None of those services are available at Walmart besides maybe unreliable pregnancy tests.gut;1848576 wrote:Most of that can be done at Walmart, CVS or many other clinics. PP is first and foremost "family" planning, mainly without the family part - it really would be more accurate to call themselves "Family Unplanning" or "Non-family Planning".
I would never be comfortable with killing a human baby. I am comfortable with someone killing a fetus. That is 100% their decision.At one point are you comfortable/uncomfortable (if at all) with killing a baby?
Fine, at what point in that chart would you be ok with killing a fetus?sleeper;1848588 wrote:I would never be comfortable with killing a human baby. I am comfortable with someone killing a fetus. That is 100% their decision.
92% of abortions are done before 12 weeks. The rest are usually only performed if the pregnancy has severe risks to the mother or the baby will be severely deformed. I'll let the mother and her doctor decide rather than inserting BIG GOVERNMENT into people's private lives.like_that;1848589 wrote:Fine, at what point in that chart would you be ok with killing a fetus?
It's really not a tough question to answer. At which point on that chart are YOU ok with killing a fetus?sleeper;1848591 wrote:92% of abortions are done before 12 weeks. The rest are usually only performed if the pregnancy has severe risks to the mother or the baby will be severely deformed. I'll let the mother and her doctor decide rather than inserting BIG GOVERNMENT into people's private lives.
Not to mention planned parenthood survived 50 years without federal funding. They also received a huge spike in donations after the election. They don't need any funding from the tax payers.gut;1848594 wrote:The funny thing to me is choice is so important and so in demand....but only if it's available around the corner down the street. Defunding PP would somehow limit access to abortion, eventhough 2/3 of abortions are carried out elsewhere.
This is like saying if you got rid of McDonald's, then people would starve.
Shit, Dawg..........don't even get me started.iclfan2;1848598 wrote:Not to mention Medicaid already pays for almost everything a poor person needs.
I'm okay with killing a fetus if that is the decision that is made between a patient and her doctor. I'm not going to set an arbitrary time limit.like_that;1848592 wrote:It's really not a tough question to answer. At which point on that chart are YOU ok with killing a fetus?
Defunding Planned Parenthood would limit access to healthcare much more than it would limit access to abortions, especially to low-income communities.gut;1848594 wrote:The funny thing to me is choice is so important and so in demand....but only if it's available around the corner down the street. Defunding PP would somehow limit access to abortion, eventhough 2/3 of abortions are carried out elsewhere.
This is like saying if you got rid of McDonald's, then people would starve.
Planned Parenthood will exist with or without federal medicaid reimbursements. That is not the issue. The issue is that they would not be able to provide as much access to healthcare if they were stripped of those reimbursements.like_that;1848596 wrote:Not to mention planned parenthood survived 50 years without federal funding. They also received a huge spike in donations after the election. They don't need any funding from the tax payers.
like_that;1848589 wrote:Fine, at what point in that chart would you be ok with killing a fetus?
Because the minute they cease being "innocent unborn" and become "alive", their worth is instantly measured by whether they can 100% support themselves.sleeper;1848685 wrote:Why do Republicans hate poor women?
sleeper;1848591 wrote:92% of abortions are done before 12 weeks. The rest are usually only performed if the pregnancy has severe risks to the mother or the baby will be severely deformed. I'll let the mother and her doctor decide rather than inserting BIG GOVERNMENT into people's private lives.
They are welcome to pay for a surrogate to have a child for them. Women are more than just surrogates for parents looking to adopt; I know Republicans don't view women as people but rather vessels for childbirth, but this isn't the 1500's anymore; women are people too and they a right to their own bodily autonomy. Shocking, I know.QuakerOats;1848688 wrote:2 million couples waiting to adopt ..................yet we have the senseless killing of the innocent unborn.
Liberal logic.
No, it's really not.sleeper;1848685 wrote:The topic of defunding Planned Parenthood is really about stripping choice and access to healthcare, not abortions, for low income women. Why do Republicans hate poor women?
like_that;1848582 wrote:Personally against
And vaccines cause autism!QuakerOats;1848686 wrote:Human life begins at conception.
God bless.
Again, for the 1,000th time, IT IS ILLEGAL for federal funds to be used for abortions. Google the "Hyde Amendment". It was passed in 1976.wkfan;1848691 wrote:No, it's really not.
It is all about not providing abortions funded by the taxpayers.
Period.
PP doesn't have offer any service that you can't get at your OBGYN or even your primary care doctor. Of course there are a number of advantages of PP over your OBGYN/Primary care doctor for these services but that's not what you asked.iclfan2;1848697 wrote:What does PP offer (other than abortions) that wouldn't be covered by Medicaid anywhere else? Why does it need taxpayer funding at all? Isn't Medicaid already tax payer funded?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk