\ \When I asked for a cite, I got, "I heard it on the radio" followed by \a bunch of cut & paste from an anti-abortion web site. I clicked on \one of the links and got a 404 error. That's about all the time I'm \willing to put in to chasing Rogers "facts."
Yes, the woman telling of her experience with Planned Parenthood was on the radio, just because she said it on the radio doesn't make it less true or false than it being on a website. So, I provided you with many other similar incidents that other women experienced with Planned Parenthood.
\Now, you need to remember that the discussion was about federal \funding for women's health services which Roger claimed would become \redundant under publicly funded health insurance. You also need to \remember that I said that I had no quarrel with that, and that Roger \then responded by going off into his all-too-familiar tirade about \baby killing.
Many bring up the "good" services that Planned Parenthood provides, if you search you can see that many abortions Planned Parenthood provided were because the contraceptives they provided failed, job security I guess. Use government money to hand out unreliable contraceptives and make billions aborting those babies!
\Menwhile, Gunner fantasizes about being a tennis umpire... \ \Roger: Are you also against contraception? Do you believe that \intercourse is only for procreation? \
Contraception is OK by me, but why does the government give PP money to had out contraceptives and PP makes a profit if the contraceptives fail? So, if PP gives out bad contraceptives, or bad advice, they are rewarded by making $$$ for an abortion, no wonder they are the nations number one abortion provider. And why is Obama so obsessed with funding PP? Maybe they aborted some babies for him so he wouldn't get caught or have to pay Child Support?
It's those ventilated condoms. Planned Parenthood hires a guy who shoots the condom packs with .22 birdshot loads before they hand them out. I read it on a Christian blog.
Roger, why don't you just face the truth. Planned Parenthood is an organization of people who feel that women have been medically undertreated and mistreated for centuries, particularly concerning reproductive issues. Some of them, like a good friend of mine, feel that Christians had it right about abortion -- before roughly 1840, when some of the Christians suddenly got the superstitious idea that human zygotes were imbued with a soul at the time of conception.
Before that time, the standard Christian idea was that there was a "delayed ensoulment," which occurred at some time before the middle of a term of pregnancy, and that terminating a fetus was at least marginally acceptable until that time. This was the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, which dominated the thinking about this and some other subjects on the part of theistic scholars from the late 13th century until American evangelicals got a different idea in their heads, with different sects rolling over between
1820 and roughly 1910. The Catholic Church did the same in 1869. English common law held roughly the same position -- abortion before "quickening" was Ok, or at least not a crime -- and that was the law that ruled US jurisprudence during the early days of our republic.
Those PP people see themselves as the last lifeline for women who are victims of subjugation by people like you, who want to tell them what they can do with their bodies because of your superstitious views. They are indeed firm supporters of the right to abortion and it's become the symbol, for you and your ilk, of what they're about. But abortion is not what they're about. It's women's health and rights that they're about.
We've listened to your rants about abortion and the way your former wife behaved for years. I have no way to judge your situation; we've only heard your side of the story, and we don't know a thing about the other side. Be that as it may, I'm not judging you or what you went through. I'll take you at your word for that.
But there's something missing. The only time you talk about kids is when you tell us how much it costs you to support yours, and about the "babies" (gestating fetuses) that are being killed. Never a word of affection, or anything that sounds even vaguely like human concern for any of them as human beings. It's always about you, and your wife, and the "baby killers." It's like they aren't even humans, let alone objects of human interest or concern.
Obviously, you're deeply embittered about what happened to you, and you may well be justified. But your anger toward abortion providers sounds unconnected with any feeling for the objects -- the children, or potential children. The closest you come is clinical descriptions of abortions. You could as well be describing taxidermy.
FWIW, it sounds like you want to make women pay for what's happened to you, and this is your way of doing it. The whole thing sounds not like a genuine interest in the lives of children, but rather an imposition of order that you think will restore your own sense of fairness.
And it's about you, not about those potential human lives. That's the feeling I get from most religious anti-abortionists. Your talk about it is so abstract and so focused on your own sense of propriety, which the antis call their morality, that if one walked into the middle of their discussions he would wonder for a few minutes what you all were talking about.
As far as I'm concerned, you keep your hands off. It's not your business. You don't have any connection to those women or their pregnancies. Those are their business, and their doctors', should the women choose. You're entitled to your religion but not to impose it on others.
OK, I've been thinking about this for a couple of days and while I can't argue that some significant number of people have been "saved" by religion, what about the huge number of people who have been killed in the name of religion? How many killed in the Crusades? How many in the Inquisition? How many in the Holocaust?
Seems to me like a losing proposition that religion saves lives, so we ought to pay for it.
And the fact that Roger chose to "find God or face life in prison" is good, but why couldn't he have decided to find something else rather than face life in prison? He could have decided, for instance, to find a good therapist or gone back to school, or taken up origami rather than going to prison. The point is that it was a choice that he made. Does this all mean that anything anyone decides to do rather than pusuing a life of crime should be tax-exempt?
I believe he did both. Therapy and school that is. The former with a bit of "encouragement". One took and the other didn't. I'll leave it to you to decide which is which...
OK, I've been thinking about this for a couple of days and while I can't argue that some significant number of people have been "saved" by religion, what about the huge number of people who have been killed in the name of religion? How many killed in the Crusades? How many in the Inquisition? How many in the Holocaust?
Seems to me like a losing proposition that religion saves lives, so we ought to pay for it.
And the fact that Roger chose to "find God or face life in prison" is good, but why couldn't he have decided to find something else rather than face life in prison? He could have decided, for instance, to find a good therapist or gone back to school, or taken up origami rather than going to prison. The point is that it was a choice that he made. Does this all mean that anything anyone decides to do rather than pusuing a life of crime should be tax-exempt?
=================================================
The psychology of the whole thing is a great curiosity to me. I don't even try to figure it out.
But, hey, everything is a tradeoff. Some get saved, some get killed. I have a couple of friends who have been born again. Three, in fact. We don't talk anymore. None of us know what to say to each other when we meet. ("Are you planning to retire soon, or are you just going to wait to be raptured?"....)
Whatever it is, it gets some people out of angst-ridden depression and gets them going in life. Look at G.W. Bush. Before he was born again he was a useless, drunken skunk. After Billy Graham got him on the righteous path he...uh....well, he started a Crusade in the Middle East and killed...oh....
I'm not in any position to know the savings in the incarceration area but the savings generated by good pre-natal care is nearly unbelievable. Unhealthy babies are very expensive.
I find their focus on affordable preventative care unconventional and refreshing. They provide contraception, screening and treatment for STDs, cancer screening and lots of good quality information.
formatting link
Ironically, Roger may be personally responsible for some of us clicking the 'donate' button on Planned Parenthood's site.
That was their original purpose at inception and it hasn't changed. Women are one of the least well served medical populations and always have been.
Planned parenthood also provides the only local professional services avaliab;e to a lot of rural women. Defunding them would be counterproductive and costly ideologically driven foolishness by any measure.
The same is true in the case of Head Start and a lot of other social programs. We get large dollars in health care cost savings for trivial amounts spent on good basic nutrition and health before anyone gets sick. Hungry kids can't concentrate well and end up less able to learn so their are also economic impacts that stretch over en entire lifetime.
These sorts of outcomes are why the Federal government got involved in the first place. It wasn't about touchy feely stuff. The nimbers work and they work in a big way.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.