Abortionist could face death penalty

Heretic wrote:

Or b) the taxpayer money simply goes into a separate account they don't use for abortions. They've had to since Nixon signed it into law 40 years ago.

Thanks for playing.

happy jack wrote:

Yeah. A separate account managed by the same organization.
Jesus H.
How gullible do you need to be to buy that crock?
A parent hands a child eight dollar bills as an allowance and tells the child that those eight dollar bills must go into a savings account. Then, the parent hands the child two dollar bills and tells the child that those bills may be used for candy. The child wads up all of the bills and crams them into his pocket. When he goes to buy candy, which bills must he use in order to remain compliant with the parent's wishes?
And what the hell difference does it make anyway? The same entity will spend money from the overall budget, regardless of what it is earmarked for.
Thanks for playing, my ass.

Yeah. Well using your "example," it's more accurate to say that the parent hands the child 8 dollar bills and tells the child to put the $8 in a savings account. Then someone else, say Grandma, gives the child $2 for candy. So the child has only $2 for candy, not $10. The $8 goes into the savings account, as intended, and can be easily tracked. If the child needs more money for candy, then the child has to go back to Grandma, because the parent will refuse to give the child money unless it goes into the savings account.

KarenT wrote:

Actually, I believe it goes into a sealed container.

Oh.
Well.
That's very different, then.
The image of a dismembered baby sealed inside a plastic Zip-Loc bag is nowhere near as disturbing as the image of a dismembered baby lying in a bucket.

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Well using your "example," it's more accurate to say that the parent hands the child 8 dollar bills and tells the child to put the $8 in a savings account. Then someone else, say Grandma, gives the child $2 for candy. So the child has only $2 for candy, not $10. The $8 goes into the savings account, as intended, and can be easily tracked. If the child needs more money for candy, then the child has to go back to Grandma, because the parent will refuse to give the child money unless it goes into the savings account.

happy jack wrote:

There is one entity - the child (or in this case, Planned Parenthood) who pays for his candy with whichever bill he happens to pluck from the wad of bills in his pocket.

No, that's simply not correct. As I pointed out, the "child" only has $2 for candy, not $10. The other money is put into a savings account.

happy jack wrote:

It doesn't matter how cleverly the creative bookkeepers at Planned Parenthood manage their money, or how creatively Planned Parenthood's defenders twist things to pretend that taxpayer money is not involved in the abortion industry - it is, and anyone who thinks otherwise is being either dishonest or willfully naive.

Nonsense. Using your own example, I showed how easy it is to understand. It doesn't require any "creative bookkeeping." Planned Parenthood simply cannot use taxpayer money to fund any abortions. If they want to provide abortion services, that money must come from somebody else.

happy jack wrote:

It's kind of like when George Costanza...

Yeah, well lets stick to one "analogy" at a time. You haven't really addressed my response to your first analogy yet.

KarenT wrote:

IMO, until the fetus is viable, it is potential life, not really alive.

Yep. And that's exactly why the Supreme Court of the United States adopted a "viability standard" when they decided Roe V Wade.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Planned Parenthood simply cannot use taxpayer money to fund any abortions. If they want to provide abortion services, that money must come from somebody else.

Sorry, Scorpion - as George said, "It's all pipes!"

Sorry, Jack. You're still dodging my response to your first analogy. Are you admitting that your original analogy was incorrect?

happy jack wrote:

My first analogy may have been clumsy and ill-formed.

Ok. Fair enough.

happy jack wrote:

However, that does not for a second change the fact that, "It's all pipes!"

With all due respect, I think that this analogy is actually worse than the first one....

happy jack wrote:

It's kind of like when George Costanza got caught peeing in the shower at his health club. Do you remember what his defense was?
"What's the difference? It's all pipes!"
And he was right - regardless of the source, it all ends up in the same place.

In real life, it does matter what the "source" is. That's exactly why there is a distinction between taxpayer funds and funds from other sources. The simple fact of the matter is that it seems that you don't like Planned Parenthood only because they provide abortions. (at least according to what you've said so far. If there is another reason, please feel free to share it.) You choose to ignore 97% of the work that they do and focus on the 3% that you object to... even though that 3% is funded by someone else.

Tax dollars help fund Planned Parenthood because of all the good things that they do, not because they also provide abortions which are paid for by someone else.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

My first analogy may have been clumsy and ill-formed.

Ok. Fair enough.

happy jack wrote:

However, that does not for a second change the fact that, "It's all pipes!"

With all due respect, I think that this analogy is actually worse than the first one....

happy jack wrote:

It's kind of like when George Costanza got caught peeing in the shower at his health club. Do you remember what his defense was?
"What's the difference? It's all pipes!"
And he was right - regardless of the source, it all ends up in the same place.

In real life, it does matter what the "source" is. That's exactly why there is a distinction between taxpayer funds and funds from other sources. The simple fact of the matter is that it seems that you don't like Planned Parenthood only because they provide abortions. (at least according to what you've said so far. If there is another reason, please feel free to share it.) You choose to ignore 97% of the work that they do and focus on the 3% that you object to... even though that 3% is funded by someone else.

