add Posted December 6, 2012 Author Share Posted December 6, 2012 Aren't you lucky to have health insurance, coverage that includes those services, and a doctor's office that offers such services within a reasonable commuting distance! If only every other woman was as lucky as you are! To bad most of Planned Parenthood's clientele are too poor to afford health insurance, and have jobs that don't require their employer to give them health insurance, EVEN under Obamacare. Luck has nothing to do with it, my dear. I reject you notion that health insurance or Medicare, Medicate, welfare, and other charitable institutions (I.E.: catholic charities) healthcare services are not available for the needy. I buy health insurance for my family and myself, it is expensive but I feel it is the right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Luck has nothing to do with it, my dear. I reject you notion that health insurance or Medicare, Medicate, welfare, and other charitable institutions (I.E.: catholic charities) healthcare services are not available for the needy. I buy health insurance for my family and myself, it is expensive but I feel it is the right thing to do. Then you are not in touch with reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted December 6, 2012 Author Share Posted December 6, 2012 Then you are not in touch with reality. I know you are but what am I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r2Dtoo Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Then you are not in touch with reality. In all fairness Hasan, isn't that the liberal retort to everything? Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare are not available to everyone who needs it, and it's ridiculous to tell someone to live off of charity. That being said socialized healthcare is not happening in the United States despite what Barrack Obama said one time on MSNBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) So no, you have no actual proof to back your position, and yes Ma'am I can use their words to refute your position. Their words are tangible evidence not some baseless feeling or assumption that I hope to be true. You need some actual proof to back up you position that they don't actually mean what they passionately state. You're not reading my whole argument. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if they've changed their personal ideology. What matters is that this action shows that their ideology is Health Care services first, Abortions second. Planned Parenthood is abortions first, health care second. This action is a singular ray of hope because it's easier to talk to people about the evil of abortion when their primary goal is womens' health care. It's harder to talk to people about the evil of abortion when their primary goal is to increase access to abortions. My argument is that... ...this change is the equivalent of some tiny stirrings of conscience, JUST LIKE WHEN Benedict talked about HIV positive prostitutes who use condoms to stop the spread of HIV. Maybe the prostitutes use condoms because it's better for business, and they'll only get clients if they use condoms. But the effect is that infection rates don't increase. In this analogy, "Family Planning" is the prostitute, "increases in abortion services" is the increases in HIV, and "breaking from Planned Parenthood" is the condom. I'm not sure how I can make my position any clearer. No one has adequately addressed any of this yet. Edited December 7, 2012 by Basilisa Marie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morostheos Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Here's the thing: Is "Family Planning" evil? Yes. Is Planned Parenthood evil? Yes. Are they both evil only because they provide unrestricted access to abortion and contraception? No. Planned Parenthood is exceedingly evil in that they actively support a thinly veiled eugenics agenda and also because they are a huge bully and tend to force themselves and their policies upon others. By Family Planning breaking off from the evil behemoth of Planned Parenthood, this is a small step in minimizing the breadth of Planned Parenthood's "dominion." That is a good thing. It also means that even the non pro-life folks are getting fed up with their bully tactics - that is also a good thing. That doesn't mean the Family Planning is a good organization, but inherently by them splitting off it shows some grumbling and dissension among the ranks. If we want to beat anyone, it is much easier to do when they are squabbling among themselves than when they are a unified front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Luck has nothing to do with it, my dear. I reject you notion that health insurance or Medicare, Medicate, welfare, and other charitable institutions (I.E.: catholic charities) healthcare services are not available for the needy. I buy health insurance for my family and myself, it is expensive but I feel it is the right thing to do. What you "feel" the "right thing to do" is has absolutely nothing to do with being too poor to afford health care. Planned Parenthood's primary client base are women who are TOO POOR to afford health care. They target low-income areas. Know what? Fine. If you are so confident in your belief that there are plenty of Catholic charities that provide low-cost reproductive health services to low-income areas across the country, I DARE