that means every trip needs to be carefully planned. Having a clinic in the neighborhood that offers everything including birth control is absolutely vital. 

As for your claim that PP "farms out" their services that is not true. The one in Little Rock offers the following services at the clinic: 

*Services Offered*



  Abortion Services 
  Birth Control 
  General Health Care 
  HIV Testing 
  Men's Health Care 
  Morning-After Pill (Emergency Contraception) 
  Pregnancy Testing & Services 
  STD Testing, Treatment & Vaccines 
  Women's Health Care
 - See more at: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/he...health-center-2807-90380#sthash.ENjw6lB8.dpuf

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/he...health-center-2807-90380#sthash.ENjw6lB8.dpuf


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Patchouli said:


> No offense given.  I see it from a different perspective though...
> 
> One of the biggest problems I have with the Republicans is this need they have to step into other people's private business and make decisions for them about sex, birth control and healthcare.


That's exactly what I was talking about. It's a difference in perspective. 

Now, I can't speak for the republicans, as I'm not one, but I see the choice of wording in your last sentence as very telling as to the difference between our perspectives. 

Most of the legislation I've seen from the right, and opposition to the left's legislation has been in an effort to disconnect one side's "business" from the other side's wallet. 

I haven't seen any pushes to ban extra-marital sex, birth control or access (in definition, ACCESS) to health-care. All I've seen have been opposition to legislation that demands that other, uninterested parties to pay for it. 

Any woman is free to have whatever sexual life she desires, and practice whatever pregnancy-control strategies she sees fit. Asking me to pay for it is meddling in MY business. In fact, it's not just my (our(your)) political views and daily spending habits, decisions, and choices that are being meddled with, it's now come down to our religious and spiritual ones as well. And, when it comes down to it, where religion IS an explicitly protected freedom according to our constitution, there is NO mention made of healthcare or sex. 

So, where you see my opposition to funding Planned Parenthood as my intrusion on women's individual "rights" to sex, birth control and whatever else, I respond, with perfect, simple clarity: I want nothing to do with it. I mean NOTHING. I don't want a single post-it note that my dollars paid for to be used to pencil in an abortion appointment. 

The left can make whatever rationalizations they like, saying that abortion is only 3% of what they do there, but that is an agenda-driven statistic generated by the organization in question and bandied about by its supporters. 

Anytime Fox News, or Glenn Beck, or this organization the caught the PP and SE people admitting to all these heinous things puts out a story, the left immediately discards it as agenda-driven lie, but when PP puts out a succinct little pie graph showing how little of their business is in abortion, directly in answer to a public discussion about all the children they kill, and it's swallowed whole as untainted statistical fact. 

They claim something like 14% of their business being in the women's cancer screening business, but, as was pointed out in a previous thread, PP doesn't have anyone qualified in mammography, because they don't actually have a mammogram machine. 

So, when they're putting together this pie chart, do they give just as much weight to everything they tell a woman "yeah, your boobs look a little lumpy. You should probably go see a real doctor. But, if you ever need the limbs sucked off a baby, come back and see us, cause we got all sorts of equipment for that." as they do when they actually suck the limbs off a baby? 1 for 1?

I don't mind (morally) paying for preventative pregnancy-control, and I don't care how much or what kind of sex a woman has, but, if the measure of my "meddling" is not wanting to financially support Planned Parenthood, then go ahead and count me out. 

I'll stop meddling. 
Will they stop meddling in my wallet?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Even "free birth control pills" require a prescription, which requires a Dr visit, which isn't free unless you are on welfare.

They don't hand them out on street corners to anyone who asks.



> I'll stop meddling.
> Will they stop meddling in* my wallet*?


It sounds like some here think they are personally financing an entire PP clinic on their own, and ignoring all the other things their tiny tax contribution could be used for


----------



## kasilofhome

I found a way for plan parenthood to have more funds.

STOP FUNDING POLITICAL. PARTIES...


Other ppl expense

The financial ties between Planned Parenthood and Democrats run deep, with the taxpayer-funded women's health care and abortion provider's employees and political arms donating at least $25 million to party lawmakers over the past 15 years, according to a FoxNews.com analysis.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> $25 million to party lawmakers over the past 15 years


That's really not a lot of money when taken in context
http://mrc.org/articles/planned-parenthoods-biggest-donors-give-374-million-four-years



> Between 2010 and 2013, no fewer than 966 individual organizations donated to Planned Parenthood. Of those, 31 gave more than $1 million each during those four years, totaling $374,199,059. The seven highest donors made up $324.8 million of that.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Women's health care involves more than butchering unborn.


Agreed, and that's why 97% of PP services consists of health care issues other than abortions.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> Even "free birth control pills" require a prescription, which requires a Dr visit, which isn't free unless you are on welfare.
> 
> They don't hand them out on street corners to anyone who asks.
> 
> 
> It sounds like some here think they are personally financing an entire PP clinic on their own, and ignoring all the other things their tiny tax contribution could be used for



All Marketplace health plans and many other plans must cover the following list of preventive services for women without charging you a copayment or coinsurance. This is true even if you haven&#8217;t met your yearly deductible.

According to https://www.healthcare.gov/preventive-care-benefits/women/


Are we all now required to participate or not with out penalty? What again other than abortion does pp provide that is not covered by Medicaid or the affordable health care act.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Agreed, and that's why 97% of PP services consists of health care issues other than abortions.


Of those important healthcare ...what do they do in house...
Birth control, pap smears, groped and feels. Pregnant test.and abortions. The rest is out sourced.


----------



## Lisa in WA

kasilofhome said:


> Of those important healthcare ...what do they do in house...
> Birth control, pap smears, *groped and feels.* Pregnant test.and abortions. The rest is out sourced.


Is that what you really think? That gynecologists are perverts?


----------



## Evons hubby

basketti said:


> Is that what you really think? That gynecologists are perverts?


Apparently.... I found that comment a bit over the top myself. I don't even wanna know how she feels about proctologists.


----------



## kasilofhome

Well deal with it. It is a part of a full exam..

The proctologist.... that's be the bend and and grab you knees.

:happy:


----------



## Lisa in WA

kasilofhome said:


> Well deal with it. It is a part of a full exam..
> 
> The proctologist.... that's be the bend and and grab you knees.
> 
> :happy:


Groping and feeling?


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Of those important healthcare ...what do they do in house...
> Birth control, pap smears, groped and feels. Pregnant test.and abortions. The rest is out sourced.


i do not know, I've never needed any of their services, but they must provide quite a bit if they have all those women you say are lined up for an abortion and that's a small fraction of what they do.


----------



## Guest

dlmcafee said:


> Do you know the distance between pp and little rocks health care clinics from what their site reports there a 3 and what do you consider a reasonable distance?


Question asked Patchouli, I found the answer 1.6 miles, my G.d the distance. Sheesh.


----------



## kasilofhome

They do lots of referring..... So, much is out of their realm of services they offer but.... they have business cards for those that can provide the service.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Well deal with it. It is a part of a full exam..
> 
> The proctologist.... that's be the bend and and grab you knees.
> 
> :happy:


Another good reason to stay out of Alaska if they are still doing that up there! Down here in good ol kentucky they have a flashlight and camera tied to a garden hose they use for a much better exam.


----------



## kasilofhome

dlmcafee said:


> Question asked Patchouli, I found the answer 1.6 miles, my G.d the distance. Sheesh.


It's health to walk.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

This is stupid.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> It's health to walk.


Maybe for some folks, me? Might as well call the undertaker now, a mile long walk would be my last steps.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> We have heard from several on this board that they dont like feeding and caring for yet another generation from the cradle to the grave. I have even noticed that some of those are the same ones apposed to providing BC to young women.


B.C. is free to all women. In fact, anyone has ObummerUNcare its free. 63 y/o men as well have free ob/gyn care.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> In all areas? Do you think, just maybe, that Planned Parenthood might be the only place in an area that provides low cost birth control? I'll betcha it is in some areas. So, based on this scenario would the lack of easily accessible, low cost or free birth control increase or decrease the rate of abortion?


Betcha there's a link...b.c. is free. PP is in metro areas & in poor black areas...only game in town? Link?
BTW, "black lives matter"? 30% of abortions are killing black babies...Sanger is smiling. More blacks killed by abortion than any other means.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Betcha there's a link...b.c. is free. PP is in metro areas & in poor black areas...only game in town? Link?
> BTW, "black lives matter"? 30% of abortions are killing black babies...Sanger is smiling. More blacks killed by abortion than any other means.


Birth control wouldn't be free for me. The actual cost of the birth control would be but the office visit and the insurance premiums are definitely not. 

If you look up a few posts, your buddy posted a link that states birth control is free for "1 in 3 women". That isn't ALL women, is it?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Tiempo said:


> I'm not trying to be a jerk, but a couple of things stuck out for me here.
> 
> 1) Abortion was not an option as she is Catholic, but birth control was? (No biggie, to each their own, but how people pick and choose their doctrine according to what suits them always kind of confuses me)
> 
> 2) She's a college student, yet she quit using birth control as it, 'started making her feel bad', the presumption being from the way it's worded that she just went without an alternate method and continued having sex?
> 
> I hope she wasn't surprised to find herself pregnant.
> 
> ETA That said, I wish them both well.


I Think the point most conservatives are trying to get across is: killing an unborn child is off the charts wrong, esp when compared to the b.c. issue. All know that the Church is officially against b.c. except for rhythm method. (know what they call folks who use that method? "Parents")
Kinda like lying to your mom is a sin. So is robbing a bank after killing the guard. Which would be the greater sin?


----------



## Tricky Grama

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That's exactly what I was talking about. It's a difference in perspective.
> 
> Now, I can't speak for the republicans, as I'm not one, but I see the choice of wording in your last sentence as very telling as to the difference between our perspectives.
> 
> Most of the legislation I've seen from the right, and opposition to the left's legislation has been in an effort to disconnect one side's "business" from the other side's wallet.
> 
> I haven't seen any pushes to ban extra-marital sex, birth control or access (in definition, ACCESS) to health-care. All I've seen have been opposition to legislation that demands that other, uninterested parties to pay for it.
> 
> Any woman is free to have whatever sexual life she desires, and practice whatever pregnancy-control strategies she sees fit. Asking me to pay for it is meddling in MY business. In fact, it's not just my (our(your)) political views and daily spending habits, decisions, and choices that are being meddled with, it's now come down to our religious and spiritual ones as well. And, when it comes down to it, where religion IS an explicitly protected freedom according to our constitution, there is NO mention made of healthcare or sex.
> 
> So, where you see my opposition to funding Planned Parenthood as my intrusion on women's individual "rights" to sex, birth control and whatever else, I respond, with perfect, simple clarity: I want nothing to do with it. I mean NOTHING. I don't want a single post-it note that my dollars paid for to be used to pencil in an abortion appointment.
> 
> The left can make whatever rationalizations they like, saying that abortion is only 3% of what they do there, but that is an agenda-driven statistic generated by the organization in question and bandied about by its supporters.
> 
> Anytime Fox News, or Glenn Beck, or this organization the caught the PP and SE people admitting to all these heinous things puts out a story, the left immediately discards it as agenda-driven lie, but when PP puts out a succinct little pie graph showing how little of their business is in abortion, directly in answer to a public discussion about all the children they kill, and it's swallowed whole as untainted statistical fact.
> 
> They claim something like 14% of their business being in the women's cancer screening business, but, as was pointed out in a previous thread, PP doesn't have anyone qualified in mammography, because they don't actually have a mammogram machine.
> 
> So, when they're putting together this pie chart, do they give just as much weight to everything they tell a woman "yeah, your boobs look a little lumpy. You should probably go see a real doctor. But, if you ever need the limbs sucked off a baby, come back and see us, cause we got all sorts of equipment for that." as they do when they actually suck the limbs off a baby? 1 for 1?
> 
> I don't mind (morally) paying for preventative pregnancy-control, and I don't care how much or what kind of sex a woman has, but, if the measure of my "meddling" is not wanting to financially support Planned Parenthood, then go ahead and count me out.
> 
> I'll stop meddling.
> Will they stop meddling in my wallet?


Post of the decade award.


----------



## Guest

Irish Pixie said:


> Birth control wouldn't be free for me. The actual cost of the birth control would be but the office visit and the insurance premiums are definitely not.
> 
> If you look up a few posts, your buddy posted a link that states birth control is free for "1 in 3 women". *That isn't ALL women*, is it?


Ahh,,, now we also need to pay for financially well off women. 

According to the Afordable Care Act which covers people above the Medicaid cut off, the whole gambit of women's health issues and contraceptives are covered free of charge. You being well off enough to afford your own Cadillac coverage may not apply if that's the case. 

I thought your whole argument for support of planned parenthood was for the poor?


----------



## painterswife

dlmcafee said:


> Ahh,,, now we also need to pay for financially well off women.
> 
> According to the Afordable Care Act which covers people above the Medicaid cut off, the whole gambit of women's health issues and contraceptives are covered free of charge. You being well off enough to afford your own Cadillac coverage may not apply if that's the case.
> 
> I thought your whole argument for support of planned parenthood was for the poor?


Health insurance pays for the actual birth control. It does not pay for the other reproductive services that women need to go along with that. You can't get birth control with out having the exams and tests that go with them. That is what costs the money. For many women in the low income brackets they regular doctors offices are just to expensive so Planned parenthood and other low cost clinics help solve that problem.

Taking away that choice without other low cost clinics in place will take away this much needed service from the women that really need it.


----------



## Lisa in WA

http://obamacarefacts.com/2015/07/23/do-we-still-need-planned-parenthood/


----------



## Guest

painterswife said:


> Health insurance pays for the actual birth control. It does not pay for the other reproductive services that women need to go along with that. You can't get birth control with out having the exams and tests that go with them. That is what costs the money. For many women in the low income brackets they regular doctors offices are just to expensive so Planned parenthood and other low cost clinics help solve that problem.
> 
> Taking away that choice without other low cost clinics in place will take away this much needed service from the women that really need it.


I guess you did not read the link provided in the earlier post. Your wrong they supply all that pp does but abortion without copay or charge to supplemental insurance.


----------



## painterswife

dlmcafee said:


> I guess you did not read the link provided in the earlier post. Your are wrong they supply all that pp does but abortion without copay or charge to supplemental insurance.


Who? Which post #.


----------



## Guest

All Marketplace health plans and many other plans must cover the following list of preventive services for women without charging you a copayment or coinsurance. This is true even if you haven&#8217;t met your yearly deductible.

This applies only when these services are delivered by an in-network provider.

