Permissive Sex Ed Linked to Higher Pregnancy, Abortion Rates.

No, you did not. Abortion is 3% of the services offered by PP, and 10% of their clients have abortions. The two statistics are not contradictory.

 

Maybe some pertinent sex education needed here.........or can you show how oral sex can make somone pregnant???

 

no, what you have shown is that 3% of total services provided by PP represents abortion, of which 10% of its clients actually had an abortion .. you also don't answer that a significant number of that 10% also had other services, which could be the differential between the two figures, and despite PP having had federal funding since 1970 and a number of Republican presidents having been in office, and having a majority in the Senate, not once have PP been called out on the "supposed" federal funding of abortion .. don't you think that it would have been noticed and investigated at least once in the last 43 years.

Why do I need to provide data, the facts speak for themselves, not once in the last 43 years have PP been prosecuted for mis-use of federal funding associated with abortions . .you know why . .because it doesn't happen regardless of how much you want it to be true, it isn't.

 

What does that statistic really mean? One woman comes in to get counseling and is offered 9 little "services" at the same time, while another woman comes in and gets an abortion. You could then claim that abortion is "only 10% of the services", but in actuality half the women coming in get an abortion.

Show me revenue ammounts. Because "services" is really a meaningless statistic. Every year they perform 350,000 abortions. If each abortion costs 500 dollars on average, that is about 175 million dollars. (often times an abortion costs the woman less, but that is only because the real costs are being indirectly subsidized)
So that suggests that abortions constitute about 17% of Planned Parenthood's overall revenue.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/09/05/media-hides-fact-planned-parenthood-does-40-of-abortions/

Seems to me like Planned Parenthood is being intentionally misleading, and pro-choicers just eat it all up without questioning it. Besides, Planned Parenthood has repeatedly fought against abortion reporting and regulation requirements, so we really cannot be sure at all what is actually going down in all these clinics.

http://www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/PlannedParenthoodagenda.htm

Besides, Planned Parenthood is known to have tried to deceive us in the past about the "mammogram serices" they allegedly provide:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq0kBkUZbvQ&feature=player_embedded

 

This is a loaded statement by Cecile Richards, likely intended to evoke an angry response from women who think they are entitled to the services planned parenthood provides without the obligation to pay for the services. Not surprising in a culture where people are trained to think they are entitled to many things without having to earn them.

The question I have is this: Can and should PP obtain it's funding by selling it's services for a fee or through voluntary donations or a combination of the two? The answer is yes. The issue is not, as many would have us believe, whether or not these services are beneficial but it is whether or not there is any justification to make the taxpayer pay for these services without their consent.

 

and you obviously know more than the experts in the subject.

You could spend a million lifetimes praying and still be just as disgracefully devoid of understanding of human nature as you are now.

Lets see you evidence then that "..there is nothing human about promiscuity.", I mean real scientific evidence, not religious evidence

 

Planned Parenthood’s chart shows that abortions made up 3 percent of its total services. Another way to measure the group’s abortion services, however, is to divide the total number of abortions by the number of clients. For example, Planned Parenthood said that it “provided nearly 11.4 million medical services for 3 million people” in 2009. Its 2011 fact sheet says it performed 332,278 abortion procedures in 2009. That would mean that roughly one out of every 10 clients received an abortion.


http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

Because otherwise you are blowing smoke.

 

Look at the facts...

Planned Parenthood’s latest report states that it performed “11 million services during nearly five million clinical visits.” So, now their abortion number jumps to 6.6 percent of clinic visits were for abortions. That’s right 6.6 percent of all visits to Planned Parenthood result in an abortion.

Digging a little deeper, Planned Parenthood claims that all those “services” it provides only go to 3 million women. So by it’s own admission, 11 percent of the women that visit a Planned Parenthood clinic in any given year obtain an abortion there.

According to Planned Parenthood’s own apologist, Media Matters, its “total revenue from abortion services was approximately $164,154,000,” a year. Accordingly, over 51 percent of Planned Parenthood’s clinic income comes from abortion

In addition to its $320.1 million in clinic income and $223.8 million in private donations, Planned Parenthood receives $487.4 million dollars a year from taxpayers. And that number is drastically increasing. Taxpayer funding for the abortion giant has more than doubled in the last decade.

