• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump Introduces Anti-Abortion Policy

Thanda

Well-Known Member
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.

You are not addressing the logical issue. You claim they don't because they're not allowed to and because they say they don't. And yet you claim they would not be able to provide abortion services if the government stopped funding them. How is this NOT a contradiction?
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
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.
You don't understand what is going on here.
PP's main funding is fees. The next biggest is private grants. The government barely covers uninsured preventative care.
You don't know what you're talking about. Explaining the whole thing is more than I care to bother with, when I have already done it and you didn't pay attention then.
Tom
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
You don't understand what is going on here.
PP's main funding is fees. The next biggest is private grants. The government barely covers uninsured preventative care.
You don't know what you're talking about. Explaining the whole thing is more than I care to bother with, when I have already done it and you didn't pay attention then.
Tom

This question was directed at another poster - that poster claims PP would shut down without government funding.

As for you the question as I have asked of you is to confirm whether the HP journo is confused and irrational in her assessment of the impact of Trumps order.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
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?
But Planned Parenthood doesn't only do abortions. In fact abortions are a very tiny percentage of what they do.
So, cutting their funding leads to more women being unable to get contraception. And guess what that leads to...yes, you've got it more, unplanned pregnancies and more demand for abortions.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
As for you the question as I have asked of you is to confirm whether the HP journo is confused and irrational in her assessment of the impact of Trumps order.
I think you are the one who doesn't understand what is going on.
By defunding efforts to prevent pregnancy, abortions will go up.
Trump is defunding anti-abortion efforts.
Tom
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
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?
I would say it would lead to a net increase in abortions, simply because the funding for birth control gets cut.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
And yet you claim they would not be able to provide abortion services if the government stopped funding them.
If you do into any service center and say "We are removing 97% of your income" they will do out of business. Period.
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It wouldn't surprise me if a billionaire elitist and his supporters did decide to leave a bunch of kids hungry.
I fully expect that from the current administration.
Tom

Well the parents might exhaust some other options such as getting a job.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
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?
It doesn't. The policy under Obama also encouraged unsafe abortions.

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?
It's a tossup. On the one hand, hampering access to Planned Parenthood will increase the number of unwanted pregnancies that might be aborted. OTOH, hampering access to prenatal care will increase miscarriages and deaths of women during pregnancy, which I'm guessing you don't count as abortion.
 

JakofHearts

2 Tim 1.7
But Planned Parenthood doesn't only do abortions. In fact abortions are a very tiny percentage of what they do.
So, cutting their funding leads to more women being unable to get contraception. And guess what that leads to...yes, you've got it more, unplanned pregnancies and more demand for abortions.
Nonsense.

 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
If you do into any service center and say "We are removing 97% of your income" they will do out of business. Period.
I am actually going to go back on this. 97% of income isn't accurate. But you cannot cut $365 million in funding and go on with business as usual. You simply can't do it. Those advocating for the withdrawal of government funding from PP don't understand is has the potential to cause more abortions over a longer timeline than the ones they claim to want to prevent.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
That is addressed in the video. Again, nonsense.
And it is very poorly and incorrectly addressed to further an agenda to pull funding. What they aren't addressing is the 87% of other patients who receive services that aren't abortions and the 97% of services that will be cut in the process.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Why should the government be paying for abortions?
The same reasons it should pay for any health care.

Maybe he will redirect the money to help the wounded soldiers, it seems more appropriate.
There is no money to redirect. Obama didn't fund abortions either.

But if there is spare cash... some soldiers get abortions; maybe they could fund that.
 
Top