Abortionist could face death penalty

Good - I agree to disagree.

happy jack wrote:

This is not a case of wanting anyone punished. I just firmly believe that an abortion provider should not be subsidized using tax dollars, and that when you are dealing with fungible money, the so-called earmarking is nothing more than a shell game that is being played to appease pro-lifers.

If you could read and comprehend PP's earnings statement you would see that they have no need whatsoever to use Federal funds for abortions. They take in twice as much revenue from other sources than the Feds. That translates into all the money they need to finance a paltry 3% of their operation.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

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?

This is not a case of wanting anyone punished. I just firmly believe that an abortion provider should not be subsidized using tax dollars, and that when you are dealing with fungible money, the so-called earmarking is nothing more than a shell game that is being played to appease pro-lifers.
I don't know - I don't think we'll ever come to agreement on this, but what the hell - it's something to talk about.

I'm kind of busy today, but I'll get back to you on this, jack. I don't know if we will come to an agreement on this either, but I have another analogy that I'd like to discuss with you before we just "agree to disagree" if that's OK with you.

[quote="happy jack"]

Artie60438 wrote:

I will ask you one question, to be answered with a 'yes' or a 'no', not with a "Yeah, well, but...", or "... actually, you see... " - a simple 'yes' or a simple 'no':
Is Planned Parenthood an abortion provider that receives taxpayer dollars?
The question is very simple:
Yes or no?

Yes,and the money received from taxpayer dollars is used for contraceptives, HIV tests, cancer screenings and reproductive health services.....NOT abortions!

Can you prove or provide any evidence that taxpayer dollars are used for abortions? Yes or No?

[quote="Artie60438"]

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

I will ask you one question, to be answered with a 'yes' or a 'no', not with a "Yeah, well, but...", or "... actually, you see... " - a simple 'yes' or a simple 'no':
Is Planned Parenthood an abortion provider that receives taxpayer dollars?
The question is very simple:
Yes or no?

Yes,and the money received from taxpayer dollars is used for contraceptives, HIV tests, cancer screenings and reproductive health services.....NOT abortions!

I knew you couldn't do it.

Artie60438 wrote:

Yes,and the money received from taxpayer dollars is used for contraceptives, HIV tests, cancer screenings and reproductive health services.....NOT abortions!

Can you prove or provide any evidence that taxpayer dollars are used for abortions? Yes or No?

Yes.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Yes,and the money received from taxpayer dollars is used for contraceptives, HIV tests, cancer screenings and reproductive health services.....NOT abortions!

Can you prove or provide any evidence that taxpayer dollars are used for abortions? Yes or No?

Yes.

OK. Now please provide the proof.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Yes.

OK. Now please provide the proof.

If we must go over this again, then we must.
Planned Parenthood is funded by taxpayer money - indisputable.

Only 1/3 of their money comes from taxpayers,the rest from income and private donations but please continue to try and mislead us.

Quote :

Planned Parenthood is an abortion provider - indisputable.

Yes,a whole 3% of their services.

Quote :

Planned Parenthood is a single entity, and all money involved belongs to Planned Parenthood and Planned Parenthood alone - indisputable.

Yes,they follow strict accounting procedures and follow Federal laws which prohibit funds provided by taxpayers to be used in abortions. I'm also certain that if there was any solid proof or even whisper of any tax money being used for abortions the wingnuts in the House would have launched investigations as would Red states like Kansas..

Quote :

It's not complicated.

Apparently it is for you. I've provided the math lessons that prove beyond a doubt that PP can provide abortion services easily since it's such a small part of their services,previously in the thread. Perhaps you should reread them or find someone that can explain them to you in a way you can comprehend.

I really don't see the point of continuing to post the same stuff over and over again. artie. Jack has basically "agreed to disagree" on the funding issue. That's his right, no matter how misguided it appears to the rest of us. There is really no reason to belabor the point. Why not just move on?

Jack - At this point, I think I'll just skip the analogy that I was going to explore with you, unless you really, really, really want to continue this line of discussion. When I thought about it, my "new" analogy was actually just a variation on the original analogy that you came up with, so what's the point?

Just so you know, I have enjoyed the exchange, even if we haven't reached an agreement.

