If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Usually the same ones you have to live by, or as many of them as they can persuade/enforce people to follow. Don't pretend like you don't know. Theres a reason your list has 200,000 schools and no food banks on it.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
The RW media is biased and pretends they're not.
The LW media is biased and believes they're not.
I guess I give the deluded a slight leg up over the liars, but it's not like there are winners at the end of the day.
I don't know how many times I have to say this over and over: LESS biased, NOT unbiased
And I've demonstrated that they are less biased while you all keep trying prove that they aren't unbiased. Thats at least three or four of you carrying the same straw man now.
Your choice of wording is interesting though. The RW 'pretends' or in other words, lies that they are unbiased, while the LW 'believes' they are not or in other words is at least trying not to be.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Tearing living fetuses apart while they're alive is a "non-story"? That's the ****ing problem, right there.
Firstly I immediately have my doubts towards authenticity due to the fact that there isn't outrage directed at the specific doctor doing this (let alone any charges or anything) but instead its purely being used as a political attack on Planned Parenthood.
If these procedures are legal, then my expectation is that medical science has determined that no suffering is occurring and therefore it is indeed a non-story blown out of all proportion for the sake of politics. More than likely the first step in the procedure is probably supposed to kill the foetus. If they are deliberately not doing that because someone is paying big bucks for 'fresher' samples or something, then I would contend the story is with (probably pharma or biotech) companies offering these incentives. But we wouldn't want to go pissing off our big campaign donors now would we?
Its gory and distasteful and if you are against abortion then its bound to make you feel sick and furious in equal measure which is exactly why the video was made and released.
It has no credibility because no-one is saying "we need to change this legislation to ban this specific practice", they are just saying "defund planned parenthood" because its yet another attempt to circumvent the laws of your country because one group wants everyone to be forced to live by their beliefs.
I think most people on the left will ignore this video. Its already been labelled as a "planned parenthood video", not named after the doctor or the clinic or the town where it was filmed. It might as well be a free energy/UFO/tin foil hat documentary on youtube.
The sad thing is, there is a small chance I should be appalled by this video but instead I have no qualms dismissing it out of hand because its exactly the sort of shit I expect from a RW media sources. The dangers of crying wolf too often.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I don't know how many times I have to say this over and over: LESS biased, NOT unbiased
Your opinion is noted.
And I've demonstrated that they are less biased while you all keep trying prove that they aren't unbiased. Thats at least three or four of you carrying the same straw man now.
You haven't demonstrated anything - you've explained your opinion.
Your choice of wording is interesting though. The RW 'pretends' or in other words, lies that they are unbiased, while the LW 'believes' they are not or in other words is at least trying not to be.
So would you rather be a pretender or stupid & and a pretender (without even realizing it)?
Firstly I immediately have my doubts towards authenticity due to the fact that there isn't outrage directed at the specific doctor doing this (let alone any charges or anything) but instead its purely being used as a political attack on Planned Parenthood.
Give it time - the investigation has to be conducted.
If these procedures are legal, then my expectation is that medical science has determined that no suffering is occurring and therefore it is indeed a non-story blown out of all proportion for the sake of politics.
Real solid facts there. "Your expectation" is reason to not take the evidence we do have at face value? That's some backwards logic there (seems like it could even be *gasp* a little bit biased).
More than likely the first step in the procedure is probably supposed to kill the foetus.
Are you just guessing right now?
If they are deliberately not doing that because someone is paying big bucks for 'fresher' samples or something, then I would contend the story is with (probably pharma or biotech) companies offering these incentives.
Seriously, are you just making up "what its probably like?" ??
But we wouldn't want to go pissing off our big campaign donors now would we?
Poor innocent human-parts dealer. It's a big republican conspiracy!
Its gory and distasteful and if you are against abortion then its bound to make you feel sick and furious in equal measure which is exactly why the video was made and released.
Is that somehow a bad thing? I would think with the outrage you demonstrate for Fox News you'd at least have a heartstring or two pulled by an organization that evidence suggests is trafficking human fetus parts. Guess we'll have to wait for the investigation (though it seems like you already know whats up).
