Are you ignoring my point regarding the federal funding? You cannot prove that pp is using federal funds to perform abortions.


But that is one of your rationales for getting rid of it. You know, your argument isn't valid, but you're ignoring the fact that you have no proof of your false accusation in order to protect your argument. It's sad that you can't admit when are in the wrong.

 

PP performs abortions. PP receives federal funding. What difference does it make which pot of money is used for which procedure? That whole argument is absurd. It's like Exxon saying "we don't use Saudi oil in the gas we ship to California" after all of the oil is mixed together and refined.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

PP performs abortions. PP receives federal funding. What difference does it make which pot of money is used for which procedure? That whole argument is absurd. It's like Exxon saying "we don't use Saudi oil in the gas we ship to California" after all of the oil is mixed together and refined.

 

You are really bad with analogies.

---

;

;

Assuming that you are referring to Bon Jagley.

 

Absolutely.  The basis of accusations is very much available.  I've posted links that brings a person to unedited versions of the videos.  I've also linked to news stories that explain everything.

 

If I attempt to "spoon feed" the actual FACTS of the matter, there is the chance that I might get something wrong.  I encourage people to investigate and research for themselves rather than rely on my word.

 

From the same article.

 

Planned Parenthood has pushed back strongly the videos released over the past few weeks. Officials note that the recordings are heavily edited and maintain that the group does not profit from the transfer of fetal parts and tissue to researchers, but does receive payment to cover costs related to the tissue's preservation and transfer.
 

---

;

;

They clearly point out the altering of the abortion to procure specimens which is ilegal

---

Assuming that you are referring to Bon Jagley.

 

Absolutely.  The basis of accusations is very much available.  I've posted links that brings a person to unedited versions of the videos.  I've also linked to news stories that explain everything.

 

If I attempt to "spoon feed" the actual FACTS of the matter, there is the chance that I might get something wrong.  I encourage people to investigate and research for themselves rather than rely on my word.

 

The videos and texts are pretty long, if you're basing your accusations on specific items it would be useful.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Assuming that you are referring to Bon Jagley.


Absolutely. The basis of accusations is very much available. I've posted links that brings a person to unedited versions of the videos. I've also linked to news stories that explain everything.


If I attempt to "spoon feed" the actual FACTS of the matter, there is the chance that I might get something wrong. I encourage people to investigate and research for themselves rather than rely on my word.

Maybe I'm missing the key point here. I'm admittedly tired. What here is illegal?

---

Maybe I'm missing the key point here. I'm admittedly tired. What here is illegal?

 

Abortions?  LOL.  Faux outrage at it's best... 

 

Seriously, can someone explain what I need to be mad at?  I'm in kind of a bad mood anyways and need a target for my next outburst at work...

---

PP performs abortions. PP receives federal funding. What difference does it make which pot of money is used for which procedure? That whole argument is absurd. It's like Exxon saying "we don't use Saudi oil in the gas we ship to California" after all of the oil is mixed together and refined.

 

Malabar, you're a very smart person.  But no matter how hard any of us try, we cannot know it all.  It's clear you don't understand how accounting and auditing works...  Just trust me when I say that it does matter that there is a segregation of funds in regards to the streams of revenue and expenses in this situation.

 

And again, you are deflecting.  It does matter whether they use the funds from the government for abortions.  And trust me, if they were using federal funds for abortions we'd have known about it...  You have no proof that they are doing it, so you are making a blind accusation.  Blind accusations are dangerous and are also very very lazy.

 

Just admit it, you don't have a basis for your accusation in this particular circumstance.  If you can provide us with any proof that federal funds directed at PP are being used for abortions, then do so.  Otherwise, you are making a false accusation based on your political bias.  

---

I was under the impression the ACA would allow for government paid abortions. The federal government was still not paying for it but the state exchanges paying the private insurance premiums which cover abortions as women's healthcare do. It's all a smoke and mirror game, taxes are collected to fund the subsides at the state level, now in some cases directly from the federal government. The subsidized private insurance covers abortions. So unless the ACA standards for insurance forbid abortions, yes government is paying for abortions.

---

Abortions?  LOL.  Faux outrage at it's best... 

 

Seriously, can someone explain what I need to be mad at?  I'm in kind of a bad mood anyways and need a target for my next outburst at work...