Tax dollars help fund Planned Parenthood because of all the good things that they do, not because they also provide abortions which are paid for by someone else.

Bottom line, it is an organization that provides abortion services, subsidized by the federal government with taxpayer money.
Again - pipes.

So are you saying that we should never assist any organization with tax dollars unless 100% of us agree with everything that an organization does, even if what is objected to is funded from another source?

Hilariously relevant.

Scorpion wrote:

In real life, it does matter what the "source" is. That's exactly why there is a distinction between taxpayer funds and funds from other sources. The simple fact of the matter is that it seems that you don't like Planned Parenthood only because they provide abortions. (at least according to what you've said so far. If there is another reason, please feel free to share it.) You choose to ignore 97% of the work that they do and focus on the 3% that you object to... even though that 3% is funded by someone else.

Planned Parenthood's Earning report for 2008 can be found Here They take in about 700 million from other sources which is almost twice the amount they receive from the gov't. That is way,way more than enough to cover the cost of abortion services.

Quote :

Tax dollars help fund Planned Parenthood because of all the good things that they do, not because they also provide abortions which are paid for by someone else.

For every dollar spent on family planning it saves 3.74 in medicaid costs down the road.

Quote :

So they want to cut everything from family care to pre-natal care to child nutrition. It's like the Republicans in Congress are saying you can't prevent an unwanted child, you can't get care if you do get pregnant, and we won't give you any help feeding the kid after it's born. But those two minutes when that skull is crowning, your baby's the most precious thing on earth.
- Jon Stewart

I think the pro-life movement is my favorite hypocrisy.

You didn't answer his question:

Scorpion wrote:

So are you saying that we should never assist any organization with tax dollars unless 100% of us agree with everything that an organization does, even if what is objected to is funded from another source?

Why would you assume they co-mingle funds? Lawyers manage to keep clients' trusts separate from operating funds; why couldn't PP use the same accounting methods?

KarenT wrote:

Why would you assume they co-mingle funds? Lawyers manage to keep clients' trusts separate from operating funds; why couldn't PP use the same accounting methods?

Because proper accounting procedures like you pointed out and and following Federal Law doesn't fit in with an idiotic analogy of how a child might handle Ten dollars given to him.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

You didn't answer his question:

Scorpion wrote:

So are you saying that we should never assist any organization with tax dollars unless 100% of us agree with everything that an organization does, even if what is objected to is funded from another source?

No.

No? What about this?

happy jack wrote:

However, that does not for a second change the fact that, "It's all pipes!"

I don't see how you say that it's OK to assist any organization with tax dollars if we don't all agree with everything that an organization does. (even if what is objected to is funded from another source)

Because, after all, "it's all pipes." Are you beginning to see the problem with the Costanza analogy yet?

happy jack wrote:

Just for the sake of argument – if the Department of Transportation alloted taxpayer funds to a local highway beautification group, and they planted bushes along the shoulder of the highway where I would rather have had trees, I probably really wouldn’t raise a big stink. But, if rather than using the funds to plant the trees that I prefer they used it to fund abortions, then I would have a problem.
I pick my battles.
Are you starting to get the picture?

Nope,because you're once again missing the point. Planned Parenthood doesn't use taxpayer funds to provide abortion services. Therefore your analogy is ridiculous.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I don't see how you say that it's OK to assist any organization with tax dollars if we don't all agree with everything that an organization does. (even if what is objected to is funded from another source)

Just for the sake of argument – if the Department of Transportation alloted taxpayer funds to a local highway beautification group, and they planted bushes along the shoulder of the highway where I would rather have had trees, I probably really wouldn’t raise a big stink. But, if rather than using the funds to plant the trees that I prefer they used it to fund abortions, then I would have a problem.
I pick my battles.
Are you starting to get the picture?

Although I do understand what you're trying to say, I just don't think the "it's the taxpayers' money" argument is valid. Even some private donors to Planned Parenthood specifically prohibit their funds from being used for abortions...

Like the Gates Foundation...

http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1999/b3652114.arc.htm

Quote :

For example, while the foundation donates to a few family planning groups, including Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc., those initiatives are a small part of the foundation's overall donations. Furthermore, the funds are earmarked for very specific purposes, such as a teenage hot line and Web site, projects that have nothing to do with providing abortions. "Obviously I can't speak for what Melinda Gates believes," says Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood. "But I do know that she is a practicing Catholic and there is a desire on her part to respect the teachings of the Church."

So even private donors are able to "pick their battles." I can certainly understand why a devout Catholic would oppose abortion, and would take the steps necessary to prevent their donations from being used for that purpose.

In short, it's just not credible to claim that the reason that you want funds to Planned Parenthood cut is because they use taxpayer's money to fund abortions. Don't you really mean that you want to punish Planned Parenthood because they provide abortions, even if somebody else is paying for them?

Why not just admit it?