YOU to provide a link to such an organization. If you find even a single one that meets all of that criteria, I'll take it back. But please don't tell me that you also believe that poor people just don't work hard enough. Also: Why hasn't this been moved to the debate table yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted December 7, 2012 Author Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) It's called the institution of marriage, a lifelong commitment Between a man and woman. The ultimate "Family-planning" is the Sacrament of marriage And what is all about Edited December 7, 2012 by add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 It would seem to be a step in the right direction, however, I believe we are right to remain vigilant and not afford the 'new organization' our direct support and open praise. We can recognize the step forward without so much as giving our endorsement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) You're not reading my whole argument. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if they've changed their personal ideology. What matters is that this action shows that their ideology is Health Care services first, Abortions second. Planned Parenthood is abortions first, health care second. This action is a singular ray of hope because it's easier to talk to people about the evil of abortion when their primary goal is womens' health care. It's harder to talk to people about the evil of abortion when their primary goal is to increase access to abortions. My argument is that... No one has adequately addressed any of this yet. Abortion is a healthcare service. Just ask that Indian woman who bled out in Ireland. Oh, wait, nobody can since she's dead. PROLIFE!!!! Edited December 7, 2012 by Hasan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Abortion is a healthcare service. Just ask that Indian woman who bled out in Ireland. Oh, wait, nobody can since she's dead. PROLIFE!!!! Pretty sick, even for you, to use a woman's death like that. She may not even have requested an abortion. Ireland: Reporter Admits Savita May Not Have Wanted Abortion: http://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/breaking-reporter-who-broke-savita-story-there-may-have-been-no-request-for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Pretty sick, even for you, to use a woman's death like that. She may not even have requested an abortion. Ireland: Reporter Admits Savita May Not Have Wanted Abortion: http://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/breaking-reporter-who-broke-savita-story-there-may-have-been-no-request-for Her husband, who is currently suing Ireland in the EU Court of Human Rights, would be very surprised to learn that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) [quote name="Basilisa Marie" post="2521202" timestamp="1354838381"] You're not reading my whole argument. [/quote] Yes, I am. I'm simply pointing out to you a large part of it is based on feeling not actual evidence. When someone offers evidence against your argument you blow it off as 'oh they don't really mean that." [quote]What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if they've changed their personal ideology. [/quote] It sure as heck does matter! It's what they believe! [quote]What matters is that this action shows that their ideology is Health Care services first, Abortions second. Planned Parenthood is abortions first, health care second. [/quote] This action shows, based on their own reasoning and words, that they didn't want to provide abortions on site because they already have plenty of partners to refer abortions too. Nothing has changed. [Quote]This action is a singular ray of hope because it's easier to talk to people about the evil of abortion when their primary goal is womens' health care. It's harder to talk to people about the evil of abortion when their primary goal is to increase access to abortions. My argument is that...[/quote] That is an assumption. They say the remain totally committed to reducing unwanted pregnancies and advocating the culture of death. You say somehow they don't even though they state otherwise. [Quote]No one has adequately addressed any of this yet. [/quote] I hope you're right. But they say their just changing their name not who they are. Edited December 7, 2012 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Her husband, who is currently suing Ireland in the EU Court of Human Rights, would be very surprised to learn that. The same reporter has stated that he made some contradictory statements. He is also refusing to cooperate with an official inquiry into her death. I'd like to see the results of the inquiry before saying much more. I just thought you may wamt to hold off using her death until it can be proven she actually wanted an abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 The same reporter has stated that he made some contradictory statements. He is also refusing to cooperate with an official inquiry into her death. Right. And for understandable reasons, I'd day. I'd like to see the results of the inquiry before saying much more. That's probably a good idea for both of us. I just thought you may wamt to hold off using her death until it can be proven she actually wanted an abortion. She's not the only woman to die because she was not able to have an abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now