It has no credibility because no-one is saying "we need to change this legislation to ban this specific practice", they are just saying "defund planned parenthood" because its yet another attempt to circumvent the laws of your country because one group wants everyone to be forced to live by their beliefs.
What? We already have very clear laws regarding the sale of human parts for profit. We don't need to call for new legislation - it's already very, very illegal. You're saying it's no big deal because the outrage isn't focused enough for you?
I think most people on the left will ignore this video. Its already been labelled as a "planned parenthood video", not named after the doctor or the clinic or the town where it was filmed. It might as well be a free energy/UFO/tin foil hat documentary on youtube.
Yeah, because ignoring the evidence is a very unbiased thing to do. It's in the very same thread that we had this discussion about bias.
The sad thing is, there is a small chance I should be appalled by this video but instead I have no qualms dismissing it out of hand because its exactly the sort of shit I expect from a RW media sources. The dangers of crying wolf too often.
Yeah, that's definitely a totally unbiased response. It came from somewhere you are totally biased against, and you're ignoring it and it's credibility based solely on your bias against RW media. I don't need you to agree with me here, but I'm sure glad the rest of the forums are going to see this.
Frankly the selling of the parts doesn't outrage me nearly as much as the cavalier attitude towards the tearing apart of a living, feeling thing. Leftists are actively avoiding the subject and won't even watch the videos, simply because they don't want to recognize that one of their most prized freedoms is being exploited in such a brutal manner.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Frankly the selling of the parts doesn't outrage me nearly as much as the cavalier attitude towards the tearing apart of a living, feeling thing. Leftists are actively avoiding the subject and won't even watch the videos, simply because they don't want to recognize that one of their most prized freedoms is being exploited in such a brutal manner.
What is the most revealing is that they call them what they are, babies and not "products of conception" or "blobs of tissue." "This was a twin" and "another boy" are heard. The latest video the director talks about "intact fetal cadavers". How does one obtain an intact fetal cadaver without using illegal methods? There are a least seven more videos to come from a two and a half year long investigation. The talk will move from "Cecil the Lion" to "Cecile the Lyin'"
(
Last edited by Chongo; Aug 9, 2015 at 03:35 PM.
)
Usually the same ones you have to live by, or as many of them as they can persuade/enforce people to follow. Don't pretend like you don't know. Theres a reason your list has 200,000 schools and no food banks on it.
The St. Vincent DePaul Society runs kitchens and food banks all over the world, including Africa. That's just one Catholic group.
Unlike U.S. foreign aid, anyone that comes to a kitchen, food bank, or medical clinic is not required to agree to anything. That is the ideological colonization that Pope Francis warns of.
I don't know how many times I have to say this over and over: LESS biased, NOT unbiased
And I've demonstrated that they are less biased while you all keep trying prove that they aren't unbiased. Thats at least three or four of you carrying the same straw man now.
Your choice of wording is interesting though. The RW 'pretends' or in other words, lies that they are unbiased, while the LW 'believes' they are not or in other words is at least trying not to be.
I'm accusing the right of deliberately lying, explicitly don't accuse the left of that, and I'm straw-manning your bias argument?
Its pretty well backed by the facts. I might even say proven.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
You haven't demonstrated anything - you've explained your opinion.
I have stated several of my opinions and utterly refuted the various claims that Badkosh made in opposition. I demonstrated that his claims were false.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
So would you rather be a pretender or stupid & and a pretender (without even realizing it)?
Ah but you see Subego was talking about the media's opinion of themselves. Not the consumers opinion of the media.
The RW media lies by telling people it is reasonable, accurate and impartial while knowing full well it is not. The LW media tries to be impartial at least some of the time, and some of the time it fails, but hence it believes itself to be impartial or at least moreso than the RW.
Consumers of RW media believe the lies that it is impartial and accurate, or seem to for the most part or they media wouldn't tell so many ridiculous lies.
