Clyde Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 http://cnsnews.com/news/article/planned-parenthood-took-life-american-ev I see the error. I took 3% of the 3M people they saw. They are taking 3% of the # of services they provided which was 11M+. However, we're off track here. We all wish abortions totaled zero. They do not. They will not ever. So if we banned PP from receiving federal funds that means a good % of those 330k people would have their child and a good % of those that did have their child would need welfare assistance. You cool with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cammando Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Most that go to PP are already on welfare... They know the system quite well and abuse it as they see fit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westsider Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Most that go to PP are already on welfare... They know the system quite well and abuse it as they see fit...Quite a generalization ... you have a credible source that confirms that belief? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acemona Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Most that go to PP are already on welfare... They know the system quite well and abuse it as they see fit... You got a link for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cammando Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 You guys are hilarious... PP IS a welfare program.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westsider Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 You guys are hilarious... PP IS a welfare program....Says Mr. Objective ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acemona Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 So that would be a 'no' on the request for a link to back up your assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldweatherfan Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I disagree, so the point is debatable and should be debated on its own merits. "Provide for the general welfare . . ." It's promote the general welfare. The only reason it was called welfare was so people could pervert it and say it's in the constitution. But if you read the works of the gentlemen who wrote that line, I don't think the welfare state that we have is what they envisioned. I believe they meant create an environment where business and commerce can thrive. That's what promoting the general welfare means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acemona Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 It's promote the general welfare. The only reason it was called welfare was so people could pervert it and say it's in the constitution. But if you read the works of the gentlemen who wrote that line, I don't think the welfare state that we have is what they envisioned. I believe they meant create an environment where business and commerce can thrive. That's what promoting the general welfare means. I didn't realize that Ayn Rand was one of the founding "fathers". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldweatherfan Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I didn't realize that Ayn Rand was one of the founding "fathers". She wasn't. And I wasn't referring to Ayn Rand. You think the founding fathers meant something different? Heck, I didn't realize the preamble said provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acemona Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 She wasn't. And I wasn't referring to Ayn Rand. You think the founding fathers meant something different? Heck, I didn't realize the preamble said provide. you are correct, I got in a hurry it is promote - feel better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldweatherfan Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 you are correct, I got in a hurry it is promote - feel better? I am curious what you think the founding fathers meant with those 4 words. "...promote the general welfare..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldweatherfan Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I see the error. I took 3% of the 3M people they saw. They are taking 3% of the # of services they provided which was 11M+. However, we're off track here. We all wish abortions totaled zero. They do not. They will not ever. So if we banned PP from receiving federal funds that means a good % of those 330k people would have their child and a good % of those that did have their child would need welfare assistance. You cool with that? If these number are correct, then actually 11% (330k/3M) of the people they saw, got an abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonels_Wear_Blue Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I always skeptical of those who put PP up as an evil entity. I wish I could know how many of them have ever gone to them for services? Have they ever asked an OB/GYN at a private practice if they perform abortions? Shoot, do they even ask the OB/GYN how they feel about abortion? Planned Parenthood is NOT an evil entity. It's a very worthwhile organization which provides healthcare for lower income women on a sliding scale fee basis. They do health screenings. They provide counseling and contraception. They provide educational programs. They provide testing for STD's. All of these things are available to even the poorest of women. Without Planned Parenthood, who takes on this role? The overburdened ER's? The overburdened public health clinics who are not only providing reproductive care, but all other levels of care for ALL disadvantaged individuals, male, female, young old.... I absolutely do look at them as an evil entity, as they do pay their employees to perform murder. The latest figures I've heard (2007) show numbers of abortions in the US to be around 1.3 million annually. That's 3,561 lives that are destroyed every day because someone decides they aren't willing to deal with the consequences of their actions and opt to kill the human life that has resulted from their personal lack of responsibility. I don't care how much good Planned Parenthood does. They kill babies. If I were a wealthy philanthropist who gave millions of dollars to charities, I helped feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and nurse the sick, would you overlook me killing and dismembering a random homeless person, or would you call for me to be locked away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acemona Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I absolutely do look at them as an evil entity, as they do pay their employees to perform murder. The latest figures I've heard (2007) show numbers of abortions in the US to be around 1.3 million annually. That's 3,561 lives that are destroyed every day because someone decides they aren't willing to deal with the consequences of their actions and opt to kill the human life that has resulted from their personal lack of responsibility. I don't care how much good Planned Parenthood does. They kill babies. If I were a wealthy philanthropist who gave millions of dollars to charities, I helped feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and nurse the sick, would you overlook me killing and dismembering a random homeless person, or would you call for me to be locked away? The bolded is not always the reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts