sleeper;1848822 wrote:I've answered your question 3 times already and everyone else's question on this thread.

Why won't you answer mine?

You didn't answer my question at all. You tried being a smart ass instead.

If PP is THAT important to you and all these people who you claim it is important, then why wouldn't PP be able to receive enough funding to keep operating "business as usual" That means providing those same people you keep referring to with medicaid. We live in a country where a losing presidential candidate spent over $1B (LOL) for fucks sake. Facts don't care about your feelings.

Also, your question regarding what? Medicaid? It has nothing to do with PP being able to survive without government funding.

like_that;1848829 wrote:You didn't answer my question at all. You tried being a smart ass instead.

If PP is THAT important to you and all these people who you claim it is important, then why wouldn't PP be able to receive enough funding to keep operating "business as usual" That means providing those same people you keep referring to with medicaid. We live in a country where a losing presidential candidate spent over $1B (LOL) for fucks sake. Facts don't care about your feelings.

Also, your question regarding what? Medicaid? It has nothing to do with PP being able to survive without government funding.

I've already answered this exact question three times. They would not be able to provide $550M in free medical services. This would cause a reduction in access to healthcare for low income women but PP would survive. They would not be able to raise $550M a year from private donations to continue at their current service levels.

I don't know how many times or different ways I can rephrase the same answer to your question. In summary, PP will survive as an organization and still provide service without Medicaid. They will not be able to provide service anywhere near the current levels without it. This will leave many low-income women without the care that they need.

Now answer my question, using your own logic like above. Why do we need Medicaid if low-income communities can simply pay for their medical services through private donations? Why do we specifically target Planned Parenthood when non-profits like most hospitals who submit Medicaid reimbursements, also perform abortions? Should hospitals be able to submit Medicaid reimbursements and if not, what is your plan to help low-income persons who cannot afford medical care?

CenterBHSFan;1848815 wrote:I'll use my reasoning for why life begins at conception using purely scientific standards. When science finds a single celled organism on Mars they call it life.
When a spark lights up a cell (when sperm meets egg) and that cell immediately starts dividing upon itself should literally be labelled as life at that point, right? It's more than a single celled organism at that point. Right?


And the left isn't satisfied with just having the legality of abortion. Oh no. They always take it further and disparage and harangue the people who are against abortion. Always. This is also explicitly shown over and over again on this very forum. To the point where they are actually turning themselves into the same kind of person they love to mock and disapprove. They reduce themselves to pathetic satire and caricatures.
It's highly ironic and even gives me a chuckle at times.

A single celled organism is a lot different than a zygote. For one, a single-celled organism is a fully functioning organism, a fetus is not. A fetus cannot reproduce, a fetus cannot maintain homeostasis, and a fetus cannot react to stimuli; those are just a few of characteristics of what life is. Your argument is essentially saying that kidney cells are life and therefore those kidney cells deserve rights. Your argument is akin to parasites having a right to use your body, without your consent, so that it may flourish. It's okay not to understand science, but you don't give us some reasoning using "purely scientific standards" when you have no clue what you are talking about.

I do find it a bit interesting of your criticisms of the left. I'm sure the right bombing abortion clinics, protesting medical services, and calling women on the left murderers is okay with you? The left is frustrated because we have to deal with abject ignorance and theocratic ideology from the right day in and day out. It's also disheartening to hear people, who never in their life will understand poverty, shame women for either having an abortion or raising a child she cannot afford by herself. Let me know when the right learns empathy.

FatHobbit hit on something I had been thinking about in this conversation.

I feel like once you have kids, you may re-think some of your thoughts.

BRF;1848832 wrote:FatHobbit hit on something I had been thinking about in this conversation.

I feel like once you have kids, you may re-think some of your thoughts.

I doubt it. I will always defend the right of a person to have control over their own body.

The left is frustrated because we have to deal with abject ignorance and theocratic ideology from the right day in and day out.

Interesting.

sleeper;1848833 wrote:I doubt it. I will always defend the right of a person to have control over their own body.

But you have no kids (correct?), and so you can say what you are saying now, but you don't know, for sure, how you would feel if you did (have kids).

CenterBHSFan;1848834 wrote:Interesting.

So is this your idea of debate or are you conceding? Is this you admitting you have no clue about biology and your "purely scientific standards" are in fact flawed?

I asked you the same question I asked LT multiple times. Why do you hate poor women?

sleeper;1848836 wrote:So is this your idea of debate or are you conceding? Is this you admitting you have no clue about biology and your "purely scientific standards" are in fact flawed?

I asked you the same question I asked LT multiple times. Why do you hate poor women?

No, I'm not conceding anything.

I also do not hate poor women lol

BRF;1848835 wrote:But you have no kids (correct?), and so you can say what you are saying now, but you don't know, for sure, how you would feel if you did (have kids).