Anemia screening on a routine basis for pregnant women
Breast Cancer Genetic Test Counseling (BRCA) for women at higher risk for breast cancer
Breast Cancer Mammography screenings every 1 to 2 years for women over 40
Breast Cancer Chemoprevention counseling for women at higher risk
Breastfeeding comprehensive support and counseling from trained providers, and access to breastfeeding supplies, for pregnant and nursing women
Cervical Cancer screening for sexually active women
Chlamydia Infection screening for younger women and other women at higher risk
Contraception: Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling, as prescribed by a health care provider for women with reproductive capacity (not including abortifacient drugs). This does not apply to health plans sponsored by certain exempt &#8220;religious employers.&#8221;
Domestic and interpersonal violence screening and counseling for all women
Folic Acid supplements for women who may become pregnant
Gestational diabetes screening for women 24 to 28 weeks pregnant and those at high risk of developing gestational diabetes
Gonorrhea screening for all women at higher risk
Hepatitis B screening for pregnant women at their first prenatal visit
HIV screening and counseling for sexually active women
Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA Test every 3 years for women with normal cytology results who are 30 or older
Osteoporosis screening for women over age 60 depending on risk factors
Rh Incompatibility screening for all pregnant women and follow-up testing for women at higher risk
Sexually Transmitted Infections counseling for sexually active women
Syphilis screening for all pregnant women or other women at increased risk
Tobacco Use screening and interventions for all women, and expanded counseling for pregnant tobacco users
Urinary tract or other infection screening for pregnant women
Well-woman visits to get recommended services for women under 65
https://www.healthcare.gov/preventive-care-benefits/women/


----------



## painterswife

You do understand that those are all preventative care. PP also provides care for ongoing women heath services with regards to ongoing conditions not covered in that list that these women would be required to pay for as part of their deductible. You might be surprised just how much ongoing health care can be required because of the problems women have because of our reproductive systems.


----------



## Guest

painterswife said:


> You do understand that those are all preventative care. PP also provides care for ongoing women heath services with regards to ongoing conditions not covered in that list that these women would be required to pay for as part of their deductible. You might be surprised just how much ongoing health care can be required because of the problems women have because of our reproductive systems.


True i am not a woman and only have knowledge of woman's health care via my wife. All the services provided by Planned are provided for through Medicaid and the ACA. On going treatment treatment at scale payments just like pp. 

I have experience with ongoing health problems having dealt with cancer for the last year. I am far from well enough off to afford the treatments but I deal with it. I find hard to understand your arguments of availability and cost when they do not hold true factually.


----------



## SLFarmMI

dlmcafee said:


> All Marketplace health plans and many other plans must cover the following list of preventive services for women without charging you a copayment or coinsurance. This is true even if you havenât met your yearly deductible.
> 
> This applies only when these services are delivered by an in-network provider.
> 
> Anemia screening on a routine basis for pregnant women
> Breast Cancer Genetic Test Counseling (BRCA) for women at higher risk for breast cancer
> Breast Cancer Mammography screenings every 1 to 2 years for women over 40
> Breast Cancer Chemoprevention counseling for women at higher risk
> Breastfeeding comprehensive support and counseling from trained providers, and access to breastfeeding supplies, for pregnant and nursing women
> Cervical Cancer screening for sexually active women
> Chlamydia Infection screening for younger women and other women at higher risk
> Contraception: Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling, as prescribed by a health care provider for women with reproductive capacity (not including abortifacient drugs). This does not apply to health plans sponsored by certain exempt âreligious employers.â
> Domestic and interpersonal violence screening and counseling for all women
> Folic Acid supplements for women who may become pregnant
> Gestational diabetes screening for women 24 to 28 weeks pregnant and those at high risk of developing gestational diabetes
> Gonorrhea screening for all women at higher risk
> Hepatitis B screening for pregnant women at their first prenatal visit
> HIV screening and counseling for sexually active women
> Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA Test every 3 years for women with normal cytology results who are 30 or older
> Osteoporosis screening for women over age 60 depending on risk factors
> Rh Incompatibility screening for all pregnant women and follow-up testing for women at higher risk
> Sexually Transmitted Infections counseling for sexually active women
> Syphilis screening for all pregnant women or other women at increased risk
> Tobacco Use screening and interventions for all women, and expanded counseling for pregnant tobacco users
> Urinary tract or other infection screening for pregnant women
> Well-woman visits to get recommended services for women under 65
> https://www.healthcare.gov/preventive-care-benefits/women/


But you'll notice that your list does not include any birth control that could be considered to be an abortifacient nor does it cover abortions. So, if my doctor and I decide that a particular form of birth control is best for me, it may or may not be covered. Nor does my insurance have to cover an abortion. 

Let's just be honest here and call this whole "other places offer the same services as PP so PP isn't needed" argument what it really is. It is a red herring argument designed to drum up support to eliminate PP so that abortions will be unavailable or out of financial reach for most women.


----------



## kasilofhome

did you know that if you are on food stamps and you like and want booze and it is safe for you ... even if the store carries booze... you can't get it with out paying for it out of pocket... the horrors.

Contraception: Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling, as prescribed by a health care provider for women with reproductive capacity (not including abortifacient drugs). This does not apply to health plans sponsored by certain exempt &#8220;religious employers.&#8221;


----------



## Guest

SLFarmMI said:


> But you'll notice that your list does not include any birth control that could be considered to be an abortifacient nor does it cover abortions. So, if my doctor and I decide that a particular form of birth control is best for me, it may or may not be covered. Nor does my insurance have to cover an abortion.
> 
> Let's just be honest here and call this whole "other places offer the same services as PP so PP isn't needed" argument what it really is. It is a red herring argument designed to drum up support to eliminate PP so that abortions will be unavailable or out of financial reach for most women.



Yep, your right abortive care is the only thing not supplied, so why tout the 97% as free and easily availabe only at pp as your argument, when in fact that line is false. 

If you chose not to follow what your doctor prescribes that is a personal choice and you should pay for it, including abortive care, which the government has no business being involved in other than emergency care related to the mother.


----------



## painterswife

dlmcafee said:


> True i am not a woman and only have knowledge of woman's health care via my wife. *All the services provided by Planned are provided for through Medicaid and the ACA. On going treatment treatment at scale payments just like pp.
> *
> I have experience with ongoing health problems having dealt with cancer for the last year. I am far from well enough off to afford the treatments but I deal with it. I find hard to understand your arguments of availability and cost when they do not hold true factually.


There are women on insurance through their workplaces that still have problems affording these services. Planned Parenthood is in those neighborhoods and works with medicaid and insurance companies and can step up and bridge the gap between them. This is the clinic of choice for many medicaid users. 

*Why do you or anyone else get to decide they can not use these services at Planned Parenthood just because they also provide abortions?*


----------



## kasilofhome

Because they truly out source and thus there is a delay for real care.

Go to pp, they do the basic..but then the out source you to a real medical clinic for medical care. 

Skip plan parenthood go straight to the medical clinics get the care sooner.

If you want and abortion or just birth control they are medically able to do those things are have that equipment, and training for that type of care. But the out source the rest.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Because they truly out source and thus there is a delay for real care.
> 
> Go to pp, they do the basic..but then the out source you to a real medical clinic for medical care.
> 
> Skip plan parenthood go straight to the medical clinics get the care sooner.
> 
> If you want and abortion or just birth control they are medically able to do those things are have that equipment, and training for that type of care. But the out source the rest.


My clinic does the same thing. Every clinic in my area does the same thing. Not one is a PP clinic. You get everyday basic care and get affordable care and go to the hospital for mammograms and special tests.


----------



## kasilofhome

You go to medical clinics in your area and they can't do medical services?

Dang, in Alaska, and every community I have ever lived

Something here might help you 

http://www.freeclinics.com/sta/wyoming


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> You go to medical clinics in your area and they can't do medical services?


Quite often in this area patients are sent to better equipped hospitals for care because our own hospitals are simply not as well equipped or staffed as are those in larger cities. I use our local hospitals family care clinic as my "go to" doctor, they nearly always refer me to other doctors for the actual tests or services I need beyond checking vitals or writing scrips when needed.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> You go to medical clinics in your area and they can't do medical services?
> 
> Dang, in Alaska, and every community I have ever lived
> 
> Something here might help you
> 
> http://www.freeclinics.com/sta/wyoming


These clinics provide the same services your local doctors office would do. The same thing that Planned Parenthood offices do. Mammograms and other services that require specialized equipment and you go to the hospital.

Please explain to me exactly what services that your local clinic does that a Planned Parenthood would not.

PS the closet clinic in your list to me is an hour a way. You google a lot but rarely provide good information.


----------



## Patchouli

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That's exactly what I was talking about. It's a difference in perspective.
> 
> Now, I can't speak for the republicans, as I'm not one, but I see the choice of wording in your last sentence as very telling as to the difference between our perspectives.
> 
> Most of the legislation I've seen from the right, and opposition to the left's legislation has been in an effort to disconnect one side's "business" from the other side's wallet.
> 
> I haven't seen any pushes to ban extra-marital sex, birth control or access (in definition, ACCESS) to health-care. All I've seen have been opposition to legislation that demands that other, uninterested parties to pay for it.
> 
> Any woman is free to have whatever sexual life she desires, and practice whatever pregnancy-control strategies she sees fit. Asking me to pay for it is meddling in MY business. In fact, it's not just my (our(your)) political views and daily spending habits, decisions, and choices that are being meddled with, it's now come down to our religious and spiritual ones as well. And, when it comes down to it, where religion IS an explicitly protected freedom according to our constitution, there is NO mention made of healthcare or sex.
> 
> So, where you see my opposition to funding Planned Parenthood as my intrusion on women's individual "rights" to sex, birth control and whatever else, I respond, with perfect, simple clarity: I want nothing to do with it. I mean NOTHING. I don't want a single post-it note that my dollars paid for to be used to pencil in an abortion appointment.
> 
> The left can make whatever rationalizations they like, saying that abortion is only 3% of what they do there, but that is an agenda-driven statistic generated by the organization in question and bandied about by its supporters.
> 
> Anytime Fox News, or Glenn Beck, or this organization the caught the PP and SE people admitting to all these heinous things puts out a story, the left immediately discards it as agenda-driven lie, but when PP puts out a succinct little pie graph showing how little of their business is in abortion, directly in answer to a public discussion about all the children they kill, and it's swallowed whole as untainted statistical fact.
> 
> They claim something like 14% of their business being in the women's cancer screening business, but, as was pointed out in a previous thread, PP doesn't have anyone qualified in mammography, because they don't actually have a mammogram machine.
> 
> So, when they're putting together this pie chart, do they give just as much weight to everything they tell a woman "yeah, your boobs look a little lumpy. You should probably go see a real doctor. But, if you ever need the limbs sucked off a baby, come back and see us, cause we got all sorts of equipment for that." as they do when they actually suck the limbs off a baby? 1 for 1?
> 
> I don't mind (morally) paying for preventative pregnancy-control, and I don't care how much or what kind of sex a woman has, but, if the measure of my "meddling" is not wanting to financially support Planned Parenthood, then go ahead and count me out.
> 
> I'll stop meddling.
> Will they stop meddling in my wallet?


So then you have no health insurance I presume? Because we all chip in for stuff for other people when we pay our health insurance premiums. I don't see how it is any different paying for it with tax dollars rather than a monthly premium to Blue Cross Blue Shield? That's my whole sticking point here. The vast majority of people yelling about not with my money are not opting out of health insurance. I'd take the whole thing a little more seriously if people had some skin in the game and were willing to put their money where their mouth is and I am not seeing that. 

And beyond that you know what? Birth control pills are used for a wide range of health issues that have nothing to do with sex. Heavy periods, PCOS, PMS, Acne and Endometriosis are all treated with the pill. So not paying for the pill because some woman might be having sex you disapprove of or because you believe every sperm is sacred means that you are interfering in her routine health care that again is none of your business.


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> Of those important healthcare ...what do they do in house...
> Birth control, pap smears, groped and feels. Pregnant test.and abortions. The rest is out sourced.


Groped and feels? Really? 

As I proved with my link to our local PP they do more at their clinics. So far you have no offered one shred of proof for your claim they outsource everything.


----------



## Patchouli

> Originally Posted by *dlmcafee*
> _Do you know the distance between pp and little rocks health care clinics from what their site reports there a 3 and what do you consider a reasonable distance?_





dlmcafee said:


> Question asked Patchouli, I found the answer 1.6 miles, my G.d the distance. Sheesh.


I missed this, sorry. Are you talking about PP's site? I am looking at it now and not seeing what you are saying?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> They claim something like *14% of their business being in the women's cancer screening business, but, as was pointed out in a previous thread, PP doesn't have anyone qualified in mammography*, because they don't actually have a mammogram machine.


You're doing what you complained about:



> The left can make whatever rationalizations they like, saying that abortion is only 3% of what they do there, but that is *an agenda-driven statistic* generated by the organization in question and *bandied about by its supporters.*


Not all cancers are breast cancers, but that's the only one some keep bringing up


----------



## SLFarmMI

dlmcafee said:


> Yep, your right abortive care is the only thing not supplied, so why tout the 97% as free and easily availabe only at pp as your argument, when in fact that line is false.
> 
> If you chose not to follow what your doctor prescribes that is a personal choice and you should pay for it, including abortive care, which the government has no business being involved in other than emergency care related to the mother.


You apparently missed the point. Your argument appears to be that birth control is available in other places so PP is not needed and should be eliminated. This is a red herring argument designed to gather support to eliminate PP and thereby make abortions unattainable and unaffordable. 

You offer the claim that the ACA requires insurance to cover birth control as your proof that PP is not needed. The fact is that the ACA does not require any birth control that could be considered to be an abortifacient to be covered. So, if my doctor and I decide that one of those types of BC to be the best for me, I'm out of luck and have to pay out of pocket. In that case, I would go to PP because they would offer the BC at a cost I could afford. 

BTW, I never claimed that birth control was only available at PP. However, it very may be the only affordable place due to many factors, one of which is described above.


----------



## Guest

painterswife said:


> There are women on insurance through their workplaces that still have problems affording these services. Planned Parenthood is in those neighborhoods and works with medicaid and insurance companies and can step up and bridge the gap between them. This is the clinic of choice for many medicaid users.
> 
> *Why do you or anyone else get to decide they can not use these services at Planned Parenthood just because they also provide abortions?*


Why do you get to decide where tax dollars are spent anymore than anyone else. Do you hold a position of authority anymore than I, that your belief trumps mine? Is it not the democratic process at work here, or do you feel it is only applicable for your way? I can not force anything, but you seem to think I can. Are you attempting to control my beliefs?


By the way where did I say they could not use them, my only opposition is the government funding to an organization that preform elective abortions. Use them all you want it is your body to do to it as you feel appropriate.


