Why Would Anyone Give $1.2 Billion To Abortion Groups

[Lilllabettt]

That's a pretty gross accusation to make.

meh. Just going off their original press. They were loud and proud about it right up until it wasn't cool anymore. Look up Lewis Terman to see how they re-legitimize themselves.And just because it ain't cool to say that stuff anymore don't meanthe apparatus don't function the same way, even if some of the people involved are "good" or "don't mean it." You can't reform the KKK. Poisoned at the root. Gotta burn it to the ground.

[4588686]

meh. Just going off their original press. They were loud and proud about it right up until it wasn't cool anymore. Look up Lewis Terman to see how they re-legitimize themselves.And just because it ain't cool to say that stuff anymore don't meanthe apparatus don't function the same way, even if some of the people involved are "good" or "don't mean it." You can't reform the KKK. Poisoned at the root. Gotta burn it to the ground.

 

 

Whose original press?  You made a claim about rich people.  So based on this I'm to conclude that you want to eliminate the wealthy because as a class they are functionally determined to support the elimination of the poor via abortion.  Or are you now switching from you initial lain to a claim about abortion providers.  In which case, does your claim pertain only to those organizations who, like Planned Parenthood, made statements in support of eugenics?  

[Lilllabettt]

im just answering the OPs question - why would anyone give 1.2 billion to abortion groups?
the answer to that question is: because it is efficient. They think it "works." Have you read Freakonomics? It doesn'tplay well in the press, so they keep their mouths shut. Doesn't change the reality that they believe in it, whole hog.

[4588686]

im just answering the OPs question - why would anyone give 1.2 billion to abortion groups?
the answer to that question is: because it is efficient. They think it "works." Have you read Freakonomics? It doesn'tplay well in the press, so they keep their mouths shut. Doesn't change the reality that they believe in it, whole hog.

Again, I don't know who the 'they' you are referring to is. Are you talking any person who support any type or organization that promotes/fights for abortion rights. Are you talking about a specific organization?

If you're going to make a wild and defamatory claim you could at least make is clear you you are attempting to defame.

[Lilllabettt]

they: rich people who pay for abortions.

i.e., "anyone" who can "give 1.2 billion dollars to abortion groups."

Edited May 15, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[4588686]

they: rich people who pay for abortions.

i.e., "anyone" who can "give 1.2 billion dollars to abortion groups."

Which brings us back the initial intellectual shoddiness of the article. NARAL was one of the groups named in the article. Not one cent of any dollar that is given to NARAL goes to pay for any abortion.

Planned Parenthood is also named. Again. No distinction is made between giving to the Planned Parenthood Foundation, the Planned Parenthood PAC (in which case, again, none of that money would go to provide abortions) or the organization that most people think of when they think if Planned parenthood. If it does to the Plannd Parenthood then, unless they specifically designate the fund then you have no idea, unless they announce their intentions, what it is about Planned Parenthood they support.

[Socrates]

What a remarkably bad article.  NARAL doesn't 'do' abortions at all.  They do promote the idea that abortion should be legal.  Planned Parenthood does provide abortions however this is small percentage of the total health services they provide.  So to say conclude that 'Imagine the equivalent of the lives of 2.7 million children snuffed out to serve the whims of the third richest man in the world. Most people would say that’s a story, most likely several.' is completely intellectually dishonest.

 

This is just a story where basic critical thinking should come into play.  What does he mean by 'abortion groups.'  His definition encompasses both NARAL (which provides no medical services at all) and Planned Parenthood (which does provide abortion along with a host of other health ervices).  When he donates to Planned Parenthood is he donating the Foundation?  

 

The author provides no break down of the numbers or basic defintions about the terms that he is throwing around.  

 

Planned Parenthood performed almost 334,000 abortions in fiscal year 2011-2012 alone, and remains this country's single largest provider of abortions.  In the baby-killing business, it's hardly a lightweight.

 

But yeah, I get it.  The Nazis did lots of other stuff besides murder Jews. (Apologies to Mr. Godwin).  Whatever part of PP the money goes to, Mr. Buffet is enriching an organization dedicated to baby-killing.

 

And the National Abortion Rights Action League is (as its name suggests) a political lobby dedicated to promoting abortion.  But I guess since they're not actually the ones doing the slicing and dicing, they're all good.

 

Your quibbling is pathetic.

 

I thought Warren Buffet was part of the ultra-rich class all you socialist-y leftist types would have us all hate and oppose.  If Buffet or someone similarly wealthy were to donate $1.2 bil to pro-life or conservative Christian groups, you'd use this as damning proof that such groups are tools of the Evil Rich.

But so long as the ultra-rich are giving money to support groups that slaughter millions of poor and minority unborn children (or support that slaughter), we can count on the bleedin' hearts to defend them,

[4588686]

Planned Parenthood performed almost 334,000 abortions in fiscal year 2011-2012 alone, and remains this country's single largest provider of abortions.  In the baby-killing business, it's hardly a lightweight.

 

But yeah, I get it.  The Nazis did lots of other stuff besides murder Jews. (Apologies to Mr. Godwin).  Whatever part of PP the money goes to, Mr. Buffet is enriching an organization dedicated to baby-killing.

 

And the National Abortion Rights Action League is (as its name suggests) a political lobby dedicated to promoting abortion.  But I guess since they're not actually the ones doing the slicing and dicing, they're all good.

 

Your quibbling is pathetic.

