Indictments over Planned Parenthood videos announced

RammerJammer14

Hall of Fame
Aug 18, 2007
10,140
894
132
UA
Not that anyone on the "pro life" side cares because as we all know this isn't about "life" its about keeping people from enjoying sex and the best way to do that is to keep the consequences heavy, especially on women
:rofl:

That is so laughable I don't even know what to say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
13,814
7,293
182
Atlanta 'Burbs
:rofl:

That is so laughable I don't even know what to say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
laugh if you want the evidence is clearly on my side. Birth control, especially cheap or free combined with real comprehensive sex education simply works. All over the world, wherever it is tried it works. Pregnancy rates lower, abortion rates plummet and std/sti rates drop. You can see the data clearly, its mind numbingly obvious. If the right cared about lowering abortions it isn't even hard to do. So why not do it? Seriously?

there is only 1 reason

I presented it and you find it laughable

if "life" mattered you could save countless lives
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
13,814
7,293
182
Atlanta 'Burbs
I got no problem with birth control. Very few people I know do, even most Catholics. I also have no problem with sex education, as long as it's comprehensive (though I do think parents should shoulder most of that load). What I do have a problem with is the killing of unborn children.
the parents won't, not a significant enough number of them anyway and you know that too. Your party fights against any birth control, hell you declared war on the best provider of it (see this thread) over bs allegations. So while you maybe for it, your party clearly isn't.

This may surprise you but I find abortion disgusting and vile. In my perfect world they would be nearly unheard of after 6-7 weeks and extremely rare in all cases. But I don't live in a perfect world, I live in the real one. And in the real one we have perfectly viable solutions that can make a significant dent in the number of abortions, including fully funding Planned Parenthood but the preachers in your party can't have that, so instead we'll just end up, to use your words "killing (more) unborn children"
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
13,814
7,293
182
Atlanta 'Burbs
We do not fight against "any birth control", and Planned Parenthood conducts half a million abortions a year.
you are seriously going to claim that the GOP doesn't fight against birth control?

And the DNC isn't controlled by labor unions

and the sky isnt blue

right?

here is just one recent example, want more?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/colorado-gop-blocks-successful-birth-control-program

Colorado launched a health initiative a few years ago with a specific target: reducing teen-birth rates. To that end, Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) implemented a program that provided tens of thousands of contraceptive devices at low or no cost.

The results were amazing: teen-birth rates dropped 40% in just five years. This week, the state even won an award from the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, celebrating Colorado’s success story.

Ironically, the award came the same week Colorado Republicans chose to scrap the effective policy.
 

Gr8hope

All-American
Nov 10, 2010
3,408
0
60
Jon, are you seriously that naive? The fight is against taxpayers being forced to pay for it. Everyone is free to buy their own, anytime, any place.
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
13,814
7,293
182
Atlanta 'Burbs
Jon, are you seriously that naive? The fight is against taxpayers being forced to pay for it. Everyone is free to buy their own, anytime, any place.
Naive? Every dollar spent on Birth control in the Colorado example I used saved them $7 dollars down the line maybe you like paying for more welfare, medicaid and any number of additional services. I don't

I look at this like preventative maintenance spend $50k to fix a bridge that will cost 2 million to replace, it's smart long term thinking

Providing free birth control is even better. Hell I think the government should provide pay people get vasectomies or their tubes tied.

and every argument against having to pay for it seems to boil down to "because it is against of beliefs, values, religion" not because I think its a waste of money. You want to argue fiscal, I'll listen. But your religion should never affect my or anyone elses governance. Your values are your own, live by them, but don't make me
 

Gr8hope

All-American
Nov 10, 2010
3,408
0
60
Like BinB I am not opposed to birth control at all, I don't know anyone who is personally but I am absolutely opposed to the murder of unborn babies. Most conservatives do not care what anyone else does as long as they are not forced to pay for it or accept it as part of their lives but I will never stop speaking out against the killing of babies.
How do you feel about euthanasia of the elderly? Would preventing them from living to the age when their medical bills will be high also be considered a preventative measure? Where does liberal thinking draw the line. Once the line of taking a life is crossed it can go where even you may be considered a waste of money. What value can you place on a human life?
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
Naive? Every dollar spent on Birth control in the Colorado example I used saved them $7 dollars down the line maybe you like paying for more welfare, medicaid and any number of additional services. I don't