----------



## painterswife

dlmcafee said:


> Why do you get to decide where tax dollars are spent anymore than anyone else. Do you hold a position of authority anymore than I, that your belief trumps mine? Is it not the democratic process at work here, or do you feel it is only applicable for your way? I can not force anything, but you seem to think I can. Are you attempting to control my beliefs?
> 
> 
> By the way where did I say they could not use them, my only opposition is the government funding to an organization that preform elective abortions. Use them all you want it is your body to do to it as you feel appropriate.


Actually the majority of those tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood are going there because individual citizens are deciding to go there using their medicaid to get the services. They choose to use Planned Parenthood because the clinic s there where they live. It is their local health clinic and their choice of services.

I am not choosing for anyone. They are choosing for themselves.


----------



## Guest

SLFarmMI said:


> You apparently missed the point. Your argument appears to be that birth control is available in other places so PP is not needed and should be eliminated. This is a red herring argument designed to gather support to eliminate PP and thereby make abortions unattainable and unaffordable.
> 
> You offer the claim that the ACA requires insurance to cover birth control as your proof that PP is not needed. The fact is that the ACA does not require any birth control that could be considered to be an abortifacient to be covered. So, if my doctor and I decide that one of those types of BC to be the best for me, I'm out of luck and have to pay out of pocket. In that case, I would go to PP because they would offer the BC at a cost I could afford.
> 
> BTW, I never claimed that birth control was only available at PP. However, it very may be the only affordable place due to many factors, one of which is described above.


You have failed to prove any of that to me. I have no opposition to pp other than government funding of an organization that preformed elective abortions. It's the supporters of the organization that wish to argue the unavailability of the other "97%" of their serviced which is false.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> You have failed to prove any of that to me. I have no opposition to pp other than government funding of an organization that preformed elective abortions. It's the supporters of the organization that wish to argue the unavailability of the other "97%" of their serviced which is false.


Govts fund many medical facilities which also provide abortions.
The fantasy is that they are funding the actual abortions, or that defunding PP will reduce the number of abortions


----------



## kasilofhome

Thus plan parenthood is redundant per those in support. Thank you bear.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Thus plan parenthood is redundant per those in support. Thank you bear.


Any thing more than one is "redundant"

That doesn't mean they aren't needed, or that they don't provide good services to many people.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> Govts fund many medical facilities which also provide abortions.
> The fantasy is that they are funding the actual abortions, or that defunding PP will reduce the number of abortions


Thank you,,, when I find those that preform *elective* abortions I will feel the same about them. Never said it will reduce abortions were did that lie come from.


----------



## Patchouli

dlmcafee said:


> You have failed to prove any of that to me. I have no opposition to pp other than government funding of an organization that preformed elective abortions. It's the supporters of the organization that wish to argue the unavailability of the other "97%" of their serviced which is false.


The government money only goes to cover the other 97%.


----------



## kasilofhome

And of that 97percent how darn much of that is to meet with a person and tell them they we can't do that.... we will charge for the consultation and private vide you of where to go for real care?....


----------



## Guest

Patchouli said:


> The government money only goes to cover the other 97%.


As it is claimed, that still does not prove the unavailability of those services at convenient locations that do not preform elective abortions. Do away with that 3% and I would not arguee. If that is unreasonable to the supporter it indicates to me that the 3% is the most important procedure supplied and makes their argument invalid (to me).


----------



## Patchouli

dlmcafee said:


> As it is claimed, that still does not prove the unavailability of those services at convenient locations that do not preform elective abortions. Do away with that 3% and I would not arguee. If that is unreasonable to the supporter it indicates to me that the 3% is the most important procedure supplied and makes their argument invalid (to me).


Did you see my response to your question on the last page? I missed your post previously. I tried to find the 3 clinics you mentioned in the 1.6 mile radius and couldn't.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> And of that 97percent how darn much of that is to meet with a person and tell them they we can't do that.... we will charge for the consultation and private vide you of where to go for real care?....


I asked before but will ask again. What services does your local clinic provide that a PP would not?


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> And of that 97percent how darn much of that is to meet with a person and tell them they we can't do that.... we will charge for the consultation and private vide you of where to go for real care?....


Like I said multiple times before until you provide proof that they do not provide all the services they claim I will have to assume you pulled that fact from your nether regions. I provided a link to our local PP showing that they provide all of the services you claim they don't. It's time to put up or find another imaginary fact to harp on.


----------



## Guest

Patchouli said:


> Did you see my response to your question on the last page? I missed your post previously. I tried to find the 3 clinics you mentioned in the 1.6 mile radius and couldn't.



The address are listed on location finder left hand side of the page for the counties health department I said there were 3 listed in the original question. The central one on 8th street west is 1.6 miles fro the pp office on 12th Street West as listed on the net according to google maps.


----------



## painterswife

Patchouli said:


> Like I said multiple times before until you provide proof that they do not provide all the services they claim I will have to assume you pulled that fact from your nether regions. I provided a link to our local PP showing that they provide all of the services you claim they don't. It's time to put up or find another imaginary fact to harp on.


She has now been asked this 7 of 8 times at least. I don't expect an answer. Same old crappy information with no substance behind it.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Patchouli said:


> So then you have no health insurance I presume? Because we all chip in for stuff for other people when we pay our health insurance premiums. I don't see how it is any different paying for it with tax dollars rather than a monthly premium to Blue Cross Blue Shield? That's my whole sticking point here. The vast majority of people yelling about not with my money are not opting out of health insurance. I'd take the whole thing a little more seriously if people had some skin in the game and were willing to put their money where their mouth is and I am not seeing that.
> 
> And beyond that you know what? Birth control pills are used for a wide range of health issues that have nothing to do with sex. Heavy periods, PCOS, PMS, Acne and Endometriosis are all treated with the pill. So not paying for the pill because some woman might be having sex you disapprove of or because you believe every sperm is sacred means that you are interfering in her routine health care that again is none of your business.


You quoted my post, but you failed to actually address anything I said, and it's clear that you didn't even read everything I said (some things I have repeated multiple times). You're better than that. There are several posters (on both sides of this debate, I'll admit) that I've come to expect that sort of tactic from, but, even though we disagree on nearly every topic, I've come to consider you more reasonable and engaging than that. 

Specifically, in reference to your comment about me not wanting to pay for others' birth control because they are having sex that I disapprove of: the last sentences in the post that you quoted was... 


"I don't mind (morally) paying for preventative pregnancy-control, and I don't care how much or what kind of sex a woman has, but, if the measure of my "meddling" is not wanting to financially support Planned Parenthood, then go ahead and count me out. "

I do, in fact, have health insurance, but the key difference between that and my tax dollars going to PP is that health insurance is my choice to pay for or not (at least it was, until the government decided to start meddling in that part of my life as well). 

The point that I built in that post was that I don't believe, for a second, the PP pie chart, and don't want to risk my tax dollars going to an organization that might just use one of my dollars to facilitate the killing of an unborn child. 

That chart was designed by Media Matters, in direct response to heat one of their pet non-profits was receiving about their abortion services. According to their own recording, PP counts each service separately, so when a woman comes in for 1 abortion, she is tallied as having 1 abortion, and 5 or 6 other services. Heck, the pregnancy test they give her to make sure she needs an abortion is counted as 1 pre-natal service. If they give her a condom on the way out the door, that's another one. Some have speculated that, since an abortion is conducted over the course of at least two visits, the number of "services" provided for one abortion may be 10 or 12 or more. 

Regardless of where you fall on the gut check of their claims, this much is FACT, sourced directly from PP's own reporting.

1- because of their "de bundling", each abortion in that 3% represents several more tallies in the other categories. 
2- around 10% of their patients in a given year come there for abortive services. 
3- they don't, because they're not required to, separate state and federal funds in their reporting. 

Ive said it several times over the various threads on the subject; my political view is that we shouldn't be paying for, federally, for any sort of health care- for anybody- but I'm willing to put that aside to stay as far away from the abortion business as I possibly can. Free condoms in school, BC by unsolicited prescription to every household, whatever, I'll pay my share of that bill without protest if we were to ban abortion. 

Likelihood of that aside, I am in a situation where my tax dollars are sent to an organization that performs abortions, whether it is 3%, or 10%, or 0.0001% of their business. They've shown themselves willing to twist figures in order to put the best spin on their most controversial service, and that leaves me unwilling to trust that they won't use my money to pay for them. As I said before, in the post you quoted, if they buy a pack of post-it notes with my tax dollars, I don't one one single sheet to be used to remind the executioner of the time his next victim is coming in. I don't want a drop of ink in a pen that I paid for to be used to write that note. 

If the pro choice side wants us off PP's back then either cut their federal funding or get them out of the abortion business. Let their benefactors operate separate clinics where they can kill unborn children, but one of my dollars has 0% chance of crossing their threshold.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> Ahh,,, now we also need to pay for financially well off women.
> 
> According to the Afordable Care Act which covers people above the Medicaid cut off, the whole gambit of women's health issues and contraceptives are covered free of charge. You being well off enough to afford your own Cadillac coverage may not apply if that's the case.
> 
> I thought your whole argument for support of planned parenthood was for the poor?


The OP has stated ad nauseam that birth control and women's healthcare is *free for all women*. It's not. Do you understand now?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Deleted double post


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Thank you,,, when I find those that preform *elective* abortions I will feel the same about them. Never said it will reduce abortions were did that lie come from.


Most clinics that provide abortions will do them for any *legal* reason.

Wanting to reduce the overall number of abortions is the stated goal of the so called "pro life" crowd, so once again, don't assume everything I say is directly related to you personally.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> Most clinics that provide abortions will do them for any *legal* reason.
> 
> Wanting to reduce the overall number of abortions is the stated goal of the so called "pro life" crowd, so once again, don't assume everything I say is directly related to you personally.


Then do not quote me and lie. Post your assumption as you wish, you responded to my post so yes it was directed at me, for you did not qualify it any other way. 

Which crowd are you, frankly I don't belong to a crowd in this matter and have openly stated my reason of opposition, my moral beliefs have no standing on others, but my political ones do (to the extent of the pen and the vote) including my beliefs in federal funding.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Then *do not quote me and lie*. Post your assumption as you wish, you responded to my post so yes it was directed at me, for you did not qualify it any other way.
> 
> Which crowd are you, frankly *I don't belong to a crowd *in this matter and have openly stated my reason of opposition, my moral beliefs have no standing on others, but my political ones do (to the extent of the pen and the vote) including my beliefs in federal funding.


I didn't lie, so no problem there, and if you truly aren't a member of a certain "crowd" then that remark has nothing to do with you either.

You have a habit of assuming everything is about you, and then getting all huffy and defensive, when I've told you many times, it's NOT about you at all.


----------



## Tricky Grama

SLFarmMI said:


> But you'll notice that your list does not include any birth control that could be considered to be an abortifacient nor does it cover abortions. So, if my doctor and I decide that a particular form of birth control is best for me, it may or may not be covered. Nor does my insurance have to cover an abortion.
> 
> Let's just be honest here and call this whole "other places offer the same services as PP so PP isn't needed" argument what it really is. It is a red herring argument designed to drum up support to eliminate PP so that abortions will be unavailable or out of financial reach for most women.


Your argument is not a good one, there's "HUNDREDS" of b.c. methods covered. 
Only a few ins. won't cover abortifacients-which are OTC, BTW. 
How much do you expect the rest of us to pay for? I know you are speaking of your ins. thru work so we're not paying for that but we ARE paying for medicaid b.c.


----------



## gapeach

*More good news!
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/14/arkansas-becomes-4th-state-to-de-fund-planned-parenthood-after-it-sells-aborted-babies/ ^ * | August 14, 2015 | Steven Ertelt 
Arkansas has become the fourth state to de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business in the wake of six videos exposing how the abortion giant sells the body parts of aborted babies for research. The state follows Alabama and Louisiana, which are revoking a contract with Planned Parenthood using state Medicaid dollars, and New Hampshire, which zapped $650,000 in state taxpayer funding. 

 Gov.* Asa Hutchinson said he is ending state Medicaid payments to the Planned Parenthood abortion business &#8211; even as the Obama administration is threatening Alabama and Louisiana for doing so.* Hutchinson directed the Department of Human Services to terminate its existing agreements with Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma, according to a press release from his office. 
 Planned Parenthood received more than $51,000 in taxpayer-funded Medicaid payments in Arkansas over the past fiscal year and, even though the funding doesn&#8217;t go to abortions directly, it is fungible and frees up Planned Parenthood dollars to promote and perform abortions. 

 The press release says: 
 &#8220;It is apparent that after the recent revelations on the actions of Planned Parenthood, that this organization does not represent the values of the people of our state and Arkansas is better served by terminating any and all existing contracts with them. This includes their affiliated organization, Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma. 
 &#8220;I appreciate the legislature&#8217;s leadership on this important issue, especially that of Senator Eddie Joe Williams and Representative David Meeks.&#8221; In Alabama, Governor Robert Bentley sent a letter to the head of the Planned Parenthood abortion business in Alabama notifying it of his decision. In Louisiana, the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals informed Planned Parenthood it is exercising its right to terminate Planned Parenthood&#8217;s Medicaid provider agreement. 
 Meanwhile, in Louisiana, according to the Medicaid provider contract between DHH and Planned Parenthood, along with relevant Louisiana law, either party can choose to cancel the contract at will after providing written notice. 
 But the Obama administration wrote threatening letters to each state claiming their move to de-fund Planned Parenthood violates federal law. As The Hill reports: 

Good for Arkansas!
They&#8217;re following Gov. Walker&#8217;s lead. Wisconsin was first.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Your argument is not a good one, there's "HUNDREDS" of b.c. methods covered.
> Only a few ins. won't cover abortifacients-which are OTC, BTW.
> How much do you expect the rest of us to pay for? I know you are speaking of your ins. thru work so we're not paying for that but we ARE paying for medicaid b.c.


Aren't the only abortifacients that are available over the counter emergency contraceptives? Some variation of RU-486? Any of the other types- birth control pills for the most part- require a prescription, don't they?


