First Official GOP President Announcement

Strange, they had the ability to prove it, but haven't....

I mean, Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization subject to 990 rules, and yet, they don't disclose such public information required.......

So, prove it to us that they are abiding by the law. That's the only way you can prove us wrong. Why haven't you done that yet?

Well, thanks for showing that they are still being funded by the government to preform abortions.

Hint: check page 19 (page 21 on the pdf)

Um, funding parts of an organization funds pretty much all of said organization, because it frees up cash to be used for its other parts.

Logic.

Did you look for this information? A quick google search brings up this information and it is not hidden but available on their website.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/annual-report
-Annual report 2013-2014
-Most recent audited financial statement
-Most recent IRS form 990

Edit: back read more pages and you already linked the 990 report. What exactly are you looking for?

Edit2:
What?
That doesn't say that at all...

You could argue that, but then you would have to apply that to every organization that receives any government aid.

There are very few businesses (if any) that in some way don't collect on grants, tax breaks, or direct funding by federal or local governments.

You could argue that, but then you would have to apply that to every organization that receives any government aid.

(stuff that's too long to quote)

cannot legally be funded by the government.

non-existent "no abortion funding" laws are.

Wait, the Hyde Amendment doesn't exist to you?

Is it because you don't like it?

It's not a constitutional amendment, it's an appropriations amendment, and it says that certain types of funding for the department of health and human services as well as medicaid cannot be appropriated to directly pay for abortions except in the case of rape or incest. General funding to PPFA isn't used to directly fund abortions nor do they perform them under medicaid. No law is being broken.

Still waiting for someone to explain to me why the trivial amount of money (as compared to, say, what we spend on military funding that still has managed to put us so deep in the hole that it defies belief) that may pay for a few abortions is something worth arguing over.

The only argument I can see is that you object to abortion on moral grounds. And that's ok, but morals have limited strength in argument because they're fundamentally personal. I personally would prefer to see gun rights heavily restricted because I morally object to the ease with which citizens can kill one another (same moral, too: I don't like dead people). My personal beliefs aren't going to make the Second Amendment evaporate and, more importantly, as someone who actually believes in the values of the Constitution, I'm grudgingly ok with something I find objectionable being retained.

But the problem here is that no one has the spine to make this a moral argument, probably because everyone over the age of 7 knows that moral arguments have almost no traction. So frame the moral argument as a financial argument.

Except the financial argument makes no sense. We all pay taxes that support all kinds of things we don't agree with. I find it offensive that a certain amount of governmental money filters down into the hands of faith-based charities even though I recognize that most of them are doing important and necessary work (that the HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE public refuses to leave in the hands of a government agency or even a secular NGO). Hell, I'm personally not fond of abortion, but the net cost of paying for a few abortions is so far below that of paying for the care and feeding of an unwanted child by such a monumental amount that it would be insane to use money as a justification.

And, as I alluded to in more strident tones previously, there's absolutely no logic in how people want to cut the nominal funding that supports some abortions and simultaneously want to slash the funding that is necessary to support an infant. Is it morally better to let a 2-year-old starve or to evacuate a fetus?

If certain people around here want to claim that they support increasing welfare like SNAP, WIC, section 8, and other assistance programs, you'll have to prove it.

I guess we shouldn't risk letting them starve, so lets just kill em off before they're born.

Who said that the law was being broken? All we are saying is that the federal government is indirectly funding abortions.

P.S. the only reason we're all trying to come up with analogies for you is that you're purposefully ignoring equivalence.

Since when is requesting equivalence ignoring it? It's not my fault that your analogies sucked and that Kara is the only person who even came remotely close to finding actual equivalence.

Nausi is always going to believe a fetus is a person. He just is. You're not going to win an argument with him about this and you're not going to change his mind with any amount of scientific fact. To him, a fetus is a person and shouldn't be aborted and its right to life should be defended.

But his belief stops there. He believes in defending an unformed fetus, but doesn't believe in helping other actual living human beings, including feeding that fetus once it's formed and living as an actual person of its own.


Frankly, we should be providing more education about and access to birth control to everyone. And we should be pushing medical researchers to come up with more reliable ways to control fertility, both preventing pregnancies for those who don't want them and helping those who do achieve them more readily. You want fewer abortions? Put in some work to prove it, don't tell people to just stop having sex as if that's even remotely worked ever.

What science is there that a human fetus isn't human?

No, you require perfect equivalence then attempt to pick it apart to prove that your opinion on a subject makes it impossibly scrupulous. You hop in to lend some credibility to any nonsensical far right interpretation of a situation and you've run out of passes.

So, any portion of a biologically human organism is now a fully qualified person... I better get those toenail clippings out of the garbage before they charge me with murder.

You equated indirect abortion funding with prison rape. If me not accepting your horrible analogy means that I require "perfect equivalence", then you have no right to pick apart any analogy that I make, ever. What we're discussing is not that narrow of a topic. If you can't wrap your brain around it, please quit while you're behind.

So, any portion of a biologically human organism is now a fully qualified person... I better get those toenail clippings out of the garbage before they charge me with murder.

You posed that anything that takes place at pp could be attributed to federal dollars. Then narrowed your statement when I pointed out things that happen that could be allowed by federal funding.

You see what I'm saying about Jassik's analogies now? It's like he's not even trying.


We already went over this. We're talking about government-funded business operations and you're trying to expand it to include pretty much everything ever.

Your "logic" does that. You just want to limit it to services provided. You've really not said much though in the way of anything Rav. You made one statement then deflected, insulted and glommed on to anyone else that made a statement that you agreed with in any way.

Jassik, Flavin, they all do that, it's nothing new. When they have no argument to make, they argue against a false premise or a strawman.

Don't worry. The next time you want to talk about a particular topic, I'm going to push it to the extremes and bring up a bunch of crap that's barely related. Want to talk about welfare in the U.S.? I'm going to ask why you only care about the welfare of people in the U.S. and nowhere else. What are you, a xenophobic racist? Want to talk about gay marriage? Why, I'm going to berate you for not supporting human-horse marriage too. And when you rightfully say that it's stupid for me to even equate such things, I'm going to say "NO DUH!" Oh, and I'll add that you're deflecting whenever someone else brings up an interesting point that you want to pursue even though you never retracted your original point. You can't win, so just stop.

Jassik, Flavin, they all do that, it's nothing new. When they have no argument to make, they argue against a false premise or a strawman.