What really happens if we don't allow tax money to go to places that perform abortions?

@JLeslie – you’re getting suckered into their game. You’re allowing the right wing to define the issue. The issue is not abortions, who funds it, or anything like that.

The fundamental issue is that Congressional men are trying to, legislatively or any other way possible, restrict a woman’s right to choose what happens to and with her body. This has nothing to do with abortion per se; it has everything to do with male domination and the desire to control women.

If all of a sudden, bright pink dresses were a symbol of women’s power and empowerment, you can be sure that the next day there would be legislation introduced to control the sale of pink dresses and Congress would hold hearings on whether to allow women to wear them.

This is nothing new in the US. Women’s suffrage and the right to vote came into effect despite the efforts of men to quash it.

The Equal Rights Amendment failed because men wanted it to fail – it was seen as taking too much power from men.

Abortion is not the issue. Women are.

Planned Parenthood does not receive any tax money for performing abortions. See here for example. Most of what they do is screen for sexually transmitted disease and provide contraception. It could be that with Planned Parenthood people would get more venereal disease and require more abortions.

@elbanditoroso – Men and women are not too far apart on the abortion question (44% vs 50%). I’m not sure framing this in this way is entirely accurate. We can look at party affiliation, regional differences, and especially religious differences in views on the issue. But I think your framing here is not helpful.

It doesn’t matter if the tax money goes to abortions or not. I did some research and from what I can tell Medicaid pays for some abortions in some states. If PP is getting paid for services, and Medicaid doesn’t pay for abortions, then obviously government money can’t be used for abortions. Although, I seemed to find a grey area where there are some exceptions in some states for some abortions under certain circumstances I realize PP is not getting a big check from the government in the form of a grant or lump sum.

Meanwhile, some people might not want their tax money going to a company that performs abortions. Although, I would recommend they check to see if their private insurer and the hospital they use aren’t performing or paying for abortions.

Of course the majority of movement wants limit abortions and a woman’s right to choose. That seems obvious. There are also people who are sick of government wasteful spending and are coming down on tax dollars being spent period. For whatever reason a lot of them don’t care about corporate greed, which I don’t understand. That costs the individual money also.

My Q was asking what happens if PP stops getting government money? How many people won’t get an abortion? How fast is PP going to start closing up? What about increasing efforts for private donations? Is the money given to PP by the government so small it won’t have a huge effect to pull the funding?

@JLeslie If the government funding of Planned Parenthood is cut off, it means no more access to women’s health care in many underserved locations.

No more cancer screening, no more contraceptive advice, no more Pap smears, no more STD testing, no more advice for women like my last girlfriend who has a fibroid tumor.

Women in many states and rural areas will have no place to get objective advice on their health.

Q: How much of Planned Parenthood’s services are dedicated to abortions? Does the federal government fund those procedures?

A: Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion. The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law.

“Planned Parenthood says only 3 percent of its total services in 2009 were abortions. The other 97 percent of services were for contraception, treatment and tests for sexually transmitted diseases, cancer screenings, and other women’s health services.”

FactCheck.org

Where is someone getting the idea that the tax payers pay for abortions???

@Dutchess_III – the republicans said it. Therefore it has to be true.

@JLeslie You’re right that the right wing is hypocritical about this issue. None of this is really about Planned Parenthood or about funding, so the exact answer to your question doesn’t actually matter. It’s about giving the appearance of being baby-saving heroes, so they can get votes from their constituents. Even if that image means jeopardizing the health of some of their constituents. As they must know that it does.

You get a lot of kids that nobody wants, can’t or won’t feed, or worse.

Only a fool would not see the value in spending a few tax dollars on abortion. Make the Hyde amendment illegal.

Nothing. They don’t need the 528 million from taxes. From what I read, they’re self-sustained. They have a revenue of $1.3 billion and a reported holding of $1.4 billion in assets. Their salaries are more than enough. The president of planned parenthood – Cecile Richards was paid more than $2.47 million from 2009–2013, including $590,928 in 2013, and the executives there make over $200,000 a year. They spend millions on travel, galas, real estate, and political affiliates.

