Trump Introduces Anti-Abortion Policy

[Thanda]

Trump has apparently issued an order preventing US aid money from being used to fund organisations that offer or advise on abortion.

Donald Trump Signs Anti-Abortion Executive Order Surrounded By Men

But what interests me is the article from the Huffington Post. Don't mind the fact that it appears racist and sexist ("other white men" - I can sort of understand that men part but I struggle to see how their race has anything to do with it), focus instead on the contradiction inherent in the article. It first starts by claiming that the money has never been used to fund abortions. But in the latter half of the article it goes on to claim that Trumps order will cause women to turn to unsafe abortion options. So does the money help fund abortions or not?

This of course gets us to the topic of organisations like planned parenthood. If the US government stopped all funding of planned parenthood, would it still be able to offer as many abortions as it currently does? And if not why not?

 

[Kemosloby]

Trump has apparently issued an order preventing US aid money from being used to fund organisations that offer or advise on abortion.

Donald Trump Signs Anti-Abortion Executive Order Surrounded By Men

But what interests me is the article from the Huffington Post. Don't mind the fact that it appears racist and sexist ("other white men" - I can sort of understand that men part but I struggle to see how their race has anything to do with it), focus instead on the contradiction inherent in the article. It first starts by claiming that the money has never been used to fund abortions. But in the latter half of the article it goes on to claim that Trumps order will cause women to turn to unsafe abortion options. So does the money help fund abortions or not?

This of course gets us to the topic of organisations like planned parenthood. If the US government stopped all funding of planned parenthood, would it still be able to offer as many abortions as it currently does? And if not why not?

Why should the government be paying for abortions? Maybe he will redirect the money to help the wounded soldiers, it seems more appropriate.

 

[columbus]

Why should the government be paying for abortions?

It doesn't.
Why are facts so difficult for Trump supporters to deal with?
Tom

 

[BSM1]

Why should the government be paying for abortions? Maybe he will redirect the money to help the wounded soldiers, it seems more appropriate.

It's cheaper than the government (i.e., taxpayers) paying to raise a kid for 18+ years. Also, this bill is directed at US dollars paying for abortions in other countries. I am strictly pro-choice, but I find myself agreeing with this action.

 

[Revoltingest]

It doesn't.
Why are facts so difficult for Trump supporters to deal with?
Tom

This isn't a matter of "facts".
I support the very thing which Trump opposes, but it's a value judgement.
I say it's money well spent, which is only an opinion.
To spend the same money at home instead is also reasonable.

 

[Kemosloby]

It doesn't.
Why are facts so difficult for Trump supporters to deal with?
Tom

Subsidizing means paying for.

 

[Thanda]

It doesn't.
Why are facts so difficult for Trump supporters to deal with?
Tom

Can you address the questions in the OP? Why is this HP journo worried that no longer funding organisations who allegedly don't use US funding for abortions will cause an increase in unsafe abortions? Also do you believe PP would be able to offer the same number of abortions as it currently does if it had no funding from the US government?

 

[Quetzal]

Also, this bill is directed at US dollars paying for abortions in other countries.

Correct! Question, do you think this will begin to spill into American legislation? You said you are pro choice, so I would assume you would not be in favor of that?

 

[columbus]

Subsidizing means paying for.

And the government doesn't subsidize them.
Next stupid question or point?
Tom

 

[Quetzal]

And the government doesn't subsidize them.
Next stupid question or point?
Tom

Did someone sneeze in your fruit loops this morning? Yeeesh.

 

[Thanda]

`

It doesn't.
Why are facts so difficult for Trump supporters to deal with?
Tom

Still waiting...

 

[Kemosloby]

And the government doesn't subsidize them.
Next stupid question or point?
Tom

If taxpayer funds support planned parenthood and pays its bills, who's primary income is from abortions, it subsidizes abortions. Otherwise Planned Parenthood would need to pay its bill through income received from its services, either raising it's rates or not keeping the profits for themselves.

 

[Quetzal]

If taxpayer funds support planned parenthood and pays its bills, who's primary income is from abortions, it subsidizes abortions. Otherwise Planned Parenthood would need to pay its bill through income received from its services, either raising it's rates or not keeping the profits for themselves.

That is not true. Not only is the primary income not from abortions, it does not use it's federal funds for abortions. Why? Already against the law.

Planned Parenthood

 

[Thanda]

If taxpayer funds support planned parenthood and pays its bills, who's primary income is from abortions, it subsidizes abortions. Otherwise Planned Parenthood would need to pay its bill through income received from its services, either raising it's rates or not keeping the profits for themselves.

I find it so interesting how some people think we're so stupid as to believe an organisation can just easily separate something like money and claim it uses it for one thing and not the other. It is like the government telling a city, say New York, that "Yes we misused some money, but it wasn't your money, it was Texas money - so bugger off!"

It just makes no logical sense.

 

[Thanda]

That is not true. Not only is the primary income not from abortions, it does not use it's federal funds for abortions. Why? Already against the law.

Planned Parenthood

So are you confident that if the government ceased all funding of planned parenthood it would continue to provide as many abortions as it does currently?

 

[Quetzal]

So are you confident that if the government ceased all funding of planned parenthood it would continue to provide as many abortions as it does currently?

If they received no federal funding, they would not be able to continue at all. Along with it, all of the other 97% of services they provide.

 

[columbus]

So are you confident that if the government ceased all funding of planned parenthood it would continue to provide as many abortions as it does currently?

Yes.
More actually.
Because Planned Parenthood's main goal is women's health care. Abortions are a failure of what they do, and they charge for them. Planned Parenthood prevents more abortions than any other group I know of.
Tom

 

[Thanda]

If they received no federal funding, they would not be able to continue at all. Along with it, all of the other 97% of services they provide.

So clearly tax-payers are subsidizing abortions, no? If they weren't then they should not have a problem continuing to provide the 3% of their services once the funding for the 97% is gone.

 

[Thanda]

Yes.
More actually.
Because Planned Parenthood's main goal is women's health care. Abortions are a failure of what they do, and they charge for them. Planned Parenthood prevents more abortions than any other group I know of.
Tom

Okay so you would agree with me then that the HP journo's fears that "Trump’s executive order has severe implications and could be deadly for women and girls in developing countries and conflict zones, who often resort to dangerous methods of ending their pregnancies when they lack access to safe abortion." are unfounded and are devoid of rational thought?

 

[Quetzal]

So clearly tax-payers are subsidizing abortions, no?

No. They. Are. Not. I have already given you documentation as to why they aren't and you are pressing forward anyway. I will not engage in a fruitless argument with someone who already has their mind made up.