Texas cuts Planned Parenthood. Costs tax payers an estimated 200 million.

[Magpai]

You do realize that's just someone typing their opinion into an online software that animates it, right? I mean, I could use that software to 'explain' how murdering the Jews was completely justified if I wanted (I don't want, for the record).

Idk, just that presenting it as "explaining" seems to imply some kind of actuality/factual statements when in fact there is not necessarily any present what so ever.

Are we really going to get into a semantic argument over the word "explain"? I don't care about any of that. Why don't you just tell me what part you disagree with instead? I'm logging off at any moment so if you tell me and I don't answer then I'm sorry for having wasted your time.

[Laize]

Not really considering that it conflicts with another principle they hold.

Depends on which one they hold more deeply.

[Skizo]

Which is irrelevant to providing a service to people who wants it but can't easily afford it. We're not classifying poor people and targeting them with abortions.

Yes, you are classifying them, since they were the ones who couldn't afford to pay for their own children and cost tax payers 200million$.

[Tribunal]

There's a lot of people out there who are incapable of children and are willing to pay a woman's medical bills so that they can have a baby.
So yes, it is pretty cold-hearted when there is another option.

Again, not the sole reason (usually by a long shot.... human right > saving money).
Also again, a woman's entire. financial. life. outcome. can be affected by her having children. That's not always solved by someone making an agreement to cover the medical costs of one child's prenatal care and delivery.
Also, that outcome is not as common as you seem to think (otherwise explain the foster system and the ridiculously costly and drawn-out process of overseas adoption) nor is in an option in some states or many many countries outside the US.

Also doesn't take into account, again, those 'other, bigger reasons' like medical concerns or rape, that again, are even more prevalent in many areas that aren't the US.

[Wells]

That's pretty cheap when you consider Texas' statewide income and the fact that they're not doing it to save money, but because of a principle.

So you're ok with a government blowing 200 million dollars to stick it to mammograms and birth control pills?

[semaphore]

Yes, you are classifying them, since they were the ones who couldn't afford to pay for their own children and cost tax payers 200million$.

How am I "classifying them", when I'm talking about making abortions available for all?

[Laize]

So you're ok with a government blowing 200 million dollars to stick it to mammograms and birth control pills?

It's not my government. Why should I care?

[Skizo]

Again, not the sole reason (usually by a long shot.... human right > saving money).

This whole thread is about saving the government money, what's up with your red herring?

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

There is a much, much greater demand for new born babies than is being served.
Took my brother three years to find a newborn to adopt

There are less than 2000 newborns being put up for adoptions. How huge do you think that number would become if everybody who didn't want their baby put it up for adoption instead of aborting it? What about adding in the kids whose parents are taking state money in order to support them?

Going off of legal and recorded numbers alone, that number would jump over 500 times.



Edit: Sleepy time.

[Wells]

It's not my government. Why should I care?

Ah yes your favorite fallback when someone calls you on the random things you say. Its really not the place of government to blow millions taking stands against perfectly legal things like pap smears.

[Skizo]

How am I "classifying them", when I'm talking about making abortions available for all?

Sorry, I assumed that your statements made in this thread were in some way relevent to this thread, in which the problem is that poor people are not getting abortions and are costing the government millions of dollars.

[Laize]

Ah yes your favorite fallback when someone calls you on the random things you say.

Look, I'm against government funded [insert almost anything here]. I reject the notion that people are better off with welfare than without. Texas could totally save that $200 million by eliminating their welfare programs altogether.

[semaphore]

This whole thread is about saving the government money, what's up with your red herring?

The whole thread is about pointing out how Republicans are contradicting their own "cut deficit" moniker. It's not the primary reason any of us support Planned Parenthood, just a side benefits. You're the one tossing out red herrings.

---------- Post added 2012-12-08 at 07:28 AM ----------

Sorry, I assumed that your statements made in this thread were in some way relevent to this thread, in which the problem is that poor people are not getting abortions and are costing the government millions of dollars.

This thread is about funding Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood does not only provide services to poor women.

[Tribunal]

Are we really going to get into a semantic argument over the word "explain"? I don't care about any of that. Why don't you just tell me what part you disagree with instead? I'm logging off at any moment so if you tell me and I don't answer then I'm sorry for having wasted your time.

Simply pointing out that that video is cite-less and no different than another sourceless forum post from any person on this thread. Sorry that rubs you the wrong way.

I don't care to watch the video honestly, I get plenty of "this is my take on a simple metaphor for healthcare" from all over the internet, I promise that one's nothing revolutionary let alone worth eight minutes.

Why not get a video from someone actually versed on the topic? Sure, many policy organizations, even those that are supposedly non-partisan, will have somewhat of a slant but at least there's actual data there, not eight minutes of an annoying robot voice reading someone's (rather patronizing, from the ~30 seconds that payed when I clicked the link) forum post.

[Wells]

Look, I'm against government funded [insert almost anything here]. I reject the notion that people are better off with welfare than without. Texas could totally save that $200 million by eliminating their welfare programs altogether.

Then they'd lose money from having a ton of poor sick people on their hands.

[Skizo]

This thread is about funding Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood does not only provide services to poor women.

It also provides services to people who can afford their abortions, but they aren't the ones who cost the government 200$million. They of course provide many other services which can and are paid for with private funding.
#connectingthedots

[semaphore]

It also provides services to people who can afford their abortions, but they aren't the ones who cost the government 200$million.
#connectingthedots

No one has said saving money is the only reason for funding Planned Parenthood. So what's with the strawmaning?

[Grizzly Willy]

Sorry, I assumed that your statements made in this thread were in some way relevent to this thread, in which the problem is that poor people are not getting abortions and are costing the government millions of dollars.

They weren't getting abortions from the Planned Parenthood funding. This point has been made explicitly by now.

[Wells]

Let's recap Laize. You're for minimal government. But you're ok with government blowing hundreds of millions on a moral stand against things no one hates. But that's not a contradiction because if you could you'd eliminate welfare entirely.

[Laize]

Then they'd lose money from having a ton of poor sick people on their hands.

You'll forgive me if I find no reason to believe that.

This whole "Americans without insurance" thing is pretty recent.

As for poor people? My heart doesn't bleed for them.