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> *More good news!
> http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/14/arkansas-becomes-4th-state-to-de-fund-planned-parenthood-after-it-sells-aborted-babies/ ^ * | August 14, 2015 | Steven Ertelt
> Arkansas has become the fourth state to de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business in the wake of six videos exposing how the abortion giant sells the body parts of aborted babies for research. The state follows Alabama and Louisiana, which are revoking a contract with Planned Parenthood using state Medicaid dollars, and New Hampshire, which zapped $650,000 in state taxpayer funding.
> 
> Gov.* Asa Hutchinson said he is ending state Medicaid payments to the Planned Parenthood abortion business &#8211; even as the Obama administration is threatening Alabama and Louisiana for doing so.* Hutchinson directed the Department of Human Services to terminate its existing agreements with Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma, according to a press release from his office.
> Planned Parenthood received more than $51,000 in taxpayer-funded Medicaid payments in Arkansas over the past fiscal year and, even though the funding doesn&#8217;t go to abortions directly, it is fungible and frees up Planned Parenthood dollars to promote and perform abortions.
> 
> The press release says:
> &#8220;It is apparent that after the recent revelations on the actions of Planned Parenthood, that this organization does not represent the values of the people of our state and Arkansas is better served by terminating any and all existing contracts with them. This includes their affiliated organization, Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma.
> &#8220;I appreciate the legislature&#8217;s leadership on this important issue, especially that of Senator Eddie Joe Williams and Representative David Meeks.&#8221; In Alabama, Governor Robert Bentley sent a letter to the head of the Planned Parenthood abortion business in Alabama notifying it of his decision. In Louisiana, the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals informed Planned Parenthood it is exercising its right to terminate Planned Parenthood&#8217;s Medicaid provider agreement.
> Meanwhile, in Louisiana, according to the Medicaid provider contract between DHH and Planned Parenthood, along with relevant Louisiana law, either party can choose to cancel the contract at will after providing written notice.
> But the Obama administration wrote threatening letters to each state claiming their move to de-fund Planned Parenthood violates federal law. As The Hill reports:
> 
> Good for Arkansas!
> They&#8217;re following Gov. Walker&#8217;s lead. Wisconsin was first.


What are the poor people of these states going to do for healthcare if the federal government goes through with it's threat to cutoff federal medicaid funding? The pro unborn don't care if a kid that's already born dies of something that could be treated, right? It's all about the unborn... 

You people (collective you) are a sick and sad lot of potential killers... but that's OK because you made it so a woman that wants an abortion has to travel to get one, right?


----------



## gapeach

Irish Pixie said:


> What are the poor people of these states going to do for healthcare if the federal government goes through with it's threat to cutoff federal medicaid funding? The pro unborn don't care if a kid that's already born dies of something that could be treated, right? It's all about the unborn...
> 
> You people (collective you) are a sick and sad lot of potential killers... but that's OK because you made it so a woman that wants an abortion has to travel to get one, right?


That is an exaggeration. Women don't have to go to PP to get healthcare.
It is also sick (collectively) that some women continue to get multiple abortions in lieu of any kind of birth control.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> That is an exaggeration. Women don't have to go to PP to get healthcare.
> It is also sick (collectively) that some women continue to get multiple abortions in lieu of any kind of birth control.


Which part of my post is an exaggeration? 

So you admit what you (the pro unborn) are doing to poor people, in poor states, is sick? That is a start. 

It may surprise you to know that I personally don't support abortion as a form of birth control either, but I have absolutely no right to tell another woman what she can do with her body. Neither do you.


----------



## gapeach

Irish Pixie said:


> Which part of my post is an exaggeration?
> 
> *So you admit what you (the pro unborn) are doing to poor people, in poor states, is sick? That is a start. *
> 
> It may surprise you to know that I personally don't support abortion as a form of birth control either, but I have absolutely no right to tell another woman what she can do with her body. Neither do you.


As usual, you are twisting the words to fit your agenda.

The law should be changed and I have hope that it will be. There certainly should be a quota on how many abortions one person should have.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> As usual, you are twisting the words to fit your agenda.
> 
> The law should be changed and I have hope that it will be. There certainly should be a quota on how many abortions one person should have.


If the federal government goes through with its threat to cutoff funding medicaid it will effect ALL people in those states on medicaid. Did you think about that when you were celebrating your "win"?

I'm not the one with an agenda. What I support is totally and completely legal in all states in the US and has been for over 40 years.


----------



## kasilofhome

Rational folks do have free birth control with them at all times unless the are victims of a sexual violent crime. 

Quit treating rational responsible people like animals in rut. Maybe it's how one is raised.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Rational folks do have free birth control with them at all times unless the are victims of a sexual violent crime.
> 
> Quit treating rational responsible people like animals in rut. Maybe it's how one is raised.


Wrong! I am quite rational, havent carried around any birth control for years.... and I paid cash for it on those few occasions in my adult life that I did.


----------



## Guest

Irish Pixie said:


> If the federal government goes through with its threat to cutoff funding medicaid it will effect ALL people in those states on medicaid. Did you think about that when you were celebrating your "win"?
> 
> I'm not the one with an agenda. What I support is totally and completely legal in all states in the US and has been for over 40 years.


Legality has nothing to do with federal funding in this case other than it is not legal at this time for the government to fund elective abortions. Abortions will not go away, their are plenty with your philosophy that will support it financially legal or not and doctors to preform them. 

Totally separate the operations into 2 separate stand alone seperate organizations with no money cross over and you would see less resistance to your cause I believe. 

I would venture to say though that being the government funding is so important in your eyes that that new venture has a higher probability of failure in a free market.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Rational folks do have free birth control with them at all times unless the are victims of a sexual violent crime.
> 
> Quit treating rational responsible people like animals in rut. Maybe it's how one is raised.


Perhaps in your reality that's true.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Wrong! I am quite rational, havent carried around any birth control for years.... and I paid cash for it on those few occasions in my adult life that I did.


You are very rational and you used logic and facts and have publicly informed the masses just what I am saying .....personal responsibility works.


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> I would venture to say though that being the government funding is so important in your eyes that that new venture has a higher probability of failure in a free market.


I doubt that, even when abortion was illegal the industry flourished without any form of government funding. As long as there is demand for something someone somewhere is going to furnish a supply and make money doing it. Street drugs are illegal, and there is no government funding. Many are becoming quite wealthy not in spite of their being illegal, but because they are illegal.


----------



## gapeach

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Wrong! I am quite rational, havent carried around any birth control for years.... and I paid cash for it on those few occasions in my adult life that I did.


Most adult men don't carry it around, do they? I feel sure that married men don't carry it around with them.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> You are very rational and you used logic and facts and have publicly informed the masses just what I am saying .....personal responsibility works.


Thank you, I do have to admit it was not ALL logic and rationalism on my part that kept me out of the baby game... there was a certain amount of dumb luck involved too!


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> Most adult men don't carry it around, do they? I feel sure that married men don't carry it around with them.


I cant speak for others, but when I was single I did keep a few condoms handy sometimes. Being married to women that had been spayed helped out a lot too. Married men should not be carrying them and let their wives find them! LOL Dont ask me how I know that! :smack


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I doubt that, even when abortion was illegal the industry flourished without any form of government funding. As long as there is demand for something someone somewhere is going to furnish a supply and make money doing it. Street drugs are illegal, and there is no government funding. Many are becoming quite wealthy not in spite of their being illegal, but because they are illegal.


You failed to read the "in your eyes", but yes I agree with you.


----------



## gapeach

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I cant speak for others, but when I was single I did keep a few condoms handy sometimes. Being married to women that had been spayed helped out a lot too. Married men should not be carrying them and let their wives find them! LOL Dont ask me how I know that! :smack


That actually happened to someone we knew one time. She hit the fan! He hit the road.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

kasilofhome said:


> Rational folks do have free birth control with them at all times unless the are victims of a sexual violent crime.
> 
> Quit treating rational responsible people like animals in rut. Maybe it's how one is raised.





Irish Pixie said:


> Perhaps in your reality that's true.


Actually, Pixie, this is true in reality, no matter who you are. 
I read kasilof's point to be, whether intended or not, was that the free birth control every rational person always has with them is "abstinence"- hence the victims' exception. 

We all know that pregnancy is a natural consequence of intercourse, and free/cheap condoms and BC are easy enough to get. 

If you do not want a pregnancy, and you do not have BC, abstain for the moment, get some, and then have at it. There are too many ways to avoid getting pregnant, including the fail-safe, abstinence, for us to allow the killing of unborn children to function as a form of birth control. 

As a society we've become too expectant of instant gratification, and often at the expense of others, so long as we get what we want, that the concept of holding off on sex until you are with a partner who you want to have a child with, and using BC (pills for her, AND bags on him to be sure) until you are, seems horrific and unreasonable. 

So horrific and unreasonable that we're willing to kill unborn children to avoid facing the avoidable consequences of actions we either could have chosen not to take, or to take the necessary precautions to prevent the consequences of those actions. 

To avoid any chance of having to take responsibility for our own actions, we've invented a whole dishonest jargon to distance ourselves from any wrong associated with the killing, using words like "choice", and "planning" to describe what is actually just legalized murder.


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> That actually happened to someone we knew one time. She hit the fan! He hit the road.


Poor feller, why didnt he just explain why he had them? Or was she not up to hearing any reasonable explanations?


----------



## gapeach

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Poor feller, why didnt he just explain why he had them? Or was she not up to hearing any reasonable explanations?


There was no explaining to her. She had, had a tubal ligation.


----------



## Evons hubby

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Actually, Pixie, this is true in reality, no matter who you are.
> I read kasilof's point to be, whether intended or not, was that the free birth control every rational person always has with them is "abstinence"- hence the victims' exception.
> 
> We all know that pregnancy is a natural consequence of intercourse, and free/cheap condoms and BC are easy enough to get.
> 
> If you do not want a pregnancy, and you do not have BC, abstain for the moment, get some, and then have at it. There are too many ways to avoid getting pregnant, including the fail-safe, abstinence, for us to allow the killing of unborn children to function as a form of birth control.
> 
> As a society we've become too expectant of instant gratification, and often at the expense of others, so long as we get what we want, that the concept of holding off on sex until you are with a partner who you want to have a child with, and using BC (pills for her, AND bags on him to be sure) until you are, seems horrific and unreasonable.
> 
> So horrific and unreasonable that we're willing to kill unborn children to avoid facing the avoidable consequences of actions we either could have chosen not to take, or to take the necessary precautions to prevent the consequences of those actions.
> 
> To avoid any chance of having to take responsibility for our own actions, we've invented a whole dishonest jargon to distance ourselves from any wrong associated with the killing, using words like "choice", and "planning" to describe what is actually just legalized murder.


You make it sound like this is something new to our society. Do you not remember the good old days when abortion was illegal and a woman who got pregnant out of wedlock was scorned by society? Sex has been around for centuries, along with all of its side affects. Its not realistic to believe that anyone is going to change their habits now. There was a reason abortions were made legal, that move cleaned up a very nasty business.


----------



## Irish Pixie

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Actually, Pixie, this is true in reality, no matter who you are.
> I read kasilof's point to be, whether intended or not, was that the free birth control every rational person always has with them is "abstinence"- hence the victims' exception.
> 
> We all know that pregnancy is a natural consequence of intercourse, and free/cheap condoms and BC are easy enough to get.
> 
> If you do not want a pregnancy, and you do not have BC, abstain for the moment, get some, and then have at it. There are too many ways to avoid getting pregnant, including the fail-safe, abstinence, for us to allow the killing of unborn children to function as a form of birth control.
> 
> As a society we've become too expectant of instant gratification, and often at the expense of others, so long as we get what we want, that the concept of holding off on sex until you are with a partner who you want to have a child with, and using BC (pills for her, AND bags on him to be sure) until you are, seems horrific and unreasonable.
> 
> So horrific and unreasonable that we're willing to kill unborn children to avoid facing the avoidable consequences of actions we either could have chosen not to take, or to take the necessary precautions to prevent the consequences of those actions.
> 
> To avoid any chance of having to take responsibility for our own actions, we've invented a whole dishonest jargon to distance ourselves from any wrong associated with the killing, using words like "choice", and "planning" to describe what is actually just legalized murder.


Sure, if you're irrational enough to think that abstinence works. Look how well it did for Bristol Palin, twice. 

No one has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. Her body, her choice. 

All the imperfect of the world, including me, so wish were we more like you and the other pro unborn. No lapses in judgement, no birth control failure, just a perfect utopia of rainbows and unicorns. That was sarcasm for those so impaired.


----------



## kasilofhome

Condoms do fit in purses, as for married men carrying them.... why not. Many married couples for health reason might bet better off using them. The pill does not stop sexual transmitted diseases.

My son has full knowledge of sex and responsibility... and that includes to have a condoms available ....and not one months old. People wonder why I would have condoms out .... Because human are not saints but we need not be animals. I can guess which of his friends grab them by their conversations with me.

Heck they are free ...they have Jersey subs logo on them.
20 inches of pure satisfaction.. trade mark of Jersey subs... our local food joint.

When the kids do talk about sex with me.... which comes up often as teens and dating subject are right up there with sports.... plus every year there is one of their peers who faces pregnancy. 

I talk about responsibility, and that birth control is never perfect, that condoms is just a band aid to prevent transmission of disease with a side benefit of reducing not stopping pregnancy.

What hits home is the dollar amount and that the guys have.... No say and are at the whim of the girl, the girls family, and the courts.

We go thru a lot of wild firs here thus we live with burn restrictions.
We understand an see the logic of those burn bans.

That there is a time and a place for fires and sex.... if you don't plan on thing getting out of control.... you are still fully responsible for the results.

The cohoe fire bankrupt a local family... they are toast the failed to.plan....waiting two more weeks to burn slash would have made the difference. Same with sex. 

Be prepared mentally
Be prepared emotionally
Be prepared for disease
Be prepared for a baby even with birth control

Not prepared...then it's not the right time.

Being open with his peers ....after they start the conversation..they see the value in waiting... but the like the condoms cause to them it funny due to the logo.
Seeing them as gag pranks such as when they use them as balloons or put the on car windshields of friends.

Having his peers on board really helps. He is not viewed as a freak. Kids are not stupid... just that rather than just explain positions....I talk about real.life results of unplanned consequences. 

Broken hearts
Self consciences
fear of disappointing parents hopes and dreams.
Missing out on their option for personal dreams and goals.
Listen to them about what they think abortion would mean to them
How they might start thinking about putting their child up for adoption.

Kids claim these topics are never covered or even mentioned....why not?

All those topics need to be address to provide them with real freedom to make an informed choice.


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> There was no explaining to her. She had, had a tubal ligation.


Well my Yvonne wasn't able to conceive either.... But I didn't know that at the time I first dated her. It was several years later when she ran across a couple condoms still in an inside pocket of the jacket I wore when I met her. They had been purchased for her "benefit" and I had forgotten all about them. Fortunately for me she is a reasonable person and understood how and why they had gotten there. Now if I could just remember where I put the rest of that package I would sleep better knowing she would never find them and have to go through that all over again!


----------



## kasilofhome

Copy and save this post.... we will back you up.

Ps good man


----------



## kuriakos

Irish Pixie said:


> Aren't the only abortifacients that are available over the counter emergency contraceptives? Some variation of RU-486? Any of the other types- birth control pills for the most part- require a prescription, don't they?


Yes, the only OTC birth control pills are the emergency contraceptives Plan B and Ella (correction: Ella is not OTC, so only Plan B) but they are not variants of RU-486 and are usually not considered abortifacients except by some strict Catholics and the like. RU-486 is an abortifacient and is not available OTC.