There are also alternative low-cost and free community clinics, health centers, health clinics, and hospitals that accept federal funding.

If that’s true, @pinc, why the fuss?

Ask the fussers. I have no problem with Congress defunding it. They should.

Well, you seemed to have all the answers above.

If Planned Parenthood is denied Federal money, the battlefield will merely shift to further efforts to overturn Rowe vs. Wade. Meanwhile, Bible belt states will continue to erect as many barriers to women seeking abortions as can be concocted. The argument that Planned Parenthood is somehow unnecessary is specious on its face. The sheer numbers of women utilizing the organization is a stark testimonial to the criminal neglect of women’s health needs on the part of public agencies in the country, Planned Parenthood WOULD NOT EXIST were it not for the unmet demand for women’s health services, and anyone proposing that the slack will be taken up if the largest organization blanketing the country dedicated solely to women’s needs is eliminated is ludicrous. The outfit’s stellar record in providing these services is unmatched and BEYOND DISPUTE. As for the issue of abortion itself, there’s something rather ironic about conservatives howling over the evil intrusiveness of government in the lives of individuals, while advocating that government has the right to compel a woman to bear a child!

@pinc Many of the places where PP has has clinics are in underserved impoverished communities; no alternative low cost and free clinics. PP is the low cost or free clinic.

Congress’ attempt to punish PP by legislation is actually unconstitutional. Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.”

no alternative low cost and free clinics.

Yes there are. They’re in the process of being posted at Getyourcare,org and from what I’m reading these alternative clinics outnumber Planned Parenthood by a ratio of 20 to 1.

Congress’ attempt to punish PP by legislation is actually unconstitutional.

We will see about that.

It doesn’t matter how many there are. What matters is which ones are being used, and more importantly WHY it is that PP dominates the game. These alternative clinics might outnumber PP in numbers by 20 to 1, but I’d be willing to bet that PP probably gets 20 times the business as the others combined. The bible thumpers are simply late to the game and have an awful lot of catching up to do. I think PP has the edge because women TRUST them. There are no lectures on Jesus, gruesome pictures and movies, and reluctance to hand over birth control to women. The standard of care from PP is first class and every woman knows it. The organization has a 50 year reputation unrivaled ANYWHERE in the medical profession.

I think tax money should go to abortions. If unwanted children are born, tax money is going to go to that when they end up in foster care, or in the services granted to them (Child Protective Services, for example). Why not head it off at the pass? Are the people who are against abortion going to be adopting babies that are born to mothers that didn’t want them in the first place? Are they going to adopt older children who are all fucked up from being in the foster care system for years, bounced around from foster parent to foster parent? I think not.

@stanleybmanly, Awful lot of speculation on your part. Being good at fund raising does not equate to being a good provider.

Based on the data I’m seeing from 2010, you lost the bet.

• In 2010, subsidized family planning services were provided at 8,409 safety-net health centers—3,165 (38%) were federally qualified health centers, 2,439 (29%) were health department clinics, 1,324 (16%) were other clinics, 817 (10%) were Planned Parenthood centers and 664 (8%) were hospital clinics.

• More than one-third (36%) of women who obtained contraceptive care from safety-net centers in 2010 received services from Planned Parenthood sites, 27% from health department clinics, 16% from federally qualified health centers, 13% from other, independent clinics and 8% from hospital outpatient facilities.

Virtually all safety-net health centers provide pregnancy testing, and the vast majority offer STI testing (97%) and treatment (95%), HIV testing (92%) and HPV vaccinations (87%).

@pinc You seem to have only ever lived in large metropolitan areas as well. I just looked up where I used to live on your “getyourcare” link and found nothing within an hour’s drive. And many who need that sort of low cost the most don’t drive; cars and gas are for those who can afford them. Oddly enough, that town that is over an hour’s drive from anywhere you list a low-cost clinic has a Planned Parenthood… though gawd help you if you have a health issue unrelated to the whole vagina/uterus/ovary system as there’s no equivalent low-cost care there for other medical issues.