Consumers of LW media might well believe the same for the most part, so the question is would I rather be fooled by someone who is trying hard and failing sometimes, or by someone who set out to lie and manipulate me from the start? Its a no brainer, but since I am aware that neither side is perfect and I spend more time avoiding all of it than reading much of it I'm not sure I really fall into either category. I'm certain others here will make the same claim despite spouting all sorts of crap that sounds just like it came from Fox or Infowars.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Give it time - the investigation has to be conducted.
Happy to. Its my preference in fact.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Real solid facts there. "Your expectation" is reason to not take the evidence we do have at face value? That's some backwards logic there (seems like it could even be *gasp* a little bit biased).
I said it was my expectation, not fact. I am deeply skeptical of these videos because of the source, the angle and the particular media outlets that are making a fuss.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Are you just guessing right now?
Seriously, are you just making up "what its probably like?" ??
I think its just as likely that everything in the vide is made up, if not moreso. And by people far less scientifically literate than I.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Poor innocent human-parts dealer. It's a big republican conspiracy!
Nasty, evil, baby-murdering scum. Is so much less biased.
Maybe if they were adequately funded they wouldn't have to sell dead babies to cover their costs.
Maybe using treating these unwanted pregnancies as biological matter helps women to come to terms with their decisions.
Maybe using this material for research is a way to generate something good from something unfortunate.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Is that somehow a bad thing? I would think with the outrage you demonstrate for Fox News you'd at least have a heartstring or two pulled by an organization that evidence suggests is trafficking human fetus parts. Guess we'll have to wait for the investigation (though it seems like you already know whats up).
Maybe when these videos appear on more reputable news outlets as "Look what these doctors have been doing!" stories, rather than "Look what these idiots are telling their viewers now!" stories I'll give them the time of day. Because it will mean that someone whose job it is will have investigated the videos to some extent and learned that they weren't filmed with scripts and actors and paid for by the Tea Party or whatever.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
What? We already have very clear laws regarding the sale of human parts for profit. We don't need to call for new legislation - it's already very, very illegal. You're saying it's no big deal because the outrage isn't focused enough for you?
Either its already illegal and these people will eventually be charged for their crimes, in which case it will be an isolated criminal in need of psychiatric treatment blah blah blah, same arguments you use to justify not doing anything about gun massacres.
Or there is a loophole which I would speculate might be something like the foetal material in question not being considered human body parts in the same way abortion isn't considered murder. By the law that is.
If this is sanctioned and foetuses are suffering, prove it and get the rules changed.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Yeah, because ignoring the evidence is a very unbiased thing to do. It's in the very same thread that we had this discussion about bias.
Yeah, that's definitely a totally unbiased response. It came from somewhere you are totally biased against, and you're ignoring it and it's credibility based solely on your bias against RW media. I don't need you to agree with me here, but I'm sure glad the rest of the forums are going to see this.
This is just silly. Do you believe everything you see on the internet? Well then you must be biased against some of it, how dare you!
May your alien lizard illuminati overlords punish you thoroughly for this transgression.
You dismiss just as much stuff as I do and for the same reasons, just not the same stuff. Treating these videos as evidence before they've made it out of RW news circles would make me gullible, not unbiased.
Another double standard where for some reason I am expected to be held to a higher standard than you/the RW/everyone else. I take this as a compliment you know.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I'm accusing the right of deliberately lying, explicitly don't accuse the left of that, and I'm straw-manning your bias argument?
My statement is that LW media is less biased than RW, people keep trying to disprove the statement that LW media is unbiased or impartial. Which is crucially different to my statement and very easy to disprove because its an absolute.
Otherwise I agreed with most of what you said.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
My statement is that LW media is less biased than RW, people keep trying to disprove the statement that LW media is unbiased or impartial. Which is crucially different to my statement and very easy to disprove because its an absolute.
Otherwise I agreed with most of what you said.
The part I'm challenging is the notion right and left media bias are directly comparable.
Your statement (to me) is "the right is three apples while the left is only one orange". It's not the numbers I'm taking issue with.
Oh, from your last post it seems you'd already drawn up the conclusions to the entire scandal.
