Trump Introduces Anti-Abortion Policy

[SomeRandom]

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?

Ahh, see it's not so much about abortion as it is access to family health in developing countries, which is apparently (according to this article) funded by US money, which is now being scrapped. Now I won't comment on whether that is right or wrong, Americans can decide for themselves on that matter. But the article is claiming that in third world countries, access to abortion and family health clinics will significantly decrease because the aid from the US is being nixed, which would then lead to unsafe abortions and other unsafe pregnancies because of the lack of prenatal care. The article is more about the impact this has internationally, though I also don't know how accurate it's being overall. In saying that, America does in fact have a lot of impact internationally speaking.

 

[JakofHearts]

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.

Perhaps you should listen to the video before going off without facts.

There is no agenda, it is a simple fact. The 3% abortion stat is completely bogus. Even very liberal news outlets acknowledge this which is shown in the video. Stop being lazy.

Source: The Most Meaningless Abortion Statistic

 

[Quetzal]

The 3% abortion stat is completely bogus.

Not it isn't, the very same video you present comes to the same conclusion under the same parameters on which the claim was made.

 

[BSM1]

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?

Absolutely not (the 'not in favor' thing). Forget the offended sensibilities and puffed-up morality that many people display on the subject of abortions; giving the choice to the woman considering the procedure and the pure economic savings to the taxpayer is argument enough for PP.

 

[Quetzal]

Absolutely not (the 'not in favor' thing). Forget the offended sensibilities and puffed-up morality that many people display on the subject of abortions; giving the choice to the woman considering the procedure and the pure economic savings to the taxpayer is argument enough for PP.

Yeah, I should have known better before posting here. At any case, I will go ahead and step out of this topic since others don't seem keen on sticking to the argument.

 

[JakofHearts]

Not it isn't, the very same video you present comes to the same conclusion under the same parameters on which the claim was made.

How on earth did you get that out of the video? The video specifically explains why this Planned Parenthood's "3%" abortion is a myth and grossly misleading.

 

[icehorse]

Nonsense. They are doing it by patient. The discussion in question is by service provided.

Planned Parenthood’s Services

@JakofHearts

I tried to listen to the video as objectively as possible. On the one hand I would agree that the PP calculation is somewhat misleading. But I don't think they have an agenda to "want to do" more abortions. They would be happier - I'm sure - if people used contraception, and the frequency of unwanted pregnancies went way down.

On the other hand, the video you posted CLEARLY has a counter-agenda and it's calculation approaches are also suspect. I think that the situation is more complex than either side is admitting.

But I'd bet you $1000 that if trump's daughter had an unwanted pregnancy, he'd fly her somewhere to get a safe abortion. This is about power and control for the GOP, it's not about some higher morals they hold, their morals are horrible.

 

[BSM1]

@JakofHearts

I tried to listen to the video as objectively as possible. On the one hand I would agree that the PP calculation is somewhat misleading. But I don't think they have an agenda to "want to do" more abortions. They would be happier - I'm sure - if people used contraception, and the frequency of unwanted pregnancies went way down.

On the other hand, the video you posted CLEARLY has a counter-agenda and it's calculation approaches are also suspect. I think that the situation is more complex than either side is admitting.

But I'd bet you $1000 that if trump's daughter had an unwanted pregnancy, he'd fly her somewhere to get a safe abortion. This is about power and control for the GOP, it's not about some higher morals they hold, their morals are horrible.

I know we're usually on opposite ends of the seesaw, but I tend to agree with you on this one.

 

[esmith]

You all do realize that this Executive Order has nothing to do with the U.S.
It was put into place in 1984 by President Regan removed by President Clinton and the Obama.
From the biased link: my emphasis in red

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. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 21 million women a year have unsafe abortions in developing countries, accounting for about 13 percent of all maternal deaths.

The policy is rescinded and reinstated based on which party is in power. President Bill Clinton did away with it, President George W. Bush put it back and then President Barack Obama rescinded it again when he took office.

 

[Altfish]

Nonsense.

Hmm a Live Action video, alternative facts by any chance??

"In their 2014 Annual Report, PPFA reported seeing over 2.5 million patients in over 4 million clinical visits and performing a total of nearly 9.5 million discrete services including 324,000 abortions."
according to wiki

 

[psychoslice]

That's good, if you don't want your baby then give it to someone who appreciates it, don't kill it for your own hate for the baby.

 

[BSM1]

That's good, if you don't want your baby then give it to someone who appreciates it, don't kill it for your own hate for the baby.

Sooo....how many unwanted babies do you have running around your house?

 

[JakofHearts]

Hmm a Live Action video, alternative facts by any chance??

"In their 2014 Annual Report, PPFA reported seeing over 2.5 million patients in over 4 million clinical visits and performing a total of nearly 9.5 million discrete services including 324,000 abortions."
according to wiki

The video acknowledges that fact you provided and directly addresses it (two minutes in if you bothered). These "alternate facts" in the video are after all straight off the Planned Parenthood website. Liberal sources are also in agreement that "3%" is a meaningless statistic, and rather intentionally misleading for public relation purposes.

@icehorse
If there was some agenda going on, I'd gather that the defunding of Planned Parenthood is just the beginning on this matter. Next would be proper education about personal responsibility, the consequences, and more importantly the value of life. This fundamental change would directly conflict with third wave feminisms nonsense, but without any coherent reasoning backed up by facts, their days look numbered.

And Trump's daughters are adults. If they do decide do to anything I'd believe their decisions would be an informed one.

 

[Altfish]

The GOPs assault on women's rights starts in earnest....

This photo sums up Trump’s assault on women’s rights | Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett

Welcome to the 16th Century

 

[psychoslice]

Sooo....how many unwanted babies do you have running around your house?

Thank god non lol.

 

[BSM1]

Thank god non lol.

I think you may have missed the point.

 

[Willamena]

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?

Reintroduces.

 

[Curious George]

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.

Should we say the same for churches that received federal aid to run programs? Or should we take away all monies because it is impossible for churches to separate which money goes to fund the church and which goes to fund the program?

 

[psychoslice]

I think you may have missed the point.

Well so what ?.

 

[BSM1]

Well so what ?.

Exactly.