Being outside of the top 10% of income-earners in this country can be deadly and you want to turn it over to a system that is inadequate enough to need bolstering in order to comply with internationally accepted standards on human rights. Maybe you need to stop looking at stats and start looking at the world. Numbers don’t tell the story; there are reasons that books use words instead of digits to describe things.

$528 million from the government now. I wonder how much they get from private donations?

I think PP is a great organization. They are the go to place for girls for health issues hands down. I agree they are trusted, and young girls especially feel it is a place they can go and get accurate information. I’ve used them more than once.

I’m tired of listening to the Republicans harp on about PP.

If they stopped doing abortions I’m sure hospitals would pick up some of the slack. I’m not recommending they stop doing abortions, I’m just saying some of the business would be redirected.

@JLeslie “If they stopped doing abortions I’m sure hospitals would pick up some of the slack. I’m not recommending they stop doing abortions, I’m just saying some of the business would be redirected.”

Actually, no. In places that shut down PP, they often have enough restrictions on any healthcare provider that wishes to perform abortions that you’re going across state lines. While still technically legal, it’s a de facto ban, much like NH having medical marijuana but no dispensaries where you can legally buy.

@jerv I’d rather PP stop taking federal funds then stop doing abortions. Abortion rights continue to get chipped away. There is an all out war against PP. All this bullshit about Eugenics. That to me was the most ridiculous of all.

Won’t other medical facilities take Medicaid for regular check ups?

@jerv

Covered that in an earlier answer. They’re in the process of posting and updating. Give it time.

I don’t see where you got the idea that the clinics are substandard.

Policies and standards can be overturned. I certainly don’t agree with obamacare even if it is the law. International human rights aren’t any different.

@pinc Reality is updating slower than that website, just trust me on that. One thing I like about having moved to a metropolitan area is that there actually are clinics here that provide competent medical care to low-income people, often with a sliding scale.

I don’t recall ever saying clinics were substandard, only that they don’t exist in many areas and are inaccessible and thus may as well not exist for many poor people. Of course, there are sub-par providers around; some hospitals are worse than many clinics. I happen to have lived in such an area for a few decades, and it wasn’t exactly the healthiest part of my life.

Did you agree with it when the Heritage Foundation proposed it, or when Romney implemented it? To be sure, there are people who opposed it for non-partisan reasons, but they were just as critical of it back when Republicans owned it. However, I never heard any real uproar about it until Democrats got on board with it; then all of a sudden it was worse than Satan. As I have family in MA and lived in a neighboring state, it’s not like this issue wasn’t (almost literally) on my doorstep, so you’d think that I would’ve heard a bit more complaining if it truly was that horrendous a thing.

As for human rights, are you in favor of starving people, enslaving or killing them for reasons of religion, race or nationalism, having healthcare be a solely commercial enterprise, and basically having the whole world turn into a barbaric place that makes the post-apocalytic setting of Mad Max seem enlightened and benevolent? Or are you merely an anarchist who trusts humanity to do the right thing on their own despite a few millennia of evidence that we won’t behave without some regulation or guiding principles? That could mean a lot of things, ranging from misspeaking to sociopathy, so I’m a bit curious about that statement. Could you please clear up that ambiguity?

Policies and standards can be overturned, but there are some that no civilized society would overturn. There are certain constants that transcend cultural boundaries. In most cultures, killing a person just because they inconvenience you is unacceptable, as is taking their property without their consent. (Some define “person” differently though.) If nothing else, most humans have traits like empathy that let one imagine things they don’t want to have happen to them and then form a moral code that prevents them from doing that thing to others along with expectations of reciprocity, the expectation that others won;t steal from or kill them.

Certain policies and standards will be with us for at least a few more centuries. I don’t see humanity as a whole becoming nihilists and sociopaths, and if this nation does do that (unlikely as we have too many Liberals, Moderates, and non-extremist Conservatives to convert) then I expect the world community to respond unfavorably. I really don’t think that the US could take on the entire world successfully, at least not while also fighting over 80% of itself in a Civil War II.