I said it was my expectation, not fact. I am deeply skeptical of these videos because of the source, the angle and the particular media outlets that are making a fuss.
So you're choosing to ignore it to reaffirm that bias? Or is anything RW immediately not worth your time?
I think its just as likely that everything in the vide is made up, if not moreso. And by people far less scientifically literate than I.
Again, are you just making shit up? What indication is there that anything in the video except your blind hatred for the RW?
Nasty, evil, baby-murdering scum. Is so much less biased.
Well, we have a video to back our position up. Yours is based on....bias?
Maybe if they were adequately funded they wouldn't have to sell dead babies to cover their costs.
Yeah, that's a great reason to start human-trafficking baby parts. "We didn't get enough of other people's money!"
Maybe using treating these unwanted pregnancies as biological matter helps women to come to terms with their decisions.
Again, you're just speculating based on your pre conceived notion. Do you honestly believe your less biased than the outlets you claim to hate so much?
Maybe using this material for research is a way to generate something good from something unfortunate.
Are you honestly arguing that parting out fetuses is justified here? I just want to make sure I understand what you're arguing.
Maybe when these videos appear on more reputable news outlets as "Look what these doctors have been doing!" stories, rather than "Look what these idiots are telling their viewers now!" stories I'll give them the time of day.
And we come full-circle to the bias discussion. More reputable news sources being the LWMSM? again I'm not sure how you can say you're "less biased" with a straight face. Forget the merits of the content, those evil republicans are not credible!!!
Why don't you watch the video and decide for yourself? Ya know, actually look at what the fuss is about? Since it doesn't come from the purveyors of your preferred ideology, you dismiss it out of hand?
Because it will mean that someone whose job it is will have investigated the videos to some extent and learned that they weren't filmed with scripts and actors and paid for by the Tea Party or whatever.
Again, your bias is incredibly apparent here. Anything but admit that someone(s) at Planned Parenthood are doing some really, really bad shit because that would hurt your Preferred Ideology's agenda. Wildly speculating on all the reasons its probably a republican conspiracy (without using a single shred of evidence) isn't exactly an "objective" approach to the issue. You won't even watch the video, and you want us to accept that we're the (more) biased ones?
Either its already illegal and these people will eventually be charged for their crimes, in which case it will be an isolated criminal in need of psychiatric treatment blah blah blah, same arguments you use to justify not doing anything about gun massacres.
Or there is a loophole which I would speculate might be something like the foetal material in question not being considered human body parts in the same way abortion isn't considered murder. By the law that is.
If this is sanctioned and foetuses are suffering, prove it and get the rules changed.
See here's the problem, all you're doing is speculating. It doesn't make for a convincing argument. How can you say with any degree of certainty that this is an isolated incident? After all, there's supposedly another 7 or so videos to be released. Stop making shit up.
This is just silly. Do you believe everything you see on the internet? Well then you must be biased against some of it, how dare you!
You're accusing me of being gullible? You won't even watch the video because your ideology forbids it. You even tried rationalizing it a bit up there, and I'm the one that needs a reality check?
May your alien lizard illuminati overlords punish you thoroughly for this transgression.
:sigh:
You dismiss just as much stuff as I do and for the same reasons, just not the same stuff.
Back it up, where have I done that? Stop just making shit up, you're not very good at the guessing game.
Treating these videos as evidence before they've made it out of RW news circles would make me gullible, not unbiased.
"Treating evidence as evidence because it came from republicans is the mature, objective, unbiased way to approach this issue."
No, that makes you extremely biased against RW outlets. I'm not sure how much more biased you could possibly get. What more would it take, in your mind, for a left-winger to be biased? Or is it impossible in your mind because the Preferred Ideology is the only true relig....err unbiased view.
Another double standard where for some reason I am expected to be held to a higher standard than you/the RW/everyone else. I take this as a compliment you know.
Higher standard? Dude all you've done is make shit up and refuse to actually view the media we're discussing because you're too "unbiased". I'm not sure there could be any lower of a standard for a real discussion than what you've brought to the table. Heal thyself, Doctor.
Its pretty well backed by the facts. I might even say proven.
