GOP assault on women's access to health care begins

So...in your mind it's all about money? Hate to break it to ya guy but people can be awful no matter how much money they have. Also, this is talking about "likelihood" which is a percentage not raw numbers. For example if we're talking about 2 people and 1 person has an abortion then 50% of that group had an abortion. Meanwhile, in a different group of 10,000 you have 2500 abortions and that rate is much lower....but is much more significant.

Nope, the "theory" which is backed by evidence still holds up.

 

No, if you read the report it would actually tell you what it is about. That a woman who is for example going through college isn't going to have a baby...because it would negatively affect her life more than it would some woman working as a cashier at Walmart. Honestly, it's the same mindset that men have regarding babies as well. If you have a bright future the last thing you need is a child to take care of and divide your responsibilities between being a parent and your occupation/education.

Edit: Of course this is one reason, there are MANY reasons a woman would choose to abort a child, but it makes sense why a woman who has a brighter future may decide that at the current time it's probably not a good thing for them.

Present your evidence. All I've seen in this thread are your theories backed by no studies or facts. It's pretty widely known that the poor have more babies.

 

No dude. Crime has been on a downward trend. Someone already post that rich folks actually tend to have more abortion. But I really don't care about that. You don't get to play god with who will or will not be a criminal. The chances are always there for anyone. If you think elected abortion is a way to reduce crimes, then by extension, we should try to persuade and have as many abortion as possible. Cause once they are convinced and elected to get an abortion, crime will be reduced. Win win. Awesome!

 

Of course it has, not only is abortion legal, but it's being used more and more every year. Crime took a huge nose dive about 20 years after Roe v Wade just like anywhere else that legalizes abortion.

 

Actually there is some truth that abortions pushed down the crime rate. Is is the main cause, no, but apparently there is an argument for abortion having some type of effect on crime rates.

 

This comment displays the height of stupidity and ignorance.

 

It's just an obviously true statement and it's something that has been observed to happen in many different areas....that said, I know that just because something is obviously true doesn't mean that people will understand that.

 

Ok. I didn't really look at that. But it honestly doesn't really matter to me.

Let said indeed abortion = lower crime. So what now? Should we be celebrating abortion? In the interest of crime reduction, shouldn't we be pushing to abort all relatively "likely" criminals? That's just inhuman and evil. Instead, society should be understanding why and find way to both reduce abortion and crimes.

Of course, we also know that people chooses to have abortion for all kind of reasons and I would bet whatever data there is about abortion and crime is more correlation than causal. But again, as I said, abortion is never something that is awesome and worth celebrating.

EDIT: relevant article for those really interested in abortion to crime correlation - there isn't strong evidence either way (yes, some said it increases crime rate) according to this piece: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/26/does-abortion-really-reduce-crime-another-look-at-freakonomics/

 

I like this discussion of one guy not reading or presenting sources while trying to construct an argument with nothing other than his own common cents.

Bobby, a courtesy would be to tell your d&d friends what you get on the abortion paper. Maybe highlighting the distinction between third trimester baby killing against day after clump o' cells murder might be the angle to break that B-.

 

As much as I hate to agree with Bobby, and I do so hate it--he's right, straight out of a Freakonomics story that I listened to a few years back or more on NPR. The conclusion was literally that the drop in crime completely corresponded with Roe v Wade 15-20 later. They were trying to figure out why there was such a precipitous drop in crime and after isolating all the factors of community policing, tougher jail sentences, more cops etc. We can certainly argue correlation vs causation though.

 

This could very well be true. If it is the case, all the more reasons to keep Roe vs Wade, even if it does not bother me too much either way.

 

If life begins at conception then God aborts more pregnancies than planned parenthood. Defund religion.

 

Since nobody has shared any real information on how federal planning of PP works, I guess I will:

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...lanned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money

The key takeaway is this - the federal money PP gets is not "mixed into the budget pool" (as some of the usual mouth breathers here have claimed) but is Medicare and Title X reimbursements for services already provided. This money is no different than what any other health provider would receive for similar services.

I can see the PR merit to creating a different organization for abortions, but we all know that still won't be enough for those who want to "save the unborn" (while harming millions more actual horns). They are looking to destroy any organization that provides anything other than abstinence-only health and family planning services. It's really bizarre frankly.

 

Even the condom machines support abstinence (this was in a bathroom in MS somewhere- Meridian, I think):

 

Yes, they receive money from Title X and Medicaid.

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Money is fungible. The government sends money to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood provides abortions, paying money for doctors, facilities, etc. in order to be able to provide abortions. Thus, the government uses tax dollars to pay for abortion services.

Exactly, so the patients can go to a non-abortion health care provider (be that Planned Parenthood after eliminating abortion services or another provider) and have the same services paid for the same way, without sending federal money to an abortion provider.

You might be surprised how many people oppose abortions but support contraception.

 

Most of the posters itt are RAPISTS.

 

I don't want my tax dollars going to underperforming rural areas, can I make a moral cause for it?

The problem is the religious right don't have an alternative to planned parenthood. Texas's alternative is underfunded, intentionally because they actually don't support women's health.

Or just give up your church's tax free status and you can not pay for abortions?

 

You won't know until you try.

How about Planned Parenthood without their abortion practice. There's an alternative to Planned Parenthood.

I don't have a church, but sure. I don't see a need to have any tax exempt organizations. Charitable giving will probably decrease, but tax revenue increases might make it worthwhile.

 

Touche, but very doubtful.

I just told you. It doesn't work out that way as eliminating abortion services isn't enough for the religious right. Texas's state funded women's program has less enrollees and provides less services than Planned Parenthood without considering the small fraction of abortions out of total services. .

So there's no religious slant to your pro-life stance?

 

I think PP serves a good purpose but why can't they fundraise like other charities? Why need federal funding?