@JLeslie Maybe. Not all do. They don’t really need to do much more than try to keep you from dying in their ER. Hell, if precedent is any indication, dying in their parking lot is perfectly acceptable as they aren’t even really required to haul you in from their doorway!

No, I was never a fan of it. Very anti-capitalistic.

I’m not an anarchist. Although, last year almost $360 billion was given away to charity.

Sociopathy is a psychological diagnosis. Only an experienced psychologist can comment on that.

Most of the human rights are fine. I only have economic problems with some of the later articles. I believe the rights that are being granted conflict with economic freedom. Since I’m a capitalist, I take issue with that. You mentioned one – healthcare.

Civility is subjective. Can be argued without end. It certainly isn’t universal but certain points that you touched upon can be common sense for a given race/culture in a given land.

@jerv I’m not sure why you are talking about the ER. PP is not emergency care.

@JLeslie My point is simply one of availability, or rather how it varies considerably. Some places have different qualities and availability of all types of care.

@pinc I wonder how much would’ve been given to charity if the donor class (the average person on the street) had more to give. If there is any truth to trickle-up economics leading to job creation then it stands to reason that raising wages for the working class would lead to an increase in charity and thus smaller government. Or is there an inconsistency in the logic of supply side economics that precludes it from applying to anything that may run counter to the party line?

You are making a lot of statements about economics, so I assume that you have at least a doctorate level education in the field, and likely at least one Nobel Prize. Otherwise, there is a double standard there, as you cannot speak of economics any more than I can speak of psychology. Or maybe one doesn’t need that sort of credentials to comment due to having a wide range of knowledge; wide enough to have informed opinions of many issues. Psychology is one of those things I have a fair working knowledge of, along with computers, automotive design, electrical engineering, and a bunch of other intellectual pursuits.

Healthcare is a bit tricky, but placing zero value on human life simplifies the equation considerably. But look at how a lot of our nation’s healthcare money is spent compared to other nations that offer better care, I’m seeing a few reasons that even a “true Capitalist” would object to our system and favor something like the rest of the world. I would think that a “true capitalist” would look at the cost of having workers lose productivity due to illness (their own or that of a family member), or understand the cost-saving nature of preventive care. Tell me, have you ever had the oil changed in your car, or do you just blow the engine and replace it for considerably more than the $25–30 that an oil change runs.

Regarding the cost of healthcare, if you need to jack up the prices that much to make enough to meet expenses (including R&D), you don’t even deserve to read the Dow Jones ticker let alone actually have any part of running a business. And if you do that in only one market then it would be best for all parties concerned if you limited your commercial/financial activity to non-essentials. I don’t mind if a luxury item like a Mercedes or Apple product gets it’s price jacked to have profit margins well in excess of the fair-market value of the product, but I’m not up for price-gouging on essentials.

I can think of plenty of cost-cutting measures that would benefits tens of millions of people, though there are a few thousand who would see their personal income shrink. ~Of course, since that small minority holds so much of the wealth of this nation, those few at the top are more important than the other 318 million Americans.

While some aspects of civility are subjective, my point is that there are a few universal constants. It is rather telling that the US runs totally counter to the standards of the rest of the industrialized world though. Things that are “just common decency” for so many BILLIONS of people is considered “Socialist agenda” by a small-but-vocal minority of a nation that itself is only about 5% of the population of the planet. In fact, so long as the Northeast and the West Coast are part of the US, being even the least bit right-of-center places one in the minority even in this nation; increasingly so as non-extreme Conservatives get disenfranchised by the GOP.

@pinc I’m curious on why you are suggesting those private clinics listed on that website offer the same services as planned parenthood? The website itself certainly lacks any information regarding that.

Also, who is adding these clinics to the list, and under what criteria?

I just checked several clinics listed in Chicago. All of which were general health clinics, which means they are not specialized in women’s services and most likely lack any on staff OB-GYN. How are those even a comparison?

@jerv I have no idea. Capitalist principles don’t support supply or demand economics. It doesn’t support any planning of an economy. This answer applies to healthcare and every other product and service out there.