Your speculation doesn't constitute facts. You want to prove your argument? Trying using a source that isn't the ramblings that come out of your head.
I have stated several of my opinions and utterly refuted the various claims that Badkosh made in opposition. I demonstrated that his claims were false.
No, you stated your opinion. You didn't use any facts. Facts are credible sources that don't originate in your head. Those are opinions.
Ah but you see Subego was talking about the media's opinion of themselves. Not the consumers opinion of the media.
From his response to you, I'm not sure you two are on the same page here. I wouldn't expect him to be either, he's legit one of the most unbiased people in here.
The RW media lies by telling people it is reasonable, accurate and impartial while knowing full well it is not.
Again, prove it. You keep just stating your opinion and you haven't backed it up at all.
The LW media tries to be impartial at least some of the time, and some of the time it fails, but hence it believes itself to be impartial or at least moreso than the RW.
Again, just keep on making shit up. Cite your source.
Consumers of RW media believe the lies that it is impartial and accurate, or seem to for the most part or they media wouldn't tell so many ridiculous lies.
Ok, now you just sound like the guy on the corner nonsensically spewing doomsday lines.
Consumers of LW media might well believe the same for the most part, so the question is would I rather be fooled by someone who is trying hard and failing sometimes, or by someone who set out to lie and manipulate me from the start? Its a no brainer, but since I am aware that neither side is perfect and I spend more time avoiding all of it than reading much of it I'm not sure I really fall into either category. I'm certain others here will make the same claim despite spouting all sorts of crap that sounds just like it came from Fox or Infowars.
I'm not sure you're capable of telling the difference, given your confusion with what actually constitutes a "fact". Maybe instead of being so focused on the evil republican conspiracy, you could use that energy to view the video and formulate your own view on it instead of just waiting for LWMSM to tell you what to think
Here are the full unedited videos that have been so far released. you can scan though them yourselves, no left or right wing bias added. Cecile Richards has apologized for the "tone" of Dr Nucatola's comments.
This is from the comment section of the last video.
The woman admits at 20:28 that they don't pay any shipping costs. The sponsors set up a FedEx account and they simply print the labels. So there are no shipping costs to PP!
The part I'm challenging is the notion right and left media bias are directly comparable.
Your statement (to me) is "the right is three apples while the left is only one orange". It's not the numbers I'm taking issue with.
They certainly use different tactics. One looks at the facts through a tinted sense, applies carefully measured language and limits the amount of exposure they give certain stories. the other will take something that looks like a nugget of truth from a distance, embellish it with fabricated bullshit, blow it out of all proportion by peppering it with quotes from people who are outraged at the very notion of it, then run with it for months on end until long after they should have moved on to the next thing.
I don't see why you can't say that one is much more extreme than the other.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
They certainly use different tactics. One looks at the facts through a tinted sense, applies carefully measured language and limits the amount of exposure they give certain stories. the other will take something that looks like a nugget of truth from a distance, embellish it with fabricated bullshit, blow it out of all proportion by peppering it with quotes from people who are outraged at the very notion of it, then run with it for months on end until long after they should have moved on to the next thing.
I don't see why you can't say that one is much more extreme than the other.
The problem is, they see Conservative media as the former and Progressive media as the latter. If you can't see how both are doing the same shit, then you're as blind as anyone who buys into the Fox and MSNBC dog and pony show. (Hint: They're both playing you against the middle.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I think you're overlooking the LWMSM's tendency to ignore things they don't like, just like you've done right here in this thread by refusing to view the videos solely because of your bias against RWMSM.
, applies carefully measured language and limits the amount of exposure they give certain stories
Quite so.
. the other will take something that looks like a nugget of truth from a distance, embellish it with fabricated bullshit, blow it out of all proportion by peppering it with quotes from people who are outraged at the very notion of it, then run with it for months on end until long after they should have moved on to the next thing.
How could you possibly know this, if you refuse to watch or read anything that originates from RWMSM? Perhaps they stick to those stories because their audience is interested in the story. Otherwise, they'd be as irrelevant as CNN is today - precisely because they refuse to cover anything that contradicts their ideology.