More here...http://aclj.org/media-abortion-distortion-plays-abortion-industry-deception

 

They do all sorts of things with the numbers to hide what they do. But the biggest thing they do is just lie about who comes in, how many come in, the ages of who comes in, and how far along they are.

They also offer services in CONJUNCTION with actual abortions...so when a woman pays $5-600 for an abortion and gets a pap, and an std test, and birth control, and an exam...all of that is "non-abortion" services.

 

did you actually read what you have linked to?

right so because I can't produce data to show something that has never happened I'm blowing smoke .. perhaps you would like to provide data that the moon is made of cream cheese, if you can't then you must be blowing smoke.
you are asking me to provide data for something that has never happened .. the data IS that it has never happened, and again answer the question .. why in 43 years since PP have had federal funding have they NEVER been charged with mis-use of federal funds for abortions, and why, if your premise is correct has every single pro-life objection to the funding been a failure . .I mean you have the evidence don't you, are you saying that every government for the last 43 years has been corrupt?

 

No facts, no links....You are wasting my time.

 

and obviously you would know this because you have worked for PP preparing their accounts, or as a doctor assessing the patients .. no . .then its nothing more than an assumption.

Since when have paps, std tests, birth control been part of the abortion process . .so they are non-abortion services .. not difficult to understand really.

BTW, Any luck finding your evidence that school kids are taught how to have sex?

 

How can a factual statement be "loaded"? The loaded language is yours, using the phrase "women who think they are entitled," to describe women in poverty.

We all pay for the health care of those who can't afford it, one way or another. Paying for it with tax dollars is preferable to having exorbitant health care costs. Aren't taxpayers forced to pay for all government expenditures without their consent?

 

Yet another opinion, while I can quite easily show from your comments that you are just a waste of time . .everybodies that is.

But just for you

Also interesting to note that your last link comes from a rabid pro-life site .. certainly unbiased (not)

 

So, right or wrong, we pay for the health care of others and you think this is preferable (to who?) to an increase in costs (assumes that the cost of health care is inversely proportional to the amount of subsidization which is not substantiated.) Another way to look at this is that because we pay so much for the health care of others (as well as subsidizing so many other expenditures) we don't have enough to afford our own care. Eliminate subsidies and lower taxes accordingly and maybe this problem fixes itself (through the instant increase in disposable income as well as the rapid growth of the economy likely to occur as a result of the lower taxes.)

Yes. Should they be? Theoretically, No.

 

Or we could let them suffer and die. Are you pro-life?

Corporate subsidies? And we could cut back on the amount we are spending to kill people in wars...

 

I know a million times more about it than anyone who thinks promiscuity is anything but dehumanizing, that's for sure.

Mom, tell her to stop copying me.

The challenge is spectacularly risible, hth.

 

translated means - I know nothing about it apart from my own opinion

mom says grow up

Translated means - I don't have any, its just what I think

 

Or you and others could simply not let them suffer and die. PP is already committed to providing the services and no one who supports it's services are prohibited from donating to the cause. Instead of emotionally charged statements and guilt trips, you could simply persuade me to donate.

Since you asked, no I am not, at least not as it is understood within the context of the abortion issue.

 

These collectivists seem to think so. If the government doesn't provide it than it surely will cease to exist, at least that is the prevailing mentality.

Collectivist thinking also seems to be devoid of all common sense.

 

Provide the means to prevent forced birth, and stop the self-righteous bullying and prejudiced blather. Let people live their own lives.

 

In this case, unlike you, I need not appeal to any opinion, because everything I said is fact.

Show me how.

that will satisfy creatures like yourself who despise humanity, and to whom the only thing acceptable as truth is lies?

Sure, I can hang with that.

 

Normalcy is in the eye of the beholder. It is dictated by societal norms of the region in question - try spouting that garbage off in say...Holbrook Idaho.

You'd get laughed out of town.

 

IUD's can be costly to install and to remove. Plus I don't think we should be promoting sex among the youth - it is dangerous for their bodies not only at the stage of development, but for the risk of disease.

 

You must be kidding. First you are ignoring an important fact of biology - foreskin. Second I am pretty sure that wherever you dug this crap up, it was probably made up. Cite me a source, that I may rend it with common sense. It only requires an elementary knowledge of fluid dynamics to realize that this is utter garbage.

Another believer of constructs...you guys need new material.

With human males I'd agree, with females it is not. The animal kingdom is rife with examples that prove this point. As well as many cultural norms in ages past....with few exceptions.