----------



## kasilofhome

http://wnep.com/2013/05/01/battle-over-birth-control/

The lower age limit from 17 to 15 applies only to the Plan B One Step brand. It falls short of a court order set to take effect Monday requiring all brands of the pill be available over the counter to all ages.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kuriakos said:


> Yes, the only OTC birth control pills are the emergency contraceptives Plan B and Ella (correction: Ella is not OTC, so only Plan B) but they are not variants of RU-486 and are usually not considered abortifacients except by some strict Catholics and the like. RU-486 is an abortifacient and is not available OTC.


I stand corrected, Plan B One Step is levonorgestrel, RU486 is mifepristone, and ella is ulipristal acetate. I read further and mifepristone isn't even available in the US. ella does require a prescription. All daily oral birth control requires a prescription which necessitates an office/clinic visit. 

Many people consider birth control pills to be abortifacients, not just catholics. Here's more information: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/h...e-some-contraceptives-with-abortion.html?_r=0


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gapeach said:


> That is an exaggeration. Women don't have to go to PP to get healthcare.
> It is also sick (collectively) that *some women continue to get multiple abortions* in lieu of any kind of birth control.


If they don't already have a Dr, many won't accept new Medicaid or Medicare patients.

Do you really think cutting off funding to one group will change the behavior of those women?


----------



## susieneddy

kasilofhome said:


> Condoms do fit in purses, as for married men carrying them.... why not. Many married couples for health reason might bet better off using them. The pill does not stop sexual transmitted diseases.
> 
> My son has full knowledge of sex and responsibility... and that includes to have a condoms available ....and not one months old. People wonder why I would have condoms out .... Because human are not saints but we need not be animals. I can guess which of his friends grab them by their conversations with me.
> 
> Heck they are free ...they have Jersey subs logo on them.
> 20 inches of pure satisfaction.. trade mark of Jersey subs... our local food joint.
> 
> When the kids do talk about sex with me.... which comes up often as teens and dating subject are right up there with sports.... plus every year there is one of their peers who faces pregnancy.
> 
> I talk about responsibility, and that birth control is never perfect, that condoms is just a band aid to prevent transmission of disease with a side benefit of reducing not stopping pregnancy.
> 
> What hits home is the dollar amount and that the guys have.... No say and are at the whim of the girl, the girls family, and the courts.
> 
> We go thru a lot of wild firs here thus we live with burn restrictions.
> We understand an see the logic of those burn bans.
> 
> That there is a time and a place for fires and sex.... if you don't plan on thing getting out of control.... you are still fully responsible for the results.
> 
> The cohoe fire bankrupt a local family... they are toast the failed to.plan....waiting two more weeks to burn slash would have made the difference. Same with sex.
> 
> Be prepared mentally
> Be prepared emotionally
> Be prepared for disease
> Be prepared for a baby even with birth control
> 
> Not prepared...then it's not the right time.
> 
> Being open with his peers ....after they start the conversation..they see the value in waiting... but the like the condoms cause to them it funny due to the logo.
> Seeing them as gag pranks such as when they use them as balloons or put the on car windshields of friends.
> 
> Having his peers on board really helps. He is not viewed as a freak. Kids are not stupid... just that rather than just explain positions....I talk about real.life results of unplanned consequences.
> 
> Broken hearts
> Self consciences
> fear of disappointing parents hopes and dreams.
> Missing out on their option for personal dreams and goals.
> Listen to them about what they think abortion would mean to them
> How they might start thinking about putting their child up for adoption.
> 
> Kids claim these topics are never covered or even mentioned....why not?
> 
> *All those topics need to be address to provide them with real freedom to make an informed choice*.


and if they decide to still have an abortion will you accept that?


----------



## kasilofhome

Well, first he would have to become sexually active. He's my concern, the only one close to him to face this is a couple he is friends with both the female and the male.
The news was broken... both soon become parents had their lives publicly changed 
Star on the field in high school.... had to drop out of school take a full time job to have money for his child. The girl dropped out too. Both worked and did home 
Next, they both did homeschool. That happen last year during school registration time... both set of parents were willing to help, no talk of marriage, she lost the baby .... because this was not hidden no mystery. A lot of grieving.. the peers stayed tight and went thru the whole adult deal from buying baby gifts making plans, just supporting friends ... The whole group dealt with the hardship.

They the young parents spared their friends none of raw emotions. The fears of being parents to be. The changes in their lives, the guilt and pain of a lost little girl. He graduated on time. They are still together.

Quite the reality ... she will return to brick and mortar school and graduate on time.

No one planned on a miscarriage and to them they don't want to hear it was a blessing.

Reality can shock people to change views and behavior.


----------



## Patchouli

dlmcafee said:


> The address are listed on location finder left hand side of the page for the counties health department I said there were 3 listed in the original question. The central one on 8th street west is 1.6 miles fro the pp office on 12th Street West as listed on the net according to google maps.


You are right. On the google map I was looking at it was hidden under another business. I had to zoom in really close to find it.  I'd be curious how many patients they are able to see in a day. For the 2 of them to be that close together I would think both are necessary. There is a pretty big population crowded into that neighborhood.


----------



## Patchouli

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You quoted my post, but you failed to actually address anything I said, and it's clear that you didn't even read everything I said (some things I have repeated multiple times). You're better than that. There are several posters (on both sides of this debate, I'll admit) that I've come to expect that sort of tactic from, but, even though we disagree on nearly every topic, I've come to consider you more reasonable and engaging than that.
> 
> Specifically, in reference to your comment about me not wanting to pay for others' birth control because they are having sex that I disapprove of: the last sentences in the post that you quoted was...
> 
> 
> "I don't mind (morally) paying for preventative pregnancy-control, and I don't care how much or what kind of sex a woman has, but, if the measure of my "meddling" is not wanting to financially support Planned Parenthood, then go ahead and count me out. "
> 
> I do, in fact, have health insurance, but the key difference between that and my tax dollars going to PP is that health insurance is my choice to pay for or not (at least it was, until the government decided to start meddling in that part of my life as well).
> 
> The point that I built in that post was that I don't believe, for a second, the PP pie chart, and don't want to risk my tax dollars going to an organization that might just use one of my dollars to facilitate the killing of an unborn child.
> 
> That chart was designed by Media Matters, in direct response to heat one of their pet non-profits was receiving about their abortion services. According to their own recording, PP counts each service separately, so when a woman comes in for 1 abortion, she is tallied as having 1 abortion, and 5 or 6 other services. Heck, the pregnancy test they give her to make sure she needs an abortion is counted as 1 pre-natal service. If they give her a condom on the way out the door, that's another one. Some have speculated that, since an abortion is conducted over the course of at least two visits, the number of "services" provided for one abortion may be 10 or 12 or more.
> 
> Regardless of where you fall on the gut check of their claims, this much is FACT, sourced directly from PP's own reporting.
> 
> 1- because of their "de bundling", each abortion in that 3% represents several more tallies in the other categories.
> 2- around 10% of their patients in a given year come there for abortive services.
> 3- they don't, because they're not required to, separate state and federal funds in their reporting.
> 
> Ive said it several times over the various threads on the subject; my political view is that we shouldn't be paying for, federally, for any sort of health care- for anybody- but I'm willing to put that aside to stay as far away from the abortion business as I possibly can. Free condoms in school, BC by unsolicited prescription to every household, whatever, I'll pay my share of that bill without protest if we were to ban abortion.
> 
> Likelihood of that aside, I am in a situation where my tax dollars are sent to an organization that performs abortions, whether it is 3%, or 10%, or 0.0001% of their business. They've shown themselves willing to twist figures in order to put the best spin on their most controversial service, and that leaves me unwilling to trust that they won't use my money to pay for them. As I said before, in the post you quoted, if they buy a pack of post-it notes with my tax dollars, I don't one one single sheet to be used to remind the executioner of the time his next victim is coming in. I don't want a drop of ink in a pen that I paid for to be used to write that note.
> 
> If the pro choice side wants us off PP's back then either cut their federal funding or get them out of the abortion business. Let their benefactors operate separate clinics where they can kill unborn children, but one of my dollars has 0% chance of crossing their threshold.



I read your entire post twice.  I was just making the point that I don't see the difference. Obviously we view how healthcare is paid for from very different lenses. I don't see any difference between paying for it with tax dollars through Medicaid and through traditional health insurance. 

From what I am hearing you say we have 2 major disagreements here: first I genuinely believe that the money going to PP is seperated. I understand the argument that if you fund this then it leaves you financial room to do that. I get that. But PP has been attacked over and over on the abortion and federal money issue a ton of times now and I have no doubt they have an ironclad accounting system that guarantees no federal dollars ever go into the abortion end of the business. That's where the whole fetal parts thing comes into play. They are looking to cover the costs of those abortions any way they can. So they can't give fetal parts away to research without recouping any possible expenses because they have a tighter budget in the abortion section. 

The second thing we have a sticking point on is federally funded healthcare vs. health insurance. I believe they are the same and the patient should be treated equally. I should have no more say over what healthcare services a woman on Medicaid can receive than I do over what a fellow member of Blue Cross receives. In both instances I chip in my money taxes or monthly insurance payment and the insurer covers our care. I firmly believe in other people's choice and privacy and I should have no voice at all in their healthcare just like I don't want anyone interfering in mine. 

What I am not understanding on the pro-life side here is why there isn't more of an outcry and boycotting of private insurance if this issue is so important to you. I don't know maybe this needs it's own thread. So far we have tackled tax dollars funding abortion from pretty much every angle but not private insurance dollars. 

I am going to start a new thread on this part.  

I hope I better responded to what you were trying to say in this post.


----------



## Patchouli

gapeach said:


> *More good news!
> http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/14/arkansas-becomes-4th-state-to-de-fund-planned-parenthood-after-it-sells-aborted-babies/ ^ * | August 14, 2015 | Steven Ertelt
> Arkansas has become the fourth state to de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business in the wake of six videos exposing how the abortion giant sells the body parts of aborted babies for research. The state follows Alabama and Louisiana, which are revoking a contract with Planned Parenthood using state Medicaid dollars, and New Hampshire, which zapped $650,000 in state taxpayer funding.
> 
> Gov.* Asa Hutchinson said he is ending state Medicaid payments to the Planned Parenthood abortion business â even as the Obama administration is threatening Alabama and Louisiana for doing so.* Hutchinson directed the Department of Human Services to terminate its existing agreements with Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma, according to a press release from his office.
> Planned Parenthood received more than $51,000 in taxpayer-funded Medicaid payments in Arkansas over the past fiscal year and, even though the funding doesnât go to abortions directly, it is fungible and frees up Planned Parenthood dollars to promote and perform abortions.
> 
> The press release says:
> âIt is apparent that after the recent revelations on the actions of Planned Parenthood, that this organization does not represent the values of the people of our state and Arkansas is better served by terminating any and all existing contracts with them. This includes their affiliated organization, Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma.
> âI appreciate the legislatureâs leadership on this important issue, especially that of Senator Eddie Joe Williams and Representative David Meeks.â In Alabama, Governor Robert Bentley sent a letter to the head of the Planned Parenthood abortion business in Alabama notifying it of his decision. In Louisiana, the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals informed Planned Parenthood it is exercising its right to terminate Planned Parenthoodâs Medicaid provider agreement.
> Meanwhile, in Louisiana, according to the Medicaid provider contract between DHH and Planned Parenthood, along with relevant Louisiana law, either party can choose to cancel the contract at will after providing written notice.
> But the Obama administration wrote threatening letters to each state claiming their move to de-fund Planned Parenthood violates federal law. As The Hill reports:
> 
> Good for Arkansas!
> Theyâre following Gov. Walkerâs lead. Wisconsin was first.


I will be fighting this in every possible way and I hope the Feds let us have it. Asa is an idiot.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Irish Pixie said:


> Sure, if you're irrational enough to think that abstinence works. Look how well it did for Bristol Palin, twice.
> 
> No one has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. Her body, her choice.
> 
> All the imperfect of the world, including me, so wish were we more like you and the other pro unborn. No lapses in judgement, no birth control failure, just a perfect utopia of rainbows and unicorns. That was sarcasm for those so impaired.


So, to course-correct on the childishness of your response, I'll respond directly to your sarcasm. 

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to take it to mean that you think anyone that believes that abstinence works is rational or irrational, but, obviously, it does. I guarantee you that it worked flawlessly for Bristol Palin right up to the moment that she ceased the practice. I'm not sure what the implication of your sarcastic injection of her name means, as I don't follow her beyond knowing she is one of Sarah's daughters. 

No one on the "pro unborn" (I've read enough of your posts to understand what you mean by that) side thinks that they are perfect, but many of us are of the opinion that those on the "pro baby crunching" side have a significant character flaw when it comes to accepting the consequences of their actions. 

Abstinence works, but isn't very much fun. Thankfully, we live in a time when there are very effective forms of pregnancy control. If one was committed to not getting pregnant, and didn't trust one form of BC or another to protect them, it can be doubled up in a his/hers application for near perfect effect. I bagged up the old boy with more than one girlfriend who was on the pill because I didn't even want to broach the subject of killing my child, but had no illusions about my will to remain abstinent. 

As to the her-body-her-choice idea, I'll concede that- though nothing I've said so far had anything to do with restricting the choices of what a woman can do with her body. But, the topic we're discussing is the choice some women take with someone else's body- their child's. Their child is alive. It happens to be inside them, as is the design of nature, but it is alive. It is human. Calling it anything other than a living human is just a language-dodge used to escape the reality of what the pro baby crunchers actually support. 

I had my appendix removed. It didn't have to be killed before it was taken out of me. Not because of laws that had to be passed in order to stop doctors from waiting to kill appendixes after they removed them. There was never a single case of a surgeon partially removing an appendix that was about to burst, then killing it before it was all the way out in order to absolve anyone of guilt. My appendix didn't have to be killed because it wasn't alive. 

Why do they have to kill "fetal tissue" before they remove it?


----------



## gapeach

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You make it sound like this is something new to our society. Do you not remember the good old days when abortion was illegal and a woman who got pregnant out of wedlock was scorned by society? Sex has been around for centuries, along with all of its side affects. Its not realistic to believe that anyone is going to change their habits now. There was a reason abortions were made legal, that move cleaned up a very nasty business.


It seems that with abortion being legal, morals have gotten much worse. When a young teenaged girl got pregnant up until then, she had to make a choice of keeping the baby or giving the baby up for adoption unless she and the father got married which happened is at least half the cases. After abortion was legal and you could get the pill easily at planned parenthood, then morals took a big downward spiral. :rain: It also seems that people stopped worrrying so much about birth control and used abortion in many cases as their birth control.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

A


Patchouli said:


> I am going to start a new thread on this part.
> 
> I hope I better responded to what you were trying to say in this post.


You did, and I appreciate it. 
I think your other topic is a valid discussion and I'll gladly put my $0.02 in once I've read the premise and have had a chance to consider my position in relation to what you posit. 

As for PP's ability to maintain an "iron clad" separation between where incoming dollars are applied, I don't believe that for a minute and think you are being overly generous in giving them the benefit of that doubt. I was dead serious and literal when I said I don't want a single drop of ink in a pen I paid for to be used for scheduling an execution. 

Given what we've seen in their willingness to spin, proven by their endorsement of the obviously misleading Media Matters pie chart (swallowed whole and without question, incidentally, by several here who have hundreds of posts dismissing articles simply because they're published by FNC or TheBlaze), to think that they're reporting post-it notes in the abortion columns instead of "office supplies", or have separate cups on their desks for pens used in righteous healthcare services and one for their baby killing operations is, I beg your pardon, naive. Not to mention the salaries...

My tax dollars are being used to kill unborn children, and they accuse us of hating women if we speak up about it. The implications are obvious, and the diversion tactic is undeniable.


----------



## Patchouli

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Actually, Pixie, this is true in reality, no matter who you are.
> I read kasilof's point to be, whether intended or not, was that the free birth control every rational person always has with them is "abstinence"- hence the victims' exception.
> 
> We all know that pregnancy is a natural consequence of intercourse, and free/cheap condoms and BC are easy enough to get.
> 
> If you do not want a pregnancy, and you do not have BC, abstain for the moment, get some, and then have at it. There are too many ways to avoid getting pregnant, including the fail-safe, abstinence, for us to allow the killing of unborn children to function as a form of birth control.
> 
> As a society we've become too expectant of instant gratification, and often at the expense of others, so long as we get what we want, that the concept of holding off on sex until you are with a partner who you want to have a child with, and using BC (pills for her, AND bags on him to be sure) until you are, seems horrific and unreasonable.
> 
> So horrific and unreasonable that we're willing to kill unborn children to avoid facing the avoidable consequences of actions we either could have chosen not to take, or to take the necessary precautions to prevent the consequences of those actions.
> 
> To avoid any chance of having to take responsibility for our own actions, we've invented a whole dishonest jargon to distance ourselves from any wrong associated with the killing, using words like "choice", and "planning" to describe what is actually just legalized murder.


Condoms properly applied have an 18% failure rate.


----------



## Patchouli

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> A
> 
> You did, and I appreciate it.
> I think your other topic is a valid discussion and I'll gladly put my $0.02 in once I've read the premise and have had a chance to consider my position in relation to what you posit.
> 
> As for PP's ability to maintain an "iron clad" separation between where incoming dollars are applied, I don't believe that for a minute and think you are being overly generous in giving them the benefit of that doubt. I was dead serious and literal when I said I don't want a single drop of ink in a pen I paid for to be used for scheduling an execution.
> 
> Given what we've seen in their willingness to spin, proven by their endorsement of the obviously misleading Media Matters pie chart (swallowed whole and without question, incidentally, by several here who have hundreds of posts dismissing articles simply because they're published by FNC or TheBlaze), to think that they're reporting post-it notes in the abortion columns instead of "office supplies", or have separate cups on their desks for pens used in righteous healthcare services and one for their baby killing operations is, I beg your pardon, naive. Not to mention the salaries...
> 
> My tax dollars are being used to kill unborn children, and they accuse us of hating women if we speak up about it. The implications are obvious, and the diversion tactic is undeniable.


I think taken to that extreme then of course the appointments for everything will be done by the same receptionist and the doctor who does multiple services will have a desk in the clinic so there will be some overlap. That's a quibble to me.  

My point was just that as many times as they have been audited and checked up on it's obvious they do have their accounting set up in a pretty ironclad manner to make sure the money they get from Medicaid for BC doesn't wander over into the abortion end of things.


----------



## Patchouli

The problem with abstinence is that people don't prepare for those moments when they give in to the urge and let's be honest here we have all done that a time or two. Abstinence as a birth control method has a pretty epic failure rate. Far better to assume sex will be had and provide birth control and realistic education about sex.


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> It seems that with abortion being legal, morals have gotten much worse. When a young teenaged girl got pregnant up until then, she had to make a choice of keeping the baby or giving the baby up for adoption unless she and the father got married which happened is at least half the cases. After abortion was legal and you could get the pill easily at planned parenthood, then morals took a big downward spiral. :rain: It also seems that people stopped worrrying so much about birth control and used abortion in many cases as their birth control.


You seem to have overlooked one option those young girls had, and a great many opted for.... "Twigging" or as we call it today an abortion. The pill did pave the way for the "sexual revolution" to take place that is for sure. I don't really think it caused our morals to drop at all. Women just had a lot more freedom to do openly what they had been hiding in the past.


----------



## Evons hubby

Patchouli said:


> The problem with abstinence is that people don't prepare for those moments when they give in to the urge and let's be honest here we have all done that a time or two.


 :duel: speak for yourself, why I never! Wouldn't have on a wager! Ummmm nope... Not me.... I was a good boy!


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Patchouli said:


> The problem with abstinence is that people don't prepare for those moments when they give in to the urge and let's be honest here we have all done that a time or two. Abstinence as a birth control method has a pretty epic failure rate. Far better to assume sex will be had and provide birth control and realistic education about sex.


That is true. I have, as probably most have, but it's not abstinence that has an "epic failure rate", it's peoples' willpower that does. Abstinence is perfectly effective. 

The fact that it is so hard to observe faithfully made things much harder on people in the past. We have it easy today. With modern pregnancy control options, we can actually have our cake and eat it, too. 

Your figure about condoms only being 82% effective is only part of the story. It could imply, falsely, that 18% of sex had with a condom results in a pregnancy. Obviously it doesn't, because sex/pregnancy is not a 100% correlation. Given the low efficiency of insemination, and the effectiveness of condoms, especially when doubled up with BC pills, and the fact that both of these are cheap and easy to get, no one who doesn't want their sexual relations to result in a pregnancy has to become pregnant. 

Look at it from the other end of the arrow. Anyone who knows that they would abort any pregnancy that results from what they are doing, and chooses not to make their partner wear a condom, and get on some redundant form themselves, lies down wholly willing to kill a child rather than inconvenience themselves. With the preventative options available (including the old fail-safe), there is no excuse. Their actions bring a human into this world, and they kill it to avoid being inconvenienced.


----------



## Irish Pixie

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> So, to course-correct on the childishness of your response, I'll respond directly to your sarcasm.
> 
> I'm not sure if I'm supposed to take it to mean that you think anyone that believes that abstinence works is rational or irrational, but, obviously, it does. I guarantee you that it worked flawlessly for Bristol Palin right up to the moment that she ceased the practice. I'm not sure what the implication of your sarcastic injection of her name means, as I don't follow her beyond knowing she is one of Sarah's daughters.
> 
> No one on the "pro unborn" (I've read enough of your posts to understand what you mean by that) side thinks that they are perfect, but many of us are of the opinion that those on the "pro baby crunching" side have a significant character flaw when it comes to accepting the consequences of their actions.
> 
> Abstinence works, but isn't very much fun. Thankfully, we live in a time when there are very effective forms of pregnancy control. If one was committed to not getting pregnant, and didn't trust one form of BC or another to protect them, it can be doubled up in a his/hers application for near perfect effect. I bagged up the old boy with more than one girlfriend who was on the pill because I didn't even want to broach the subject of killing my child, but had no illusions about my will to remain abstinent.
> 
> As to the her-body-her-choice idea, I'll concede that- though nothing I've said so far had anything to do with restricting the choices of what a woman can do with her body. But, the topic we're discussing is the choice some women take with someone else's body- their child's. Their child is alive. It happens to be inside them, as is the design of nature, but it is alive. It is human. Calling it anything other than a living human is just a language-dodge used to escape the reality of what the pro baby crunchers actually support.
> 
> I had my appendix removed. It didn't have to be killed before it was taken out of me. Not because of laws that had to be passed in order to stop doctors from waiting to kill appendixes after they removed them. There was never a single case of a surgeon partially removing an appendix that was about to burst, then killing it before it was all the way out in order to absolve anyone of guilt. My appendix didn't have to be killed because it wasn't alive.
> 
> Why do they have to kill "fetal tissue" before they remove it?


I see. You took the the Center for Medical Progress's heavily edited video bait hook line and sinker. I'm sorry. 

The fetal tissue is a by product of a legal procedure, much like your appendix, but you knew that.


----------



## Evons hubby

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That is true. I have, as probably most have, but it's not abstinence that has an "epic failure rate", it's peoples' willpower that does. Abstinence is perfectly effective.
> 
> The fact that it is so hard to observe faithfully made things much harder on people in the past. We have it easy today. With modern pregnancy control options, we can actually have our cake and eat it, too.
> 
> Your figure about condoms only being 82% effective is only part of the story. It could imply, falsely, that 18% of sex had with a condom results in a pregnancy. Obviously it doesn't, because sex/pregnancy is not a 100% correlation. Given the low efficiency of insemination, and the effectiveness of condoms, especially when doubled up with BC pills, and the fact that both of these are cheap and easy to get, no one who doesn't want their sexual relations to result in a pregnancy has to become pregnant.
> 
> Look at it from the other end of the arrow. Anyone who knows that they would abort any pregnancy that results from what they are doing, and chooses not to make their partner wear a condom, and get on some redundant form themselves, lies down wholly willing to kill a child rather than inconvenience themselves. With the preventative options available (including the old fail-safe), there is no excuse. Their actions bring a human into this world, and they kill it to avoid being inconvenienced.


Define inconvenience.... An unwanted pregnancy can mean a lot more than having to shop for a specialty item in more than one store.... That is inconvenient. An unwanted pregnancy can destroy ones future along with having drastic affects on others lives.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Why do they have to kill "fetal tissue" before they remove it?


That's the entire reason for an abortion, in addition to the fact it cannot survive outside the womb. 

There has never been a fetus that survived at less than 21 weeks


----------



## gapeach

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You seem to have overlooked one option those young girls had, and a great many opted for.... "Twigging" or as we call it today an abortion. The pill did pave the way for the "sexual revolution" to take place that is for sure. I don't really think it caused our morals to drop at all. Women just had a lot more freedom to do openly what they had been hiding in the past.


I don't think so. Not where I lived. I know that there were some potions talked about and I had a high school gf whose mother made her sit in hot tubs of water til she miscarried. That was just awful for the girl and her bf who later became her husband. The girl's family did not want them to marry but they did and are still married today. I don't think you are right. I grew up in the 50's and morals were a whole lot different then. You could count on the fingers of one hand how many girls got pregnant in my high school during all of the time that I went there and several of them were already married. Back then you could go to school when you were married and your husband could also. There were not many but a few couples ran off to Ga. and got married. No questions asked about age.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Irish Pixie said:


> I see. You took the the Center for Medical Progress's heavily edited video bait hook line and sinker. I'm sorry.
> 
> The fetal tissue is a by product of a legal procedure, much like your appendix, but you knew that.


What are you talking about? I'm not tracking. 

What does my appendix analogy have to do with the recent videos?

Edit: and, even if it did, isn't that kind of a pot/kettle thing? How many times did you post that Media Matter pie graph. You obviously swallowed that one.


----------



## Irish Pixie

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> What are you talking about? I'm not tracking.
> 
> What does my appendix analogy have to do with the recent videos?


You said I was on the "pro baby crunching" side. That's directly from one the Center of Medical Progress's heavily edited videos. I was just saying I'm sorry you believed that crap. 

You said your appendix was removed, right? In a legal procedure, right? Fetal tissue is removed in a legal procedure. Both can be used for research. Did that help?

ETA: The information contained in the pie chart has been proven to be true. Unlike the heavily edited videos that cater to the rainbow and unicorn set.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Irish Pixie said:


> You said I was on the "pro baby crunching" side. That's directly from one the Center of Medical Progress's heavily edited videos. I was just saying I'm sorry you believed that crap.
> 
> You said your appendix was removed, right? In a legal procedure, right? Fetal tissue is removed in a legal procedure. Both can be used for research. Did that help?


Oh. Got it. The crunching thing was a stomach churning illustrative description that they gave us. If I'm "pro unborn" because you say that my wish to defund planned parenthood means that I don't care at all about living women and, therefore, can't be "pro life", then you're just going to have to live with being "pro baby crunching". When you spend so much time shouting from down there on the low road, you have to expect those you are shouting at to come down there so they can here you better. 

And my analogy had nothing to do with the legality of the issue. We've trod the legality does not necessarily equal right debate before. My point was that calling the unborn baby "tissue" is just a terminology dodge. If it were just tissue, part of a woman's body, then it wouldn't have to be killed before being removed. There would have never been laws to keep the executioner from removing it partially before killing it. It's not just tissue. The choice of words from your side are done to make yourselves comfortable with it, but not all of us are so easily distracted or quick to swallow our conscience.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Irish Pixie said:


> ETA: The information contained in the pie chart has been proven to be true. Unlike the heavily edited videos that cater to the rainbow and unicorn set.


Oh REALLY?
Proven....fact...

Check out this article. It effectively cuts up both Media Matters' pie chart, and, equally, gives both barrels to the SBA rebuttal. It plays no favorites and points out, with direct citations to both organizations' own reporting, as clickable links back to their respective sites. 

Of course, it wasn't published by MSNBC or any other Media Matters pets, so I don't expect you to actually read it, giving some snarky response about agenda-driven-kool-aid-blahblahblah instead, but anyone brave enough to actually inject a dose of fairness and reality into their stance, it's there. Neither side is going to be happy with the article, but it's undeniably fair with the facts. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/


----------



## Irish Pixie

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Oh. Got it. The crunching thing was a stomach churning illustrative description that they gave us. If I'm "pro unborn" because you say that my wish to defund planned parenthood means that I don't care at all about living women and, therefore, can't be "pro life", then you're just going to have to live with being "pro baby crunching". When you spend so much time shouting from down there on the low road, you have to expect those you are shouting at to come down there so they can here you better.
> 
> And my analogy had nothing to do with the legality of the issue. We've trod the legality does not necessarily equal right debate before. My point was that calling the unborn baby "tissue" is just a terminology dodge. If it were just tissue, part of a woman's body, then it wouldn't have to be killed before being removed. There would have never been laws to keep the executioner from removing it partially before killing it. It's not just tissue. The choice of words from your side are done to make yourselves comfortable with it, but not all of us are so easily distracted or quick to swallow our conscience.


Legality is *the* issue. There's absolutely nothing you can do to stop a woman from having an abortion. Nothing. Nada. Zip. It's been legal for 40 years.

It is fetal tissue, that's the technical term. Just like every termination of a pregnancy is an abortion whether it's spontaneous or induced. 

