sleeper;1848683 wrote: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.

sleeper;1848685 wrote: The issue is that they would not be able to provide as much access to healthcare if they were stripped of those reimbursements.

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?

sleeper;1848698 wrote: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.

sleeper;1848690 wrote: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.

said;1848692 wrote:Says the boy who'll never experience pregnancy on his own.

like_that;1848703 wrote:I am asking you what your personal feeling is on it.

Based on this quote though, you agree with me. Doctors/Clinics/Insurance/Patients should be the ones making that decision, not the government.


Sure they would. They would operate like 1MM+ other non profits that survive without federal funding. If is really that important to you and the people, they will still get funded. The recent spike in donations to PP proves that.

Also, I don't want to derail the thread, but it has already been proven you don't give a fuck about poor people or women, so save the bullshit.

like_that;1848582 wrote:

CenterBHSFan;1848704 wrote:What?

sleeper;1848714 wrote:I don't have a personal feeling on it. My feeling is that the decision should be between the patient and her doctor and no one else.

I won't address the rest of your post because I've already addressed this multiple times in this thread and others. You clearly don't get it.

sleeper;1848720 wrote:Well let's start with access. PP builds most of their clinics in low-income areas that most doctors offices won't even touch because they don't want to deal with Medicaid. Only about half of doctors are willing to accept Medicaid patients and PP goes where they won't go. For example, in DC, they just built a brand new clinic in the ghetto on the East side. PP also accepts walk ins unlike a lot of OBGYN and PCPs.

Second, PP is a trusted brand in sexual and reproductive health for women and women, in the free market, often times prefer their brand over other doctors. They know they can go there and talk with people who will discuss all of their options regarding their sexual health.

Third, a lot of the services PP offers does often times do not need a consultation with a doctor so its better to have providers that can provide that service much cheaper and much more effectively than PCP. For example, you don't need an MD to perform a STI test and PP staffs a lot of nurse practitioners to handle those tasks.

Conservatives are welcome to open their own healthcare providers for sexual health if they'd like but they'd rather use BIG GOVERNMENT to stamp out competition. Of course, they don't give a flying fuck about women, particularly if they are poor.

sleeper;1848698 wrote: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.

like_that;1848722 wrote:Sounds like more arguments for not needing government funding. Thanks.

QuakerOats;1848723 wrote:Such as some good old liberal indoctrination perhaps; advice on other government handouts, and maybe democrat voter registration.

rocketalum;1848762 wrote:I raised a point earlier that got no response and maybe nobody is interested in it or maybe it just got missed. For the 'life begins at conception' crowd. I'm guessing that comes from a spiritual or religious belief (perhaps not but willing to make that assumption). Help me understand how you marry that spiritual belief (which I fully support your personal right to) with a public policy/law. I personally can't do it. So back to my previous point. If life begins at conception and bestowe the rights of life/person-hood on that embryo/fetus/child, help me understand that definition as applied to our legal system. My wife and I experienced the miracle of creating life through the medical wonder that is IVF. They harvested and fertilized 17 eggs. Only 4 were deemed for lack of a better term "high quality". So is that murder x13 for those embryos not selected? We implanted 2 (currently our beautiful twin sons) and have two more on ice. If we do nothing with those two, two more murders.

This is why I made the statement before that while I personally oppose abortion, I can't support ending it's legality from a public policy perspective. The application of the law makes no logical sense.

sleeper;1848724 wrote:So you want to jam up the few doctors that accept Medicaid in low income areas with STI tests that can be done cheaper and more effectively at PP?

In what world does that make any sense?

like_that;1848776 wrote:Are you assuming that PP would disappear?


Also ironically this post is an argument against your call for single payer, but that's another discussion.

sleeper;1848803 wrote:They would not disappear; they would just not be able to provide nearly the level of access and service that they currently do. They don't have sufficient donations to cover the amount of patients they see annually that come in with Medicaid insurance.

I've already answered this question from you multiple times.

ppaw1999;1848519 wrote:

wkfan;1848494 wrote:Pro Life........

Abortion under 3 circumstances:
1. Rape
2. Incest
3. Mother's life in danger

Pro Choice. Why are the unborn in these cases less innocent and do not deserve the same rights as other fetus? It doesn't seem right to claim to be Pro Life and still advocate abortions in certain cases. You shouldn't have it both ways.

????
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.

slingshot4ever;1848799 wrote:As far as the government is concerned, that fetus isn't alive until it is born.

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.

rocketalum;1848762 wrote:I raised a point earlier that got no response and maybe nobody is interested in it or maybe it just got missed. For the 'life begins at conception' crowd. I'm guessing that comes from a spiritual or religious belief (perhaps not but willing to make that assumption). Help me understand how you marry that spiritual belief (which I fully support your personal right to) with a public policy/law. I personally can't do it. So back to my previous point. If life begins at conception and bestowe the rights of life/person-hood on that embryo/fetus/child, help me understand that definition as applied to our legal system. My wife and I experienced the miracle of creating life through the medical wonder that is IVF. They harvested and fertilized 17 eggs. Only 4 were deemed for lack of a better term "high quality". So is that murder x13 for those embryos not selected? We implanted 2 (currently our beautiful twin sons) and have two more on ice. If we do nothing with those two, two more murders.

This is why I made the statement before that while I personally oppose abortion, I can't support ending it's legality from a public policy perspective. The application of the law makes no logical sense.

like_that;1848805 wrote:And so did I. Their spike in donations proves they could find a way to operate and provide the same coverage.

If you and that many people actually care THAT much, then tell me why they wouldn't be able to receive sufficient donations just like 1 million other non profits find a way to do.

I know the real answer, doubt you have the balls to provide it. You know it won't fit your narrative.

sleeper;1848816 wrote:Why even have Medicaid? Just rely on private donations to take care of our nation's poorest. That'll definitely work!

like_that;1848819 wrote:Ignoring the question by being trying to be a pompous smart ass. Classic sleeper backed in a corner.

Facts don't care about your feelings.