I look at this like preventative maintenance spend $50k to fix a bridge that will cost 2 million to replace, it's smart long term thinking

Providing free birth control is even better. Hell I think the government should provide pay people get vasectomies or their tubes tied.

and every argument against having to pay for it seems to boil down to "because it is against of beliefs, values, religion" not because I think its a waste of money. You want to argue fiscal, I'll listen. But your religion should never affect my or anyone elses governance. Your values are your own, live by them, but don't make me
If sterilization saved more money than passing out free birth control, would you be on board for having a taxpayer program to sterilize those needing taxpayer handouts to survive?
 

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,777
1,366
187
44
Huntsville, AL
If sterilization saved more money than passing out free birth control, would you be on board for having a taxpayer program to sterilize those needing taxpayer handouts to survive?
BTW When I say "you" it is not directed at any one person, this is the royal you.

How does the conversation go from a program in Colorado providing low cost birth control to women who want it, to suggesting that we euthanize the elderly and mandatorily sterilizing poor people? That is a combination of the worst slippery slope and straw man arguments ever.

I am with Jon on this one. For a party that prides itself on its strong fiscal principles, the Republicans sure don't look at the financials when it comes to providing birth control and its effect on the number of people who will be on the dole down the line.

Looking for an honest answer here. If the government can spend 10$ to save 1000$(numbers I pulled out of my rear) why shouldn't it do it? Getting up in arms over the fact that it is birth control makes absolutely no sense unless you truly believe that within some relatively short period of time, the welfare state will be dismantled as well as ACA, Medicaid, and Social Security Disability. If you honestly believe that will happen, then your arguments make sense. If however, you take a realistic look at the political environment, and recognize that none of those things are going away any time soon, and at best may be minorly curtailed in their implementation, you are tilting at windmills for the sake of appearing to put up a good fight against those vile commie liberal scum.

So again, why is spending a little to save a lot so foreign? You assume that by not spending the money, that people will change their behavior because some old white dude or lady stood up in front of the legislature and said God was against it. It hasn't worked for the past 40 years, what makes you or anyone on the Republican side think it will all of a sudden start working now?
 

CajunCrimson

Moderator (FB,BB)
Staff member
Mar 13, 2001
21,055
4,671
337
Breaux Bridge, La
Looking for an honest answer here. If the government can spend 10$ to save 1000$(numbers I pulled out of my rear) why shouldn't it do it?
The problem is....the government spends $1000 to save $10 down the line.....and they have a very successful track record of doing so.....
 

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,777
1,366
187
44
Huntsville, AL
The problem is....the government spends $1000 to save $10 down the line.....and they have a very successful track record of doing so.....
So you believe that providing birth control is more expensive than 78.7 years of welfare for one person? The 78.7 came from the average life expectancy of an American in 2011.
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
13,814
7,293
182
Atlanta 'Burbs
The problem is....the government spends $1000 to save $10 down the line.....and they have a very successful track record of doing so.....
yes, they often do mess this up

so how about we forget the conceptual and go back to the example I used where they very clearly didn't do this

Why would the Colorado GOP shut this down? To what end?


this article shows clearly why, they state it themselves

http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20150429/NEWS01/150429564/

Supporters of the bill say it actually prevents abortions, with state health officials estimating that the program would prevent about 4,300 abortions per year. They also point out that for every $1 invested in low-cost contraception, Colorado taxpayers save about $5.85 in Medicaid costs.

IUDs act as a hormonal barrier, making it unlikely that there would be implantation of a fertilized egg. But in rare cases, the egg can become fertilized even with the device, despite it stopping the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. That issue has driven much of the opposition to the bill, with critics saying the device induces abortion.

“Coloradans oppose the imposition of these kinds of mandates on us as individuals. There are religious reasons,” said Michael Norton, an attorney representing Colorado Family Action, who once served as the U.S. attorney for Colorado. “These contraceptives are abortifacients, that is they cause the demise of an implanted or fertilized human embryo.”