 

Well, if you aren't upset about the moralistic implications, then you should be upset about a government-funded private "non-profit" organization profiting, admitting to breaking the law, and yet still receive funding. However, depending on where you stand on the political spectrum, that may not be a concern to you, in which case I say "Move along..."

---

1 in three black pregnancies in the state of NY end in abortion.

 

 

 

1/3 means there are 2/3's left...

 

I'm guessing that therefore, 1/3 of abortions are from whites...  Yup, CDC states that 37.7% of abortions are from whites.... (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm)

 

 

OH NO!!!!!  PP is killing whites!  Those racists!!!!  Grab your pitchforks!!  

---

1/3 means there are 2/3's left...

 

I'm guessing that therefore, 1/3 of abortions are from whites...  Yup, CDC states that 37.7% of abortions are from whites.... (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm)

 

 

OH NO!!!!!  PP is killing whites!  Those racists!!!!  Grab your pitchforks!!  

 

You do know that blacks are only 12% of the population while whites are 65%, right? You don't see the problem here?

 

12% is 33% of abortions while the other 65% is also 33%...

Yep no problem here :whistling:

---

Its the 1/3 means 2/3 are left comment that really got me.

---

You do know that blacks are only 12% of the population while whites are 65%, right? You don't see the problem here?


12% is 33% of abortions while the other 65% is also 33%...

Yep no problem here :whistling:

Economics is the point. Race has nothing to do with who is getting abortions. Otherwise, no matter what the demographic break down, it wouldn't be an even distribution of abortions between the whites and blacks.


Race baiting that blacks are being targeted for abortions is ridiculous. I'm sorry if you can't figure that out...


But seriously, whites are being subject to genocide!! Head furr the hillz!!! :-)

---

You do know that blacks are only 12% of the population while whites are 65%, right? You don't see the problem here?


12% is 33% of abortions while the other 65% is also 33%...

Yep no problem here :whistling:

So more whites get abortions?

---

Well, if you aren't upset about the moralistic implications, then you should be upset about a government-funded private "non-profit" organization profiting, admitting to breaking the law, and yet still receive funding. However, depending on where you stand on the political spectrum, that may not be a concern to you, in which case I say "Move along..."

Please exain why its morally wrong to advance medicine in this case? Donating bodies to science has done a whole of good for the advancement of medicine.

---

Please exain why its morally wrong to advance medicine in this case? Donating bodies to science has done a whole of good for the advancement of medicine.

 

You are asking the wrong person. If the mother AND father both consent that the fetus can be used for medical research, great. My beef is the legality of their process.

 

However, to the folks who believe that abortion is murder in all cases, it would be absolutely immoral regardless of the benefits.

 

Something doesn't have to be moral for it to be beneficial to society.

---

Please exain why its morally wrong to advance medicine in this case? Donating bodies to science has done a whole of good for the advancement of medicine.

 

A whole lot? Please list a few of the advancements made using fetal organs.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

A whole lot? Please list a few of the advancements made using fetal organs.

The Rubella and Polio vaccines for starters..

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Malabar, you're a very smart person.  But no matter how hard any of us try, we cannot know it all.  It's clear you don't understand how accounting and auditing works...  Just trust me when I say that it does matter that there is a segregation of funds in regards to the streams of revenue and expenses in this situation.

 

And again, you are deflecting.  It does matter whether they use the funds from the government for abortions.  And trust me, if they were using federal funds for abortions we'd have known about it...  You have no proof that they are doing it, so you are making a blind accusation.  Blind accusations are dangerous and are also very very lazy.

 

Just admit it, you don't have a basis for your accusation in this particular circumstance.  If you can provide us with any proof that federal funds directed at PP are being used for abortions, then do so.  Otherwise, you are making a false accusation based on your political bias.  

 

I admit that I'm no expert when it comes to accounting. But I have seen cases where perfectly legal accounting tricks have covered up losses (and profits). So just because there's no illegal accounting being found does not mean that government funding does not facilitate abortions. But even if that's true, government funding is going to a business that is performing abhorrent activities. Whether or not the informed left accepts this, a large majority of the US doesn't.


 

But to give you an example, how are the facilities funded? Presumably PP performs abortions in the same building that does (say) breast exams. Some of the federal funds go to the utilities and upkeep of the PP buildings. Can you really expect that PP exactly divvies up the sources of funding going to facility expenses so that no federal funds slip into the abortion side of the business?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"