I don't see why you can't say that one is much more extreme than the other.
Again, a biased conclusion from a biased author who's bias prevents him from even evaluating RWMSM content, much less through an objective lens. I think the answer to who's bias is more extreme lies with it's viewers ability to process information from any source and evaluate it on its merits, rather than it's source.
What you've done here is a logical fallacy known as an ad hominem.
Originally Posted by wikipedia
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.
i.e. fox news is evil therefore i won't watch the video.
Originally Posted by wikipedia
When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized...
"The video is a conspiracy from the right to please their campaign contributors
It's incredible to me that you're arguing the LWMSM is less biased while simultaneously using a biased based logical fallacy to completely discredit the topic of discussion, without having even reviewed the source material.
They certainly use different tactics. One looks at the facts through a tinted sense, applies carefully measured language and limits the amount of exposure they give certain stories. the other will take something that looks like a nugget of truth from a distance, embellish it with fabricated bullshit, blow it out of all proportion by peppering it with quotes from people who are outraged at the very notion of it, then run with it for months on end until long after they should have moved on to the next thing.
I don't see why you can't say that one is much more extreme than the other.
There are two arms of left wing news at this point. The "old guard" is network news and dead tree print. The new guard is HuffPo.
My delusional half of the liar/delusional dichotomy applies only to the old guard. HuffPo stole the entirety of the liar playbook.
The old guard wouldn't bother me if they acknowledged their tint, but instead they present themselves as having a "monopoly on the truth", which as someone interested in genuine truth, makes me want to vomit.
From his response to you, I'm not sure you two are on the same page here. I wouldn't expect him to be either, he's legit one of the most unbiased people in here.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"The poll shows the more the American people learn about Planned Parenthood's barbaric late-term abortion body parts business, the less they want to subsidize it with their taxpayer dollars," Daleiden said in a statement.
, you'd have to read pretty much all the way through the article to see it. Not exactly upfront considering the headline.
Well that's heinous. Bad doctor or widespread practice? ...I think we know what we're going to assume based on our preferences.
Bad Doctor - for sure, but it indicates systemic ethical and legal failures in PP that allows such heinous doctors to operate unimpeded. Surely this doctor was not operating in a vacuum, which further raises questions about the culture within PP, especially since this was only exposed when an outside watchdog ran a sting operation. Surely others within PP knew about this, and either A) The system is such that abuse is extremely easy to hide or B) the culture is such that no others in PP saw anything wrong with it.
Either way, PP needs fundamental reform and a suspension of public funding until such a time that proper oversight can be established (hopefully sooner rather than later).
FTR - I am pro choice* (with some regulation, i.e. 1st trimester abortions only and a primary care physician's referral/blessing.). I am also in favor of PP's general mission, but the way it's being done is absolutely appalling.
I think you can also get on PP's case for how they treat threats of defunding.
Their 2013 990 form says they made $28MM in net revenue, and have net assets over $275MM.
But if the government threatens to defund, "sorry, closing clinics is our only option", and then they close the clinics of people who have the least access.
They're dirty birds, alright. The problem is, we can't socially afford to kick them out of the nest, at least not now.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I think you can also get on PP's case for how they treat threats of defunding.
Their 2013 990 form says they made $28MM in net revenue, and have net assets over $275MM.
But if the government threatens to defund, "sorry, closing clinics is our only option", and then they close the clinics of people who have the least access.
It's extortion.
Maybe but lets not pretend that the vast majority of folks trying to get rid of them give two shits about the good services they provide or the people they look after.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I think you can also get on PP's case for how they treat threats of defunding.
Their 2013 990 form says they made $28MM in net revenue, and have net assets over $275MM.
But if the government threatens to defund, "sorry, closing clinics is our only option", and then they close the clinics of people who have the least access.
It's extortion.
From wiki, it sounds like they have assets to stay open one year without federal funding. That doesn't sound that great but my math is likely off.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
They're dirty birds, alright. The problem is, we can't socially afford to kick them out of the nest, at least not now.
