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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

CenterBHSFan;1848834 wrote:Interesting.

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?

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).

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

I also do not hate poor women lol

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.

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!

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?

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?

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.

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