|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 24, 2008 18:34:42 GMT -5
Actually..... Planned Parenthood DOES RECEIVE GOVERNMENT FUNDING ..IE OUR TAX Dollars. They get money from TITLE X And MEDICAID...Medicaid MUST pay for abortions for indigent women in the case of rape or incest, or if the mother's life is endangered. Very few abortions fall into that category, and only a few of those are performed at Planned Parenthood affiliated clinics. Around 1/3 of Planned Parenthood's operating income comes from TAX Dollars. During its 2005-2006 fiscal year, the nonprofit Planned Parenthood Federation of America performed a record 264,943 abortions, attained a high profit of $55.8 million and received record taxpayer funding of $305.3 million. Wow!!! |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 24, 2008 18:39:46 GMT -5
Mostly, saunterelle, I want to hear your answers to these questions. Did you even know Einstein had a sister? Tell me, what were Beethoven's younger siblings names and how many did he have? Do you know the names of Bach's four siblings? Ever hear of Kurt Gödel's brother? How about the older brothers of M.C. Escher? Here is a good one, what do you know of the brothers and sisters of Plato? If what you said is true, you should be able to give the answers without looking them up. Remember what you said? Abortion doesn't kill the future or America. In most cases the would be parent simply waits until they are financially and emotionally prepared to bring a child into this world. Then they have the child and give it a proper upbringing, increasing the chance it will become an "Einstein" by establishing a nurturing environment where the child can thrive. If that is the case, and I don't believe for one second it is, where are all the others from the same families competing for recognition? The simple fact is, each child is unique, and will have their own characteristics and abilities. You can not create an Einstein through upbringing alone. |
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Sept 24, 2008 20:14:43 GMT -5
It is so tough to defend the indefensible.
Seems the little yellow bird has flown the coop.
Thanks, roquer for the data.
No tax $$ to P.P. my eye. Owned!
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Sept 24, 2008 20:34:37 GMT -5
And then again there's the always concept of preventing pregnancy until the parents are mature enough to raise children in the first place. You know, sex education etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Sept 24, 2008 22:16:40 GMT -5
Not a job I want the Govt. doing, thank you.
One look at the job they do on English, Economics or Math should be enough to convince anyone of that.
We'll teach our own kids, thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Sept 24, 2008 22:30:35 GMT -5
Not a job I want the Govt. doing, thank you. One look at the job they do on English, Economics or Math should be enough to convince anyone of that. We'll teach our own kids, thank you. That will work for some, but what about the illegal immigrants the country has no control of, the raped, victims of incest or a woman/girl whose life is threatened, children having children with no means of support who become emotionally attached to the newborn? There are too many variables to shut your mind off without thinking the other politcal party is "running the show". |
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Sept 24, 2008 22:36:27 GMT -5
So, rather than allowing parents to choose the time & place to teach their own kids, you prefer that the Govt. do it when the kids are a captive audience with penalties for non-compliance.
Are you ready for Govt. schools to teach your kids all about religion, as the Govt. sees fit?
Didn't think so.
Sex in the schools for everyone; religion in the schools for no-one.
A Democrat solution for America.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Sept 24, 2008 22:51:07 GMT -5
Why, why, why does the "well what about rape and incest victims" argument always come out as if those make up the bulk of abortions? Ditto for 'well what if it is needed to save the life of the mother?" There are not a whole lot of people who are against abortion in those cases. They might not like it, but see that it may be necessary. MOST, as in 70% or more (depends on which set of stats you use), are for the convienience of the mother NOT for the emergencies that get trotted out.
And, I will say again, the fetus is NOT part of the mothers body. Here are some points about it:
PART OF THE MOTHER’S BODY?
There are a number of clear biological facts which easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is
simply part of the mother’s body.
1) An individual’s body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of
the mother’s body, the unborn’s cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This
is not the case. Every cell of the unborn’s body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother’s body.
2) In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since
one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother’s blood.
3) In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different
from the mother.
4) As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, “A Chinese zygote
implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his
genetic code, not that of the body in which he resides.”
5)It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the
fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6) It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row in the U.S. because the fetus living inside her is
a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother.
7) It has long been known that unborn children play a signifi cant role in pacing a woman’s pregnancy. Sir
Albert Lilley (the “Father of Fetology”) made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled “The Termination
of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?”
Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of
the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere
appendage of the mother.... It is the embryo who stops his mother’s periods and makes her
womb habitable by developing a placenta and a protective capsule of fl uid for himself. He
regulates his own amniotic fl uid volume and although women speak of their waters breaking or
their membranes rupturing, these structures belong to the fetus. And fi nally, it is the fetus, not
the mother, who decides when labor should be initiated
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Sept 24, 2008 22:57:52 GMT -5
So, rather than allowing parents to choose the time & place to teach their own kids, you prefer that the Govt. do it when the kids are a captive audience with penalties for non-compliance. Are you ready for Govt. schools to teach your kids all about religion, as the Govt. sees fit? Didn't think so. Sex in the schools for everyone; religion in the schools for no-one. A Democrat solution for America. What child gets a penalty for non-compliance? Sex education was taught for ions now, or at least even I remember the embarassing class in 5th grade. My parents were old fashioned and sex wasn't discussed. I taught my kids sex education at home, but one has to remember, responsible parents always have honest intentions, but are not professionals. |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Sept 24, 2008 23:05:21 GMT -5
harpman, your response is typical. I am up to my eyeballs in disgust over comments like yours. Teach your kids what ever you want, I don’t care, but I do care about all of the teens who get pregnant and abort their babies, and maybe if someone taught them the consequences of sex ie: sperm meets egg, and pregnancy occurs as a result unless protected blah, blah, blah some may actually refrain unless protected, or here’s a thought, maybe they won’t “do it” at all!
Sorry to tell you and the rest that without education, and in a scientific manner, not pornographic, abortions will continue, and frankly I say the blood is on the hands of those who refuse to educate.
How many children have you raised by the way and when did you introduce sex ed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Sept 24, 2008 23:10:46 GMT -5
Subdjoe: "There are a number of clear biological facts which easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is
simply part of the mother’s body."
Why don't men get pregnant then?
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Sept 24, 2008 23:12:03 GMT -5
"Sorry to tell you and the rest that without education, and in a scientific manner, not pornographic, abortions will continue, and frankly I say the blood is on the hands of those who refuse to educate. "
And part of that education MUST be self control, self discipline, and the only 100% sure way to prevent pregnancy and STDs is to not have sex. I'm not saying that is the ONLY thing that should be taught, and I don't hear many people saying that it is the only thing that should be taught, but it needs to be thrown into the mix, rather than the "promiscuity only" sex ed we get in the schools now.
|
|