The problem is I think your nuanced view is the extreme minority.
---
Is there a solution here? Can you separate or spin-off the abortion services into a separate arm that's still financially feasible but legally distinct?
The problem is I think your nuanced view is the extreme minority.
No, I don't care if it's the minority. I gave up on toeing party lines on issues and look at them all individually now, it's the only way I could be true to myself.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
No, I don't care if it's the minority. I gave up on toeing party lines on issues and look at them all individually now, it's the only way I could be true to myself.
I didn't say you should. I was saying you have a nuanced view that is lacking in most of the people involved in the issue.
I didn't say you should. I was saying you have a nuanced view that is lacking in most of the people involved in the issue.
but that doesn't (nor should it) change my perception of the circumstances surrounding PP. I also find I'm on the same side of the fence with the RC Church regarding Capital Punishment, but not because of the overall "sanctity of life". Of late I've made the choice to ignore my political bedfellows, because I'm no longer going to let what amounts to ideological propaganda alter my perceptions regarding a specific situation.
Edit: It's why right now, given a choice, I'd vote for Sanders over just about anyone else in the POTUS race. With only a couple exceptions, all the rest are strictly corporate candidates.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
but that doesn't (nor should it) change my perception of the circumstances surrounding PP.
I don't understand what the conflict here is. Again: I didn't say anything regarding a change to your perception being necessary, wanted, or advisable. If anything, my implication was the opposite.
PP gets federal money from two places. A grant from Title X (whatever the **** that is... I'm sure it's socialist), and Medicaid payments for services rendered.
According to their most recent set of numbers, the Title X grant was excess revenue. If you got rid of it, they'd still have excess revenue.
Live Action has called numerous PP "clinics" trying to make an appointment for a mammogram. Each time they were told "we don't do mammograms" and were referred elsewhere.
What's getting lost is the fact that you can't get organs from lumps of tissues or blobs of cells. You can only have organs from a sufficiently developed baby. ("another boy!") It will not surprise me if one of the last videos is of PP retrieving an "intact fetal cadaver" as mentioned in earlier vidoes.
PP claims if they loose federal funding "million of women will lose access to healthcare" One of the services PP claims to provide is mammograms. PP also claims that abortion is "only 3% of what we do" The way PP records "services," a Macdonald's Big Mac value meal has >50 items, (drink, burger[10 items, more if you count the pickles and each strand of lettuce] and fries [~40 fries])
First, I was cranky when I wrote that last post (not an excuse, only an explanation), and I apologize. It could have been far more constructive.
Second, even though I think abortion should be legal, I have absolute respect for the opposite opinion. If there are times I've behaved as if I don't, that's a failing on my part. I mention this because I don't want you to think any of the following is meant as a dismissal of your concern about PP as an abortion provider. For purposes of this discussion, let us both declare that in being an abortion provider, PP's sin has been proven. They are already condemned, thus no more damning evidence is needed.
Further, as I stated upthread, PP's threats in the face of defunding usually border on criminal extortion, and the claimed impact on services are spurious.
It's not impossible to defund PP to the point where they'd legitimately need to cut services, and this map purports to show how minimal that impact would be.
The main thing provided by PP is cheap gynecological services. Demonstrating the availability of their services based on something entirely unrelated to their main function is flat-out distortion.
(
Last edited by subego; Aug 22, 2015 at 10:48 AM.
)
First, I was cranky when I wrote that last post (not an excuse, only an explanation), and I apologize. It could have been far more constructive.
Second, even though I think abortion should be legal, I have absolute respect for the opposite opinion. If there are times I've behaved as if I don't, that's a failing on my part. I mention this because I don't want you to think any of the following is meant as a dismissal of your concern about PP as an abortion provider. For purposes of this discussion, let us both declare that in being an abortion provider, PP's sin has been proven. They are already condemned, thus no more damning evidence is needed.
Further, as I stated upthread, PP's threats in the face of defunding usually border on criminal extortion, and the claimed impact on services are spurious.
It's not impossible to defund PP to the point where they'd legitimately need to cut services, and this map purports to show how minimal that impact would be.