Why would it matter?

I don't need kids to understand what happens when you ban safe abortions. You get unsafe abortions. I don't need kids to understand that in order to reduce abortions, you don't reduce welfare programs, defund reproductive health care clinics, and teach abstinence instead.

I don't see how having kids would change my mind.

Well, there is a difference between reading about how you feel about your own children or listening to somebody explain how they feel about their children, and actually experiencing your own children.

CenterBHSFan;1848837 wrote:No, I'm not conceding anything.

I also do not hate poor women lol

Okay, so you aren't conceding but you have no counters to any of the points that I made? You just are going to write "Interesting" condescendingly and get high fives from the troll trash? This is exactly why I rarely expend the effort in constructive because I have to deal with disingenuous people interesting in trolling rather than informative debate.

And you don't hate poor women but you don't think your tax dollars should go towards annual check-ups, STI testing, and pap smears for them? I guess they should just flood overbooked OBGYNs for those 10 minute services. You clearly don't have any empathy towards their situation; they should just pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get rich!

I don't know. Maybe you could even go full SJW and say that children are a societal construct.

CenterBHSFan;1848842 wrote:Well, there is a difference between reading about how you feel about your own children or listening to somebody explain how they feel about their children, and actually experiencing your own children.

Which really has nothing to do with allowing safe, legal abortions.

CenterBHSFan;1848845 wrote:I don't know. Maybe you could even go full SJW and say that children are a societal construct.

???

HitsRus;1848806 wrote:

ppaw1999;1848519 wrote:
????
Under natural law, the taking of life is permitted only under certain circumstances.
1) War
2) self defense.
All of these listed are under the category of self defense. On the other hand, when you knowingly and willingly invite someone into your body with the full knowledge of pregnancy being a distinct possibility, you lose the right to claim self defense.
Seems the only ones wanting it both ways are the people who want to have sex without the responsibility of owning the possible sequelae.

Seriously? Using your view the only "being" who's life is endanger in the case of rape and incest is the "innocent unborn." The woman's physical life isn't endanger but her mental health is. The only one needing self defense is the "innocent unborn." Why is their rights any less then any other unborn? What are they guilty of? As far as your argument about inviting someone into their body isn't any woman who is pregnant taking some risk by becoming pregnant? So why should any woman be allowed to choose her life over that of the "innocent unborn?" Either you are Pro-life or you are not. Why should you have it both ways?

sleeper;1848844 wrote:And you don't hate poor women but you don't think your tax dollars should go towards annual check-ups, STI testing, and pap smears for them? I guess they should just flood overbooked OBGYNs for those 10 minute services. You clearly don't have any empathy towards their situation; they should just pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get rich!

I have no idea what you're talking about with this because I have said no such thing.

I have said before that I don't think any of my tax dollars, fungible or not, should be going towards abortions.

This is where you err. You throw in extra accusations that have nothing to do with what somebody actually said.

sleeper;1848830 wrote:I've already answered this exact question three times. They would not be able to provide $550M in free medical services. This would cause a reduction in access to healthcare for low income women but PP would survive. They would not be able to raise $550M a year from private donations to continue at their current service levels.

I don't know how many times or different ways I can rephrase the same answer to your question. In summary, PP will survive as an organization and still provide service without Medicaid. They will not be able to provide service anywhere near the current levels without it. This will leave many low-income women without the care that they need.

Now answer my question, using your own logic like above. Why do we need Medicaid if low-income communities can simply pay for their medical services through private donations? Why do we specifically target Planned Parenthood when non-profits like most hospitals who submit Medicaid reimbursements, also perform abortions? Should hospitals be able to submit Medicaid reimbursements and if not, what is your plan to help low-income persons who cannot afford medical care?

That's where you and I disagree. If our country thought it was important enough to donate over $1B to a losing presidential candidate, than PP would be able to get enough funding from donations if people like you actually thought it were that important. Hell, all these celebrities that find the need to save the world and tell us where our money should go could easily help raise the money. Not to mention as you and I both know anything that is funded by the Government is being funded well more than they should be funded and thus PP could operate without raising the $550M mark. In summary, PP would still survive (unless you actually don't think it's that important, which most likely is the case) and still provide service with medicaid (i.e. business per usual).

To answer your questions, which somehow went form 1 question to 3:

Why do we need Medicaid if low-income communities can simply pay for their medical services through private donations?The discussion is about PP and federal funding. PP isn't free, they charge a fee, but also accept most insurances. Since your questions are based off my logic, my logic says PP would receive enough funding from the goodwill of the people (because according to you they care so much) to operate business as usual. In that case, they can still accept and provide the same services the have been providing for medicaid patients.