I thought we agreed to disagree, but Jack didn't like that idea (it was his).

KarenT wrote:

I thought we agreed to disagree, but Jack didn't like that idea (it was his).

I can't be absolutely certain, of course, but I'm pretty sure Jack was kidding, Karen.

Scorpion wrote:

I really don't see the point of continuing to post the same stuff over and over again. artie. Jack has basically "agreed to disagree" on the funding issue. That's his right, no matter how misguided it appears to the rest of us. There is really no reason to belabor the point. Why not just move on?

Agreed

My son was reading something about needing a sarcasm font. I think it's a great idea!

KarenT wrote:

My son was reading something about needing a sarcasm font. I think it's a great idea!

That would spoil the fun!

happy jack wrote:

Planned Parenthood is an abortion provider - indisputable.

Artie60438 wrote:

Yes,a whole 3% of their services.

3% equals 328,308 dead babies per year.

And their education and contraception prevents how many?

KarenT wrote:

And their education and contraception prevents how many?

This is from an article I happened to see yesterday, before you even asked the question. I haven't looked into it any further than this, so I can't vouch for these statistics. But if you are interested in the relationship between contraception and abortion, you might be able to use this article as a starting point
(By the way, in an earlier post, you were unsure if I was being sarcastic. For your future reference, if you need to ask, then I probably am. )

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/261715/planned-parenthood-under-microscope-defense-kirsten-powers-michael-new

.........

During a ten-year study of women in Spain, overall contraceptive use increased from 49 percent to 80 percent and the abortion rate more than doubled. This does not necessarily mean that greater access to contraception increases the abortion rate, but this study offers no evidence that contraception use actually lowers the abortion rate. Furthermore, a 2003 Guttmacher Institute study saw that anumber of countries, including the United States, Cuba, Denmark, Netherlands, Singapore, and South Korea saw simultaneous increases in both contraceptive use and abortion rates. Now it is true that the abortion rates in some of these countries declined in the long term. However, in many of these countries the abortion rate remained higher than it was before contraception was widely available.
Additionally, Powers cites a 2011 Guttmacher fact sheet which shows that virtually no women cited lack of access to contraception as their reason for obtaining an abortion. These findings are consistent with other research. Nine years ago the Guttmacher Institute surveyed 10,000 women who had had abortions. Among those not using contraception at the time they conceived, only 12 percent said that they lacked access to contraceptives due to financial or other reasons. Similarly, in their book Unmarried Couples with Children, sociologists Kathryn Edin of Harvard and Paula England of Stanford conducted an intense study of 76 low-income couples who had just given birth. Edin and England found that only a very small percentage of these women wanted contraception but were unable to afford it.
For many years, the mainstream media has subjected Planned Parenthood’s claims about the benefits of federal contraception funding to precious little scrutiny. That is why it was so heartening to see someone not affiliated with the pro-life movement do some research and publicly document the shortcomings in Planned Parenthood’s arguments. Even in light of the error, nearly all the research Powers presented was correct and damaging to Planned Parenthood. And perhaps Powers’ column will encourage others in the mainstream media to subject Planned Parenthood to some much-needed scrutiny.

That defies logic.

happy jack wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Planned Parenthood is an abortion provider - indisputable.

Artie60438 wrote:

Yes,a whole 3% of their services.

3% equals 328,308 dead babies per year.

I see you cherry picked that one,but ran away from the rest of my points. Typical

happy jack wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Planned Parenthood is an abortion provider - indisputable.

Artie60438 wrote:

Yes,a whole 3% of their services.

3% equals 328,308 dead babies per year.

You keep quoting that figure yet you never provide a source. How about providing one?

happy jack wrote:

KarenT wrote:

And their education and contraception prevents how many?

This is from an article I happened to see yesterday, before you even asked the question. I haven't looked into it any further than this, so I can't vouch for these statistics.

For the record, the author of the piece, Kirsten Powers. has issued a total retraction.

From the provided link...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-04/planned-parenthoods-birth-control-myth/

Quote :

However, on Tuesday, Powers issued a retraction. She states that she made a “serious error in reporting this column that undermines the conclusion I drew.” She goes on to say that her argument is “not supported by the data” and that it “invalidates my piece.”