Wow, you're angry- baby cruncher, executioner, murder. And I personally don't care what your conscience tells you. 

Oh, the "pro unborn" is because anti abortionists don't usually care about children after they're born. Cutting funding for food programs, whining about the cost of education, that sort of thing. It's only important before it's born. Plus the fact that most are OK with abortion on their terms means they can't seriously be called "pro life". Yes, my opinion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Oh REALLY?
> Proven....fact...
> 
> Check out this article. It effectively cuts up both Media Matters' pie chart, and, equally, gives both barrels to the SBA rebuttal. It plays no favorites and points out, with direct citations to both organizations' own reporting, as clickable links back to their respective sites.
> 
> Of course, it wasn't published by MSNBC or any other Media Matters pets, so I don't expect you to actually read it, giving some snarky response about agenda-driven-kool-aid-blahblahblah instead, but anyone brave enough to actually inject a dose of fairness and reality into their stance, it's there. Neither side is going to be happy with the article, but it's undeniably fair with the facts.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/


This has already been addressed but I'll point it out again just for you. 

Planned Parenthood never lied. From your link: "When all services are counted equally, abortion procedures do account for 3 percent of Planned Parenthoodâs total services." Yes, from your link. Who didn't read it?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Irish Pixie said:


> This has already been addressed but I'll point it out again just for you.
> 
> Planned Parenthood never lied. From your link: "When all services are counted equally, abortion procedures do account for 3 percent of Planned Parenthoodâs total services." Yes, from your link. Who didn't read it?


Lie, maybe not, but definitely, intentionally, misleading. 
The CMP videos didn't lie. They didn't add any CG, or pose actors. The worst you can accuse them of doing is misleading via editing. 

That's exactly what Media Matter did for PP. If you intended to give an honest assessment of the percentage of your business that was made up by abortion, for the sake of going open kimono and putting the debate to rest, when you were tallying up your services, you wouldn't take an abortive patient and put down one mark in the abortion column, and then one in the test column for the pregnancy test, and then another for the bloodwork before the surgery, and one for the free condom, and....

If a woman came in and said, "I'm pregnant and want an abortion", you would count it, along with the preparation you had to do, as an abortion. If they wanted to be honest, that is. 

The MM/PP stats carry exactly the same taint as the CMP videos. The difference is that CMP caught PP in their own words, while MM/PP manipulated their own story, as much of it as they wanted to tell, behind closed doors, with no "unedited" version to be found.


----------



## Irish Pixie

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Lie, maybe not, but definitely, intentionally, misleading.
> The CMP videos didn't lie. They didn't add any CG, or pose actors. The worst you can accuse them of doing is misleading via editing.
> 
> That's exactly what Media Matter did for PP. If you intended to give an honest assessment of the percentage of your business that was made up by abortion, for the sake of going open kimono and putting the debate to rest, when you were tallying up your services, you wouldn't take an abortive patient and put down one mark in the abortion column, and then one in the test column for the pregnancy test, and then another for the bloodwork before the surgery, and one for the free condom, and....
> 
> If a woman came in and said, "I'm pregnant and want an abortion", you would count it, along with the preparation you had to do, as an abortion. If they wanted to be honest, that is.
> 
> The MM/PP stats carry exactly the same taint as the CMP videos. The difference is that CMP caught PP in their own words, while MM/PP manipulated their own story, as much of it as they wanted to tell, behind closed doors, with no "unedited" version to be found.


The very premise of the videos was a lie, at least the first two. They lied about who they were and they lied about why they were there. Dang.

Planned Parenthood didn't lie about abortions being 3% of what they do and Media Matters didn't either. The only group that out and out lied was the Center for Medical Progress.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Tell yourself whatever you need to to go to sleep thinking that your sides pooh doesn't smell. 

You can lead a donkey to water, but it's still a donkey.


----------



## Patchouli

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That is true. I have, as probably most have, but it's not abstinence that has an "epic failure rate", it's peoples' willpower that does. Abstinence is perfectly effective.
> 
> The fact that it is so hard to observe faithfully made things much harder on people in the past. We have it easy today. With modern pregnancy control options, we can actually have our cake and eat it, too.
> 
> Your figure about condoms only being 82% effective is only part of the story. It could imply, falsely, that 18% of sex had with a condom results in a pregnancy. Obviously it doesn't, because sex/pregnancy is not a 100% correlation. Given the low efficiency of insemination, and the effectiveness of condoms, especially when doubled up with BC pills, and the fact that both of these are cheap and easy to get, no one who doesn't want their sexual relations to result in a pregnancy has to become pregnant.
> 
> Look at it from the other end of the arrow. Anyone who knows that they would abort any pregnancy that results from what they are doing, and chooses not to make their partner wear a condom, and get on some redundant form themselves, lies down wholly willing to kill a child rather than inconvenience themselves. With the preventative options available (including the old fail-safe), there is no excuse. Their actions bring a human into this world, and they kill it to avoid being inconvenienced.


Okay I shall have to ding you for the same thing you dinged me for: you missed my last sentence. 



> Originally Posted by *Patchouli*
> _The problem with abstinence is that people don't prepare for those moments when they give in to the urge and let's be honest here we have all done that a time or two. Abstinence as a birth control method has a pretty epic failure rate. *Far better to assume sex will be had and provide birth control and realistic education about sex.*_


Unfortunately most people who are all about abstinence are also against proper sex education and making sure kids have ready access to free birth control. The honest truth is a lot of kids and even adults really don't know that much about where babies come from. Trust me I find that deeply disturbing too but it is still true. 

So it's not like anyone ever goes into sex thinking whelp if I get knocked up there is always abortion! They are generally not thinking at all or they just don't know any better.


----------



## Patchouli

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Lie, maybe not, but definitely, intentionally, misleading.
> The CMP videos didn't lie. They didn't add any CG, or pose actors. The worst you can accuse them of doing is misleading via editing.
> 
> That's exactly what Media Matter did for PP. If you intended to give an honest assessment of the percentage of your business that was made up by abortion, for the sake of going open kimono and putting the debate to rest, when you were tallying up your services, you wouldn't take an abortive patient and put down one mark in the abortion column, and then one in the test column for the pregnancy test, and then another for the bloodwork before the surgery, and one for the free condom, and....
> 
> If a woman came in and said, "I'm pregnant and want an abortion", you would count it, along with the preparation you had to do, as an abortion. If they wanted to be honest, that is.
> 
> The MM/PP stats carry exactly the same taint as the CMP videos. The difference is that CMP caught PP in their own words, while MM/PP manipulated their own story, as much of it as they wanted to tell, behind closed doors, with no "unedited" version to be found.


That is how all healthcare facilities break down their services though. That's not something PP invented to trick people. If you ask any clinic about their services they would look at their coding and produce statistics. When you bill insurance or Medicaid you break it down that way. Look at your next medical bill or statement from your insurer. If you go in for your annual physical it won't just be a lump bill for that. I just looked at our last physical for example. It has exam, general health panel, lipid panel and urinalysis.


----------



## Irish Pixie

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Tell yourself whatever you need to to go to sleep thinking that your sides pooh doesn't smell.
> 
> You can lead a donkey to water, but it's still a donkey.


That you sooo much for such an informed and well reasoned response! You could have just not posted if you had nothing to refute my facts with.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Patchouli said:


> That is how all healthcare facilities break down their services though. That's not something PP invented to trick people. If you ask any clinic about their services they would look at their coding and produce statistics. When you bill insurance or Medicaid you break it down that way. Look at your next medical bill or statement from your insurer. If you go in for your annual physical it won't just be a lump bill for that. I just looked at our last physical for example. It has exam, general health panel, lipid panel and urinalysis.


It looks better for the pro unborn if they can scream "Planned Parenthood lied!" The agenda, it's always about the agenda.

Medical is always some sort of line item billing. Anyone that has ever received a bill from a Dr., hospital, or clinic knows this.


----------



## Guest

Irish Pixie said:


> It looks better for the pro unborn if they can scream "Planned Parenthood lied!" The agenda, it's always about the agenda.
> 
> Medical is always some sort of line item billing. Anyone that has ever received a bill from a Dr., hospital, or clinic knows this.


Is it a lie that planned parenthood has a customer base of about 3 million a year and that they preform about 300,000 abortions in the same time frame? 

Is it a lie that an abortion cost (paid for or not by the customer) is substantially more than than the cost (paid for or not) of a physicians exam, writing a prescription an supplying birth control pills? Has Planned Parenthood supplied those cost figures?

Is it really a lie or maybe a truth that the 3% is no more than a statistical way to truthfully hide the most important fact. What percentage of their customer base receive abortions? By their numbers about 10%. What services produce what income percentage?

Yes medical bills are line item things, real familiar with that, along with the ridiculous cost quotes associated.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> Is it a lie that planned parenthood has a customer base of about 3 million a year and that they preform about 300,000 abortions in the same time frame?
> 
> Is it a lie that an abortion cost (paid for or not by the customer) is substantially more than than the cost (paid for or not) of a physicians exam, writing a prescription an supplying birth control pills? Has Planned Parenthood supplied those cost figures?
> 
> Is it really a lie or maybe a truth that the 3% is no more than a statistical way to truthfully hide the most important fact. What percentage of their customer base receive abortions? By their numbers about 10%. What services produce what income percentage?
> 
> Yes medical bills are line item things, real familiar with that, along with the ridiculous cost quotes associated.


So were did Planned Parenthood lie? All the rhetoric aside, can you point out where they lied? Please?


----------



## Guest

Irish Pixie said:


> So were did Planned Parenthood lie? All the rhetoric aside, can you point out where they lied? Please?



Did I say it was a lie, paragraph 3. Rhetoric not intended, but it sure is a a shame you fear questions enough to answer that way.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> Did I say it was a lie, paragraph 3. Rhetoric not intended, but it sure is a a shame you fear questions enough to answer that way.


Why would I fear anything that is posted on the internet? Utterly ridiculous.

My point is (and was) Planned Parenthood never lied. Period. But the Center for Medical Progress certainly did.


----------



## Guest

Irish Pixie said:


> Why would I fear anything that is posted on the internet? Utterly ridiculous.
> 
> My point is (and was) Planned Parenthood never lied. Period. But the Center for Medical Progress certainly did.



That's your opinion, I see little difference between a lie and an intentional deception and that is my opinion. Utterly ridicules maybe, maybe not. I was not swayed nor impressed with your answers though.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> That's your opinion, I see little difference between a lie and an intentional deception and that is my opinion. Utterly ridicules maybe, maybe not. I was not swayed nor impressed with your answers though.


Ditto.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> That's your opinion, *I see little difference between a lie and an intentional deception and that is my opinion*. Utterly ridicules maybe, maybe not. I was not swayed nor impressed with your answers though.


I see little difference in lies, deception, and all these videos.
Why do you accept those lies, and then argue with actual figures?
That's not too impressive either


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> I see little difference in lies, deception, and all these videos.
> 
> Why do you accept those lies, and then argue with actual figures?
> 
> That's not too impressive either



I Do not accept them (videos) as proof although I have seen investigations and conviction started with less. I did not argue their figures just the intent. Their figures only tell what they want not what I asked. Impress you,, funny thanks.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> I Do not accept them (videos) as proof although I have seen investigations and conviction started with less. I did not argue their figures just the intent.
> Their figures only tell what they want not what I asked. Impress you,, funny thanks.


Their figures weren't compiled as a result of any questions from you.

They are a reflection of actual data, and if you disagree with the results, it's not their problem.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> Their figures weren't compiled as a result of any questions from you.
> 
> They are a reflection of actual data, and if you disagree with the results, it's not their problem.


I thought you did not like assumptions. Never said their figures were lies. It is my problem if they wish my support, you may wish to, that is certainly your prerogative. You use their figures in thier defense, as lacking as they are to me it deminishes credibility to your argument.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> I thought you did not like assumptions. Never said their figures were lies. It is my problem if they wish my support, you may wish to, that is certainly your prerogative. You use their figures in thier defense, as lacking as they are to me it *deminishes credibility* to your argument.


The figures aren't "lacking" anything.
You just don't like what they show, and counter with silly questions like "Is it a lie an abortion costs more than writing a prescription"?



> Is it a lie that an abortion cost (paid for or not by the customer) is substantially more than than the cost (paid for or not) of a physicians exam, writing a prescription an supplying birth control pills?


How is that a "credible" argument? No one claimed they cost less, so what's your point"

They don't "wish your support"

They would prefer you just leave them alone and let them handle their own affairs


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> The figures aren't "lacking" anything.
> You just don't like what they show, and counter with silly questions like "Is it a lie an abortion costs more than writing a prescription"?
> 
> 
> 
> How is that a "credible" argument? No one claimed they cost less, so what's your point"
> 
> They don't "wish your support"
> 
> They would prefer you just leave them alone and let them handle their own affairs


Silly huh,, great answer. Oh leave them alone,,,not a chance now, you and a few others here have strengthened my resolve by ridicule instead of honest debate. Thank you, you are a champion for your cause. You really want to control my wallet don't ya.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Silly huh,, great answer. Oh leave them alone,,,not a chance now, *you and a few others* here have strengthened my resolve by* ridicule instead of honest debate*. Thank you, you are a champion for your cause.


There you go playing the word games again by implying you've been "ridiculed", and others are "dishonest". 

You can't go more than one or two posts without some personal jabs thrown. 



> You really want to control my wallet don't ya.


You want to control women's wombs, so your wallet is of little concern by comparison. 

I'm not trying to control anything. I've said all along everyone should mind their own business


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> There you go playing the word games again by implying you've been "ridiculed", and others are "dishonest".
> 
> You can't go more than one or two posts without some personal jabs thrown.
> 
> 
> *You want to control women's wombs*, so your wallet is of little concern by comparison.
> 
> I'm not trying to control anything. I've said all along everyone should mind their own business



I implied nothing nor said anyone ridiculed me, it is rampant through out this thread. Nor have I said anyone here is dishonest.

You evidently have read nothing in my post other than what you feel you can criticize. Where have I said I opposed a woman's right to her own body and what she does with it. My opinion of abortion matters not until it effects my forced tax contributions.

Your libel statement is unacceptable.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> You evidently have read nothing in my post other than what you feel you can criticize. Where have I said I opposed a woman's right to her own body and what she does with it. My opinion of abortion matters not until it effects my forced tax contributions.
> 
> Your libel statement is unacceptable.


Your taxes aren't going to change if PP funding is ended, so it makes little difference how they are spent.



> *I implied nothing nor said anyone ridiculed me*, it is rampant through out this thread. Nor have I said anyone here is dishonest.


Really?:



> Originally Posted by dlmcafee View Post
> Silly huh,, great answer. Oh leave them alone,,,not a chance now, *you and a few others *here have *strengthened* my resolve *by ridicule instead of honest debate.* Thank you, you are a champion for your cause.