Why do we specifically target Planned Parenthood when non-profits like most hospitals who submit Medicaid reimbursements, also perform abortions? Probably because our tax dollars go to PP and we can't decide on our own if we want to fund these nonprofits or not. Taxation is theft.

Should hospitals be able to submit Medicaid reimbursements and if not, what is your plan to help low-income persons who cannot afford medical care? This is a loaded question about healthcare and not abortions or planned parenthood. It's not a simple black/white answer and I am not going to give an otrap response to this, because the discussion will get way out of scope. Short answer is hospitals should be able to make that decision on their own.

sleeper;1848836 wrote:So is this your idea of debate or are you conceding? Is this you admitting you have no clue about biology and your "purely scientific standards" are in fact flawed?

I asked you the same question I asked LT multiple times. Why do you hate poor women?

You never asked me that, but we all know you already hate poor people and women. :RpS_lol: Nice deflection fail though.

CenterBHSFan;1848849 wrote:I have no idea what you're talking about with this because I have said no such thing.

I have said before that I don't think any of my tax dollars, fungible or not, should be going towards abortions.

This is where you err. You throw in extra accusations that have nothing to do with what somebody actually said.

Your tax dollars are not going towards abortions. It's completely disingenuous to keep repeating this lie over and over again to somehow justify removing Medicaid reimbursements from a health clinic that provides 97% non-abortion services. Stop lying. And stop using the word "fungible" like it matters; google 'Cost Accounting'. If you believe PP is using your tax dollars illegally, please report them to the proper authorities and cite your evidence.

Also, when are you going to admit your "purely scientific standards" were not scientific at all but rather incorrect? I'll wait.

Why do we need Medicaid if low-income communities can simply pay for their medical services through private donations?The discussion is about PP and federal funding. PP isn't free, they charge a fee, but also accept most insurances. Since your questions are based off my logic, my logic says PP would receive enough funding from the goodwill of the people (because according to you they care so much) to operate business as usual. In that case, they can still accept and provide the same services the have been providing for medicaid patients.

This doesn't answer my question. Why have Medicaid? If people care enough, they will fund health care services privately. Are you against Medicaid?

Why do we specifically target Planned Parenthood when non-profits like most hospitals who submit Medicaid reimbursements, also perform abortions? Probably because our tax dollars go to PP and we can't decide on our own if we want to fund these nonprofits or not. Taxation is theft.

Your tax dollars also go to these hospitals which are non-profits. I don't think you really understand how Medicaid works nor do you really have a good grasp on the healthcare industry.

But yes, nice line. Taxation is theft. LOL

Should hospitals be able to submit Medicaid reimbursements and if not, what is your plan to help low-income persons who cannot afford medical care? This is a loaded question about healthcare and not abortions or planned parenthood. It's not a simple black/white answer and I am not going to give an otrap response to this, because the discussion will get way out of scope. Short answer is hospitals should be able to make that decision on their own.

Embarrassing. It's not out of scope. We are talking about federal funding on healthcare providers and you've already stated multiple times that non-profits shouldn't need federal funding to operate. THey should be able to operate business as usual with private donations for patients that cannot pay. Why are you not campaigning for hospitals to disallow Medicaid reimbursements? What is your list of providers that are okay to receive federal funds for low income patients?

sleeper;1848852 wrote:Also, when are you going to admit your "purely scientific standards" were not scientific at all but rather incorrect? I'll wait.

I've already told you when I think life begins, which is at conception. Which, depending on which doctor/scientist (or the various groups of them) actually believe too. Each person or group has to arbitrarily come to their own conclusions because it is not really a settled thing. Some groups will advocate for one or another, some will not come to their conclusions openly at all. Because development runs constantly from one cell right on up to actual birth many different scientists/OBGYN's set various (and arbitrary) points for when life actually begins.

- Some set it at the actual meeting of sperm and egg.
- Some set it at the Blastocyst stage (about 4 days in)
- Some at implantation (about 6 or 7 days in)
- Some believe it to be at the occurence of the primitive streak (about 2 weeks in)
- Some set it at "Brain life", the onset of brain activity (about 5 months in)
* And some even set it at about 1 month after birth when self awareness sets in.
** And there are even some scientists who believe that life doesn't begin until brain maturation, which is about 25 years after birth lol

There isn't a real group consensus on the actual time.

So no, I will not concede that you are "right" over me. You cannot specifically state that you are right and I am wrong when the scientific and OBGYN and other scholarly communities can't even agree. It's arbitrary and it's subjective. Pick your poison.

Is a viable fetus - a distinct living pre-born human with awareness and pain sensitivity - an actual "part of a woman's body" just because it is situated inside the uterus, getting food and oxygen from the umbilical cord and amniotic fluid?

Or would that be more analagous to a swimmer underwater who is buddy-breathing off a partner's tank until such time as he can makes it to the surface?

What about a fetus being kept alive outside the womb?