Margaret Sanger's dream is sadly alive in New York City

[StLucieBengal]

(07-26-2015, 11:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Your call for more states rights is the exact same one used to promote slavery.   Was that a good thing?

You are no fun as atroll if you can't do better than this.

Step up your game Lucy.

Give me an argument for abortion that wasn't part of the negro project or any Sanger/Eugenicist propaganda.

[fredtoast]

(07-27-2015, 12:16 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Give me an argument for abortion that wasn't part of the negro project or any Sanger/Eugenicist propaganda.

It is a benefit to white people who have superior genetics but happen to be in a hard place financially.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-27-2015, 01:21 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It is a benefit to white people who have superior genetics but happen to be in a hard place financially.

Poor people are the undesirables.

[Belsnickel]

(07-27-2015, 12:16 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Give me an argument for abortion that wasn't part of the negro project or any Sanger/Eugenicist propaganda.

1. Since in the case of abortions being performed and abortions being illegal there is a violation of the rights of someone (if you deem an embryo or fetus to be a person afforded rights) and since the person being violated in both situations has not taken a felonious action that would justify the government violating those rights, the decision should not be in the hands of the government but in the hands of those involved directly in the situation.

2. Whether abortions are legal or illegal, they will be performed. We can institute better family planning availability and sexual education to help curb the perceived necessity for abortive services, but they will still exist. By making them illegal we are putting more people in danger as women seek out unlicensed and unregulated providers to perform the procedure, or rely on "home remedies" for it. Making it illegal will lower the numbers some, but not enough to justify the risk it will put women in.

[*bfine32*]

(07-27-2015, 09:06 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 2. Whether abortions are legal or illegal, they will be performed. We can institute better family planning availability and sexual education to help curb the perceived necessity for abortive services, but they will still exist. By making them illegal we are putting more people in danger as women seek out unlicensed and unregulated providers to perform the procedure, or rely on "home remedies" for it. Making it illegal will lower the numbers some, but not enough to justify the risk it will put women in.

The difference being; the ones that put themselves at risk by seeking illegal methods choose to do so. I don't think it matters to the unborn child either way.

[Belsnickel]

(07-27-2015, 09:55 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The difference being; the ones that put themselves at risk by seeking illegal methods choose to do so. I don't think it matters to the unborn child either way.

The point of that was more that making abortions illegal will not do much to curb the numbers, especially if we do not better educate as well as make available family planning methods. I would say paid maternity leave would also help, but I have not seen numbers to back that claim like I have the others. It's just something I think would be beneficial as it would help negate the interference with other obligations that was listed as a big reason on that one link you provided.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-27-2015, 09:06 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1. Since in the case of abortions being performed and abortions being illegal there is a violation of the rights of someone (if you deem an embryo or fetus to be a person afforded rights) and since the person being violated in both situations has not taken a felonious action that would justify the government violating those rights, the decision should not be in the hands of the government but in the hands of those involved directly in the situation.

2. Whether abortions are legal or illegal, they will be performed. We can institute better family planning availability and sexual education to help curb the perceived necessity for abortive services, but they will still exist. By making them illegal we are putting more people in danger as women seek out unlicensed and unregulated providers to perform the procedure, or rely on "home remedies" for it. Making it illegal will lower the numbers some, but not enough to justify the risk it will put women in.

I have not advocated to make abortions illegal The law is the law. I don't agree with it but it's the law. I just do not believe tax payer money should be going to places who perform abortions. And given how divided this country is on the matter it would be sensible to not allow public money or any tax benefits to flow to them.

The whole organ harvesting and sales is another story all togethet. It bothers me that they are changing the way they do aboetions to harvest more organs.

[Belsnickel]

(07-27-2015, 02:32 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I have not advocated to make abortions illegal The law is the law. I don't agree with it but it's the law. I just do not believe tax payer money should be going to places who perform abortions. And given how divided this country is on the matter it would be sensible to not allow public money or any tax benefits to flow to them.

Where do you draw the line, though? Do you cut off any grants to hospitals that may perform the services? Typically speaking these funds don't flow directly to Planned Parenthood, these are grants given to other organizations then flowing to them and none of the money is allowed to be used for abortion services.

We give tax money to a lot of shifty organizations and companies. I don't see why this one thing should be a sticking point, necessarily.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-27-2015, 06:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Where do you draw the line, though? Do you cut off any grants to hospitals that may perform the services? Typically speaking these funds don't flow directly to Planned Parenthood, these are grants given to other organizations then flowing to them and none of the money is allowed to be used for abortion services.

We give tax money to a lot of shifty organizations and companies. I don't see why this one thing should be a sticking point, necessarily.

Hospitals aren't using abortions as their main source of income. PP is .... I doubt they are making money off the breast exams.

The fact they are possibly selling baby organs just makes them look even more sketchy.

If other sketchy organizations get money then we can address that case by case. Everytime we turn around pp is in the middle of something slimy and the people who run pp are horrible at trying to justify it ....

Then you have crazy politicians like Debbie W Schult who wants to be able to abort babies right up until the minute before they are born. I know for a fact the majority of the nation is against that... All this crazy behavior by their supporters plus the implication of sketchyness. It all hurts pp and then everyone wonders why they are a constant target. Not to mention their long and sorted history.

Once you start making a list true or not .... Pp looks really bad. I have no idea why they don't shut it down and reorganize under a new name.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(07-27-2015, 08:29 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote:     I have no idea why they don't shut it down and reorganize under a new name.

Because then their detractors would just say "it's the same thing just under a different name!" 

[StLucieBengal]

(07-27-2015, 08:42 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Because then their detractors would just say "it's the same thing just under a different name!" 

Well if they laid low and learned how to handle their message then there would be no need.
ACORN changed names after they just looked ridiculous. If they did it then pp could.

[Belsnickel]

(07-27-2015, 08:29 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Hospitals aren't using abortions as their main source of income. PP is .... I doubt they are making money off the breast exams.

Actually, abortion services only make up about 3% of services provided. Most of their income, and by most I mean 97%, comes not from the patients but from grants and donations. 3% of services performed, and all services performed come to 3% of their revenue for the year. Abortion makes up a tiny fraction of their income, not even close to their main source.

This is all based on the KPMG audited financial statements available on the PP website for FY 2014 and the annual report for the year.

(07-27-2015, 08:29 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The fact they are possibly selling baby organs just makes them look even more sketchy.

Once I see something that proves this claim I will get behind any critique thrown their way for this.

(07-27-2015, 08:29 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If other sketchy organizations get money then we can address that case by case. Everytime we turn around pp is in the middle of something slimy and the people who run pp are horrible at trying to justify it ....

Every time we turn around an anti-abortion organization is doing something to make PP look bad using out of context propaganda designed to mislead and drawing fallacious conclusions from it. Once I see some proof of any of it from an investigation I will say they should no longer get federal money. But until then I am only seeing attacks on credibility from biased organizations out to end legal abortions int his country and so they go after the organization that represents the act in their eyes.

It's much like people curse the name Blackwater because of them being the most well known of the many overpaid and corrupt mercenaries we deal with. They are a symbol of something people have disdain for and so they draw more ire.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-27-2015, 09:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, abortion services only make up about 3% of services provided. Most of their income, and by most I mean 97%, comes not from the patients but from grants and donations. 3% of services performed, and all services performed come to 3% of their revenue for the year.  Abortion makes up a tiny fraction of their income, not even close to their main source.

This is all based on the KPMG audited financial statements available on the PP website for FY 2014 and the annual report for the year.


Once I see something that proves this claim I will get behind any critique thrown their way for this.


Every time we turn around an anti-abortion organization is doing something to make PP look bad using out of context propaganda designed to mislead and drawing fallacious conclusions from it. Once I see some proof of any of it from an investigation I will say they should no longer get federal money. But until then I am only seeing attacks on credibility from biased organizations out to end legal abortions int his country and so they go after the organization that represents the act in their eyes.

It's much like people curse the name Blackwater because of them being the most well known of the many overpaid and corrupt mercenaries we deal with. They are a symbol of something people have disdain for and so they draw more ire.

Well I wanna see an investigation. And a deep one. So we know once and for all.

[BmorePat87]

(07-28-2015, 12:24 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Well I wanna see an investigation.   And a deep one.   So we know once and for all.

Waste taxpayer money on pointless investigations to support antiquated social conservatism. How non-libertarian of you. 

[StLucieBengal]

(07-28-2015, 12:30 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Waste taxpayer money on pointless investigations to support antiquated social conservatism. How non-libertarian of you. 

Yeah cause gov waste and public money going towards a sketchy operation ... Sure isn't worth a look into what kind of shenanigans that's happening.

If they have nothing to hide then an investigation is warranted. Or they could just refuse any public money and go about their business.

[fredtoast]

(07-27-2015, 03:34 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Poor people are the undesirables.

That is not eugenics.

Eugenics is based on genetic traits, and the amount of money a porson has is not genetic,

[Belsnickel]

(07-28-2015, 12:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is not eugenics.

Eugenics is based on genetic traits, and the amount of money a porson has is not genetic,

A century ago the people in the eugenics movement would disagree with you. They believed that the impoverished were impoverished because of genetics.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-28-2015, 12:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is not eugenics.

Eugenics is based on genetic traits, and the amount of money a porson has is not genetic,

If your going to get into a discussion based on views of Sanger and the Eugenicists who started pp and set the agenda that is followed today.  It would be helpful if you actually knew what those people were about and why....    

At the very least you shouldn't use the same defense they used to hoodwink blacks back in those days to promote birth control and abortions.    

[BmorePat87]

(07-28-2015, 01:06 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yeah cause gov waste and public money going towards a sketchy operation ... Sure isn't worth a look into what kind of shenanigans that's happening.

If they have nothing to hide then an investigation is warranted.   Or they could just refuse any public money and go about their business.

Sketchy operation? What is sketchy about it?

[BmorePat87]

(07-28-2015, 12:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: A century ago the people in the eugenics movement would disagree with you. They believed that the impoverished were impoverished because of genetics.

This mother *****