It's simple English, and appears quite specific in it's meaning


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your taxes aren't going to change if PP funding is ended, so it makes little difference how they are spent.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simple English, and appears quite specific in it's meaning


Evidently you added an "of me" somewhere in there, the only me was the word "my"related to resolve, read it anyway you like. Shalom


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> Silly huh,, great answer. Oh leave them alone,,,not a chance now, you and a few others here have strengthened my resolve by ridicule instead of honest debate. Thank you, you are a champion for your cause. You really want to control my wallet don't ya.


More power to you. May I ask exactly what you intend to do to repeal Roe v. Wade? Or is it just more of the same?


----------



## Guest

Irish Pixie said:


> More power to you. May I ask exactly what you intend to do to repeal Roe v. Wade? Or is it just more of the same?



Nothing about roe v wade


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> Nothing about roe v wade


Ok. So it's just more of the same? Just fussing about how awful abortion is on the internet? To each their own.


----------



## gapeach

It has been written here many times that Planned Parenthood never lies.
This tells a different story. I really don't care whether you like the source or not.

*Washington Post Says Planned Parenthood Lied in Claim Most People Support Late-term Abortions*

Steven Ertelt Jun 18, 2015 | 11:16AM Washington, DChttp://www.lifenews.com/2015/06/18/washington-post-says-planned-parenthood-lied-in-claim-most-people-support-late-term-abortions/


_âA solid 60 percent of voters oppose 20-week bans when they understand the real-world impact these laws would have.â_
*â Planned Parenthood Action Fund, news release, June 11, 2015*


However, Planned Parenthoodâs claim is still misleading. The poll did not specify that it was asking about terminating a pregnancy 22 weeks after a womanâs last menstrual period â the dating method that Planned Parenthood and other opponents of the bill use and accept. Moreover, it did not test for the actual bill under consideration, with its exceptions for certain cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother but not for emotional issues. We wavered between One and Two Pinocchios. But the Hart polling memo specifically refers to provisions in H.R. 1797 (the 2013 version) â and this particular poll is outdated at best for the 2015 debate, thus tipping the rating to Two.
Both sides should be transparent about the age method they are using. We will continue to monitor uses of the â20 weekâ phrase without clarification, which will earn automatic Pinocchios.
*Two Pinocchios*











(About our rating scale)

*Send us facts to check by filling out this form*
*Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook*

Michelle Ye Hee Lee reports for The Fact Checker. Send her statements to dig into via e-mail, Twitter or Facebook.

Get the Politics News Alerts Newsletter
Free breaking news updates delivered just for you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Should we give you two Pinocchio noses for that statement? I don't believe that anyone has ever said that Planned Parenthood never lies, nevertheless said it many times. Well, unless you can quote where someone said it? Please?



gapeach said:


> *It has been written here many times that Planned Parenthood never lies.*
> This tells a different story. I really don't care whether you like the source or not.
> 
> *Washington Post Says Planned Parenthood Lied in Claim Most People Support Late-term Abortions*
> 
> Steven Ertelt Jun 18, 2015 | 11:16AM Washington, DChttp://www.lifenews.com/2015/06/18/washington-post-says-planned-parenthood-lied-in-claim-most-people-support-late-term-abortions/
> 
> 
> _&#8220;A solid 60 percent of voters oppose 20-week bans when they understand the real-world impact these laws would have.&#8221;_
> *&#8212; Planned Parenthood Action Fund, news release, June 11, 2015*
> 
> 
> However, Planned Parenthood&#8217;s claim is still misleading. The poll did not specify that it was asking about terminating a pregnancy 22 weeks after a woman&#8217;s last menstrual period &#8212; the dating method that Planned Parenthood and other opponents of the bill use and accept. Moreover, it did not test for the actual bill under consideration, with its exceptions for certain cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother but not for emotional issues. We wavered between One and Two Pinocchios. But the Hart polling memo specifically refers to provisions in H.R. 1797 (the 2013 version) &#8212; and this particular poll is outdated at best for the 2015 debate, thus tipping the rating to Two.
> Both sides should be transparent about the age method they are using. We will continue to monitor uses of the &#8220;20 week&#8221; phrase without clarification, which will earn automatic Pinocchios.
> *Two Pinocchios*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (About our rating scale)
> 
> *Send us facts to check by filling out this form*
> *Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook*
> 
> Michelle Ye Hee Lee reports for The Fact Checker. Send her statements to dig into via e-mail, Twitter or Facebook.
> 
> Get the Politics News Alerts Newsletter
> Free breaking news updates delivered just for you.


----------



## gapeach

The Washington Post link of the above article is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ercent-of-voters-oppose-20-week-abortion-ban/


----------



## gapeach

I sure don't have the time today to go back and search the posts. They are there though. You can do the searching.


----------



## Lisa in WA

gapeach said:


> I sure don't have the time today to go back and search the posts. They are there though. You can do the searching.


Doubling down. If you're making the claim, back it up. You must at least remember who said it?


----------



## Guest

Irish Pixie said:


> Ok. So it's just more of the same? Just fussing about how awful abortion is on the internet? To each their own.



As you say. Ditto


----------



## kasilofhome

basketti said:


> Doubling down. If you're making the claim, back it up. You must at least remember who said it?


I will remember who said it.


----------



## Cornhusker

basketti said:


> Doubling down. If you're making the claim, back it up. You must at least remember who said it?


You tell her, all opposition must be shut down and fact checked, unlike opinions from those in charge.
I'm really glad there's a half dozen secret mods around keeping the conversation and opinions on the right side of the aisle, free discussion just winds up in anarchy.
Good job :goodjob:


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> Should we give you two Pinocchio noses for that statement? I don't believe that anyone has ever said that Planned Parenthood never lies, nevertheless said it many times. Well, unless you can quote where someone said it? Please?


I guess it's ok now to call other members liars
Good to know when the hypersensitives spring into action :goodjob:


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> You tell her, all opposition must be shut down and fact checked, unlike opinions from those in charge.
> I'm really glad there's a half dozen secret mods around keeping the conversation and opinions on the right side of the aisle, free discussion just winds up in anarchy.
> Good job :goodjob:


Yes, we do need to fact check and post reality instead of that warmed over baby crap that some here keep posting as truth.

You keep mention theses secret mods. You seem to not like everyone being treated the same and are projecting.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> Yes, we do need to fact check and post reality instead of that warmed over baby crap that some here keep posting as truth.
> 
> You keep mention theses secret mods. You seem to not like everyone being treated the same and are projecting.


If everyone was being treated the same, I wouldn't mind at all.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Yes, we do need to fact check and post reality instead of that warmed over baby crap that some here keep posting as truth.
> 
> You keep mention theses secret mods. You seem to not like everyone being treated the same and are projecting.


I even said, "Please" there is no satisfying some people.


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> If everyone was being treated the same, I wouldn't mind at all.


Looks pretty even to me. Deletions on both sides. No bannings. In fact if you and a few others got points for all your deletions you would have been banned by the previous mods.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> Looks pretty even to me. Deletions on both sides. No bannings. In fact if you and a few others got points for all your deletions you would have been banned by the previous mods.


Is that a fact or an opinion?


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> Is that a fact or an opinion?


Opinion. I am not a mod so I have no look at the details just what I see.


----------



## Patchouli

gapeach said:


> I sure don't have the time today to go back and search the posts. They are there though. You can do the searching.


No one made the claim Planned Parenthood never lies. We have pointed out the truth of the matter when people claim PP lied and they did not. We have shown how difficult it would be to fudge things like medical waste disposal. But no one to the best of my knowledge ever claimed that PP never lies. Everybody lies at some point. See my list of lies from pro-lifers fr example on the other abortion thread.


----------



## Guest

Irish Pixie said:


> Why would I fear anything that is posted on the internet? Utterly ridiculous.
> *
> My point is (and was) Planned Parenthood never lied. Period.* But the Center for Medical Progress certainly did.





gapeach said:


> I sure don't have the time today to go back and search the posts. They are there though. You can do the searching.


Never is a hard word to prove,,,here ya go gapeach


----------



## Lisa in WA

Cornhusker said:


> If everyone was being treated the same, I wouldn't mind at all.


Did it bother you before, under the previous reign that people weren't treated the same? Personally, I think everyone is treated fairly now but if you're used to hiding behind the old mods skirts, it probably does feel unfair to you now.

Maybe put your flame proof undies on and stop whining.


----------



## Lisa in WA

dlmcafee said:


> Never is a hard word to prove,,,here ya go gapeach


That was very clearly said about the videos. You're taking it out of context.
She never said that planned parenthood never lies, she said they never lied about the video


----------



## Guest

basketti said:


> That was very clearly said about the videos. You're taking it out of context.
> She never said that planned parenthood never lies, she said they never lied about the video


Wrong, maybe you should read the content of my argument about planned parenthood and that was her reply.


----------



## Lisa in WA

dlmcafee said:


> Wrong, maybe you should read the content of my argument about planned parenthood and that was her reply.


Then maybe you should post a link.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> Never is a hard word to prove,,,here ya go gapeach


I knew this was going to come up, put it in context or you need a Pinocchio nose too.


----------



## Guest

Irish Pixie said:


> I knew this was going to come up, put it in context or you need a Pinocchio nose too.


You said never not I. You responded to my post I could not have forced it. Did I argue the video with you?.... Are you calling me a liar?


----------



## Cornhusker

dlmcafee said:


> Are you calling me a liar?


Looks like it to me


----------



## Guest

basketti said:


> Then maybe you should post a link.


Maybe you should look yourself, and if not others will read and understand for themselves.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> You said never not I. You responded to my post I could not have forced it. Did I argue the video with you?.... Are you calling me a liar?


If you are trying to say that I said Planned Parenthood never lied about anything, I am. 

I said Planned Parenthood never lied about 3% of what they do are abortions, and I pointed it out in a linked article.


----------



## Lisa in WA

dlmcafee said:


> You said never not I. You responded to my post I could not have forced it. Did I argue the video with you?.... Are you calling me a liar?


 Maybe you just don't understand what context means. Otherwise....


----------



## Cornhusker

basketti said:


> Maybe you just don't understand what context means. Otherwise....


And again, the Mod Squad swoops in and hints that someone is stupid.
Good job basketti, you zinged another one :goodjob:


----------



## Guest

basketti said:


> Maybe you just don't understand what context means. Otherwise....


Do you need the definition of never, are you questioning and criticizing my intellegece?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Cornhusker said:


> And again, the Mod Squad swoops in and hints that someone is stupid.
> Good job basketti, you zinged another one :goodjob:


Oh gee...I thought I was hinting that he was lying. My bad.


----------



## Lisa in WA

dlmcafee said:


> Do you need the definition of never, are you questioning and criticizing my intellegece?


Yes. Or your veracity. You choose.


----------



## Guest

Cornhusker said:


> And again, the Mod Squad swoops in and hints that someone is stupid.
> Good job basketti, you zinged another one :goodjob:


Yea it appears I am being called a stupid liar at that. Amazing,,,


----------



## Lisa in WA

dlmcafee said:


> Yea it appears I am being called a stupid liar at that. Amazing,,,


And what are you inferring about Irish pixie?


----------



## gapeach

I have been posting here since 2011 and have never seen anyone being treated like the group of you are trying to do to anybody that you gang up on. Many times things are taken out of context or some that some posts turns out to be wrong. Nobody is perfect and you (collectively) don't make the rules. I have seen people come and apologize for something that they posted being wrong. But never jumped on like 
this.:awh:


----------



## Guest

basketti said:


> Yes. Or your veracity. You choose.


http://www.google.com/#q=never+definition
The definition of never

I am sure yours and pixies offensive remarks will be overlooked by some but not me. Thanks


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> I have been posting here since 2011 and have never seen anyone being treated like the group of you are trying to do to anybody that you gang up on. Many times things are taken out of context or some that some posts turns out to be wrong. Nobody is perfect and you (collectively) don't make the rules. I have seen people come and apologize for something that they posted being wrong. But never jumped on like
> this.:awh:


Uh, did you miss that dlmcafee indicated that I'm a liar by taking something I said out of context?

ETA: When I make an error I apologize. I've apologized for statements I've made on multiple occasions.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> http://www.google.com/#q=never+definition
> The definition of never
> 
> I am sure yours and pixies offensive remarks will be overlooked by some but not me. Thanks


Put what I said in context, and quote it. If you can't than you do deserve a Pinocchio nose too.


----------



## Guest

dlmcafee said:


> You said never not I. You responded to my post I could not have forced it. Did I argue the video with you?.... Are you calling me a liar?





Irish Pixie said:


> Uh, did you miss that dlmcafee indicated that I'm a liar by taking something I said out of context?


Where did I call you a liar, I just posted a response you wrote and let the chips fall where they may. Are you trying to compound things?


----------



## gapeach

So, it was a mistake.....just get over it. It was nothing intentional and saying to put on a Pinnochio nose is juvenile. That is for the Washington Post to do for their fact check. We are just people on General Chat.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Not worth it.


----------



## Cornhusker

basketti said:


> Oh gee...I thought I was hinting that he was lying. My bad.


Either way, is it necessary?
Not everybody shares your narrow opinion
OOPS!!
Guess I'll leave the moderating up to the real mods. :goodjob:


----------



## Cornhusker

dlmcafee said:


> Yea it appears I am being called a stupid liar at that. Amazing,,,


Apparently that's ok, depending on who you are.


----------



## Cornhusker

basketti said:


> And what are you inferring about Irish pixie?


I see, it's a revenge thing?
Good job again, you have achieved vengeance, your D&D group will be awed by your awesomeness. :goodjob:


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> Put what I said in context, and quote it. If you can't than you do deserve a Pinocchio nose too.


Listen to the boss!!!!


----------



## Guest

Cornhusker said:


> Listen to the boss!!!!


I do and he ain't her.


----------



## gapeach

*Why would I fear anything that is posted on the internet? Utterly ridiculous.
My point is (and was) Planned Parenthood never lied. Period.*

Sorry, but that is exactly what you said. Whether it is taken out of context or not, it does not matter.

If I went back and checked other posts, I would likely find the same words by you or someone else who is pro-choice.


----------



## wr

It seems this topic has been fully explored.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> *Why would I fear anything that is posted on the internet? Utterly ridiculous.
> *
> 
> Sorry, but that is exactly what you said. Whether it is taken out of context or not, it does not matter.
> 
> If I went back and checked other posts, I would likely find the same words by you or someone else who is pro-choice.


Do you understand what "context" means? I said "My point is (and was) Planned Parenthood never lied. Period." under a certain set of parameters (context). What I said was in relation to the faked videos from the Center for Medical Progress and it's insinuation that PP lied about abortions being 3% of what it does.

Do you understand now?


----------