If your religion prevents you from using a device like this by all means don't use one. But also don't use the power of the Government to block other people from using one

looks like this bill found alternate funding, which is fantastic, but it still clearly shows what the GOP is all about

and they wonder why the "war on women" attacks from the left keep coming
 

CajunCrimson

Moderator (FB,BB)
Staff member
Mar 13, 2001
21,055
4,671
337
Breaux Bridge, La
So you believe that providing birth control is more expensive than 78.7 years of welfare for one person? The 78.7 came from the average life expectancy of an American in 2011.
No, I believe that the Government does a dang poor job of spending money that doesn't belong to them. And every time we trust them to do it right, they do it very very wrong.

People that are on welfare for 78.7 years....are likely not going to use birth control anyway....unless you have some underground scientific study that can prove otherwise.
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
How does the conversation go from a program in Colorado providing low cost birth control to women who want it, to suggesting that we euthanize the elderly and mandatorily sterilizing poor people? That is a combination of the worst slippery slope and straw man arguments ever.
Because the rationale for birth control programs was cost savings, because there was a stated preference for funding birth control over welfare, and because a comparison was made to at least one other option (abstinence) for controlling births. Sterilization happens to be another option, which is arguably at least as effective as temporary birth control measures. I see no slippery slope or straw man with respect to discussing the efficacy of sterilization as another option for controlling births and welfare expenses.
 
Last edited:

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
13,814
7,293
182
Atlanta 'Burbs
You're crossing the streams, Jon. Let's start with your first premise, that we oppose birth control. We don't oppose birth control, and it seems clear that you are no longer actually arguing that we do. Here's a random bill by Republicans proposing to allow birth control to be sold over the counter, for instance. (opposed by Planned Parenthood, cause, you know, profit that they don't care about making). http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...icans-call-for-over-the-counter-birth-control

So now we've evolved to a more nuanced argument--we oppose the state paying for birth control. Generally speaking, probably true. Now, we can make policy arguments about that, and the tactic of pointing to abortions prevented is a good one. I might even be swayed by that in some instances. But let's not confuse the two arguments. Not want to pay for it and wanting to outlaw it are two very different things. For instance, I don't want to pay for abortions AND I want to outlaw them.
that program you highlighted was a very thinly veneered attempt to change the status of birth control so that insurance wouldn't have to pay for it. I was frankly waiting for you to present it as evidence. The reason the left fought it was because it, like most GOP Programs, hurt the lower middle to poor more than anyone else and was designed that way. It will have the effect of lowering access and the people who wrote and support the bill are fully aware

so while on its face it looks like you support Birth Control in effect it proves you don't
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
13,814
7,293
182
Atlanta 'Burbs
Oh no it wasn't. I was there when it was discussed and drafted, and I can promise you that the entire purpose of the bill was to provide a commonsense way to ensure women could have access to cheap birth control without having to involve the government. We were tired of the "war on women" BS, and wanted a good bill to show we were serious. The thinly veneered attempt was by the so-called women's groups who, afraid of losing their birth control cash cow, fought back on the frankly bizarre argument that turning a prescription drug into an OTC drug would result in the price going UP, a market effect utterly in opposition to all reality (and ignored the fact that insurance regularly pays for OTC drugs). We thought the bill would sail through (the only legitimate concerns were for women's health, given the possibly negative side effects of hormonal birth control), but once again, we were outflanked by the Left. The GOP always underestimates their 1. intellectual dishonesty and 2. messaging machine. So they offered an "alternative" bill that would have increased government subsidies to insurance companies and bolstered Obamacare. It was a thing of beauty, really.
you are obviously closer to it, which is cool to see the inside story.

I'll take your word and hope its true. though I still don't like the idea of over the counter birth control pills

I watched my wife (when she was my girlfriend) go through a a good 5-6 different pills till getting the one that finally worked without causing crazy side effects and I wouldn't want anyone to go through that without a provider. That bill appears to strip the provider
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
Conveniently clouded by all the accusations thrown at conservatives about abortions and birth control, among other things, is the fundamental belief in individual responsibility...something liberals seem to abhor fundamentally.