The main thing provided by PP is cheap gynecological services. Demonstrating the availability of their services based on something entirely unrelated to their main function is flat-out distortion.
OK, let's say that it'a true that abortion is only 3% of what PP does,(it's not, it's PP main function) and is a source of cheap gynecological services. PP could get out of the abortion biz, leaving abortions to hospitals, where if something goes wrong, the woman would get proper attention.
What metric are you using to determine what their main service is?
If you want to argue that's where they charge and make their most money, I could buy that. It doesn't make it their "main thing". The main thing they do is going to be what they do the most, which is cheap gynecological services.
If PP refuses to separate the two, then defunding will affect them both.
All I ask is if you make a call for something like total defunding, you make an accurate assessment of the scope involved. A comparison of mammogram facilities shows neither the extent to which PP provides cheap gynecological services, nor the extent to which these services are available from other providers.
Why do you think the graphic maker chose mammograms?
Do you think there would be more brown dots if it used a list of PP facilities which provide abortion? Every single facility which does that also offers cheap gynecological services.
Do you think there would be less white dots if what was being shown are cheap services? Regardless of whether it's a mammogram or a pap smear?
What metric are you using to determine what their main service is?
If you want to argue that's where they charge and make their most money, I could buy that. It doesn't make it their "main thing". The main thing they do is going to be what they do the most, which is cheap gynecological services.
If PP refuses to separate the two, then defunding will affect them both.
I think there's a straightforward solution in here somewhere. If they're taking public money, why not have stricter requirements on what that money can be used for? i.e. we can force them to separate the two, and provide funding for the less controversial services until such a time that proper oversight can be established on the rest of it.
What do you think?
All I ask is if you make a call for something like total defunding, you make an accurate assessment of the scope involved. A comparison of mammogram facilities shows neither the extent to which PP provides cheap gynecological services, nor the extent to which these services are available from other providers.
Why do you think the graphic maker chose mammograms?
Do you think there would be more brown dots if it used a list of PP facilities which provide abortion? Every single facility which does that also offers cheap gynecological services.
Do you think there would be less white dots if what was being shown are cheap services? Regardless of whether it's a mammogram or a pap smear?
I think there's a straightforward solution in here somewhere. If they're taking public money, why not have stricter requirements on what that money can be used for? i.e. we can force them to separate the two, and provide funding for the less controversial services until such a time that proper oversight can be established on the rest of it.
What do you think?
In one sense we do. It's illegal to use federal funds for an abortion, so PP says they don't.
When it comes to the Title X money, I consider that a shell game. The Title X money frees up other money, which then gets used for abortions.
I think we should get rid of the Title X grant purely on the basis of PP behaving like the ****ing mafia, while also making more than the grant in excess revenue. Getting rid of the grant approaches what you're talking about.
I say "approaches", because the bulk of federal money PP gets are Medicaid payments for services rendered. One has to consider whether this is part of the same Title X shell game.
It's certainly less subject to it. They're getting the money for rendering a specific non-abortion service.
Regardless of the shell game potential, I'm inclined against barring PP from Medicaid funds, because it eliminates the clientele most in need of their services.
Make no mistake. This is a "poison pill" type setup, and that's how they're using it.
(
Last edited by subego; Aug 22, 2015 at 06:16 PM.
)
Cheap means they accept Medicaid for it. The primary services are going to be preventative. Birth control, pap smears, and checkups. Next is treatment of your common problems. Stuff with your period, cysts, endometriosis, etc.
Cheap means they accept Medicaid for it. The primary services are going to be preventative. Birth control, pap smears, and checkups. Next is treatment of your common problems. Stuff with your period, cysts, endometriosis, etc.
So, Planned Parenthood is the only group capable of providing theses services and accepts Medicaid? The second graphic I posted shows that there 20 comprehensive health care clinics for every PP. (13,550 to 665) Despite the claim abortion is 3% of what PP does, it is the the leader in abortions performed. (>300k a year)
It's in the very same thread that we had this discussion about bias. 
Top