 

I thought Warren Buffet was part of the ultra-rich class all you socialist-y leftist types would have us all hate and oppose.  If Buffet or someone similarly wealthy were to donate $1.2 bil to pro-life or conservative Christian groups, you'd use this as damning proof that such groups are tools of the Evil Rich.

But so long as the ultra-rich are giving money to support groups that slaughter millions of poor and minority unborn children (or support that slaughter), we can count on the bleedin' hearts to defend them,

 

1-NARAL's name is NARAL Pro-Choice America.  Not National Abortion Rights Action league.  NARAL used to be an acronym but no longer is.  *mind-blown*

 

2-I did not deny that Planned Parenthood provides a lot of abortion services.  That has nothing to do with my argument here.  

 

3-I don't hate rich people at all.  I've met and interacted with lots of rich people.  Some of them are cool and some of them aren't.  

 

4-No, I don't like Warren Buffett having such an outsized voice in our political system.  Nor do I like the industry that has sprung up in and around DC for people like him to pour money into various foundations and organizations.  

 

5-Nowhere here have I said that I think Warren Buffet giving a bunch of money to various groups is a positive thing or a negative thing.  I can't say that because, as I've pointed out, in a poorly written article like this I have no idea where his money has been going.  

[Lilllabettt]

Which brings us back the initial intellectual shoddiness of the article. NARAL was one of the groups named in the article. Not one cent of any dollar that is given to NARAL goes to pay for any abortion.

Planned Parenthood is also named. Again. No distinction is made between giving to the Planned Parenthood Foundation, the Planned Parenthood PAC (in which case, again, none of that money would go to provide abortions) or the organization that most people think of when they think if Planned parenthood. If it does to the Plannd Parenthood then, unless they specifically designate the fund then you have no idea, unless they announce their intentions, what it is about Planned Parenthood they support.

meh NARAL /Planned Parenthood campaigns for access to abortion especially for poor and minority women. Warren Buffet et al. love this stuff. Chapter 4 of Freakonomics. They are not donating big bucks because it will mean making sure rich white women have access to abortion. No... they are excited to donate big bucks so that poor people will have that access. They consider it a social service. And why is it a social service? Because if these sort of people have access to abortion, they will be more likely to use it. And thereby relieve the strain on us all.

[4588686]

Warren Buffet et al. love this stuff. 

 

Source?  

[4588686]

They are not donating big bucks because it will mean making sure rich white women have access to abortion.

 

http://www.jwmag.org/page.aspx?pid=446#sthash.g9QhLtIU.dpbs

 

"Since she was appointed to its national board in 2002, Jonas has been fiercely dedicated to NARAL Pro-Choice America and its mission to guarantee every woman the right to make her own decisions about the full range of reproductive choices. At the age of 20, Jonas herself had an illegal abortion. Her personal experience has been a driving force in her work for NARAL. "It's important to me that my daughters and the rest of this country's young women understand that they are stakeholders who must work to protect their fundamental rights." - See more at: http://www.jwmag.org/page.aspx?pid=446#sthash.g9QhLtIU.dpuf"

 

She has made a number of statements about what an incredibly brutal and traumatic experience her illegal abortion was for her and how that experience has motivated her to fight to make sure that no woman ever has to resort to an illegal abortion.  Nothing I've seen about wanting to make sure that that is a decline in the aggregate number of poor people.  But maybe you have some inside sources at NARAL.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Hasan

[Lilllabettt]

Hasan, if you really think the driving force behind the establishment's funding/ensuring access for poor women's abortions is their wish to help them avoid "traumatic experiences" then you have a level of naivete I have never seen in a person coming out of DC.

[reminiscere]

Answer to original question: because they're objectively evil, plain and simple.

[Winchester]

I'm sure there are lots of reasons. It's also possible that selfishness can appear to be charitable concern, and even the scum of the Earth know to fake concern for others when really their concern is for themselves. I think there are probably a lot of people in the pro-abortion rights camp who are not feasting on the organs of the aborted and reveling in the bloodshed. 

 

But maybe that's just me.

[Lilllabettt]

I'm sure there are lots of reasons. It's also possible that selfishness can appear to be charitable concern, and even the scum of the Earth know to fake concern for others when really their concern is for themselves. I think there are probably a lot of people in the pro-abortion rights camp who are not feasting on the organs of the aborted and reveling in the bloodshed. 

 

But maybe that's just me.

 

It's a fairly neurotypical human reaction to think rich people want to reduce social dysfunction by getting poor women to flush their fetuses = they must be pure moloch worshippers evil, burn the unholy witches

 

the problem with that is that when poor women get more abortions, it does in fact reduce social dysfunction - as measured by the metrics foundations use on their upfronts to potential donors/investors. More abortion, fewer live births in poor neighborhoods = less crime, fewer public health crises,etc.

 

This is an economic reality. Nobody in the prochoice camp will use this argument publically because it makes the average person sick to their stomach.   But philanthropists - its their buisness to know this type of thing. They don't invest in charities that don't produce ROI. No ROI no donation. And they like funding poor women's abortions because as far as the metrics are concerned its fantastic ROI. They are not investing in it because they are evil, they genuinely believe it provides fantastic social benefits to women and society as a whole.

 

A belief which is impoverisehd and depraved, but not rootedin being personally evil. so it goes.

 

Everyone should just read chapter 4 of Freakonomics.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Lilllabettt