The details of what works or doesn’t work now or whether what you think works actually doesn’t or causing damage in another area is a moot point because it is giving credence to a system that isn’t entirely capitalistic. It becomes an anti-capitalist argument about how much government planning should be done in a capitalist system and whether it works in one area and causing damage in another or doesn’t work well at all. I do not support human rights that in there nature contradict economic freedom. It is a non-starter.

@Silence04 Scroll up to where I answer stanleybmanly. The data is there.

@pinc I stand corrected. My assumptions were speculative and I owe you a debt for the revealing statistics. Clearly PP’s powerful “brand” recognition has tainted my “speculations”. There are nevertheless some points to make about this debate, speculation or not. The first is that the perception of PP as the Coca Cola of women’s reproductive care is about more than an aptitude for slick marketing. The outfit has a national reputation for absolutely guilt free services provided women free from judgement and intimidation, in places where such practices are rampant. This is clearly the reason that PP is outnumbered 20 to 1 in facilities, yet provides a whopping 38% of the contraceptive care. I’d bet that PP’s considerable talent for fund raising is in good part a direct result of this fact. In fact I would further speculate that with each conservative attack, those donations spike significantly. I’m certainly going to send them money. And my second point is this. Conservatives have managed to eliminate Federal funding for abortions, a medical procedure which is LEGAL. So be it. But the concerted effort to defund planned parenthood is recognized for just what it is, a mean spirited slap at women (once again) by a group defined for by its obtuse talent for kicking those in need. To persecute an organization doing a first class job in providing women necessary health services is both mean and stupid.

I haven’t seen any evidence of rampant judgement and intimidation from non-planned parenthood clinics.

There is no connection between legality and funding. What is legal does not mean it has to be funded by taxpayers. They’re allowed to abort just not with taxpayer money.

There is nothing mean spirited about it. I already showed you that planned parenthood is self-sustained. They don’t need the funding. Another reason is the conservative belief in charity over public funded programs. It is an issue of voluntary vs mandated. There is also the issue of religious objections from the religious taxpayers.

I haven’t “seen” any evidence of rampant intimidation or judgement either, yet 5% of the facilities provide 38% of contraceptive care. The issue is not whether or not they need the money. The issue is whether they should be singled out and denied the funding provided others for comparable services. That issue of charity over government funding, that conservatives always crow about—of course that will work. Just as there’s no need to fund the military because patriots will donate the defense budget for love of their country. Religious taxpayers have my sympathy, just as pacifists, and vegetarians do over military budgets and subsidies to cattlemen. You’re right that what appears and is interpreted as mean is a matter of perspective. However, nothing can quite match the conservative penchant for always popping up on mean side of any and every dispute.

@pinc I’m not understanding what your mean “the data is there.” That data you posted doesn’t explain anything I was asking you and specifically pertains to contraceptive care. ??? Please elaborate.

@stanleybmanly

Popularity is not aligned with functionality. Alternatives maybe just as functional but poor at advertising.

Well, the light is on them because of the possibility of corruption using taxpayer money, so it is being investigated.

The charity argument isn’t only about efficiency as much as it is about personal financial choice.

These issues revolve around individual choices vs mandated community servitude. Money is involved so it is an economic issue.

So popularity in this case has nothing to do with competence?

And do you truthfully believe that this “investigation” is about corruption?

And personal financial choice is always the first line of defense for greed and selfishness.

Of course, they’re ALL economic issues

@Silence04 “why you are suggesting those private clinics listed on that website offer the same services as planned parenthood?”

Because they do:

Virtually all safety-net health centers provide pregnancy testing, and the vast majority offer STI testing (97%) and treatment (95%), HIV testing (92%) and HPV vaccinations (87%).

Also, who is adding these clinics to the list?

Getyourcare.org is a resource brought to you by the pro-women & pro-life movements of America. Our goal is to give women everywhere in America access to information about the thousands and thousands of quality care options women have available to them.

under what criteria

They’re first adding the subsidized family planning services that are just like planned parenthood. I think there around 15,000+ at the moment. Then they’re moving on to low-cost one’s, private ones, and so on. I don’t know anything more than that. I would imagine the standard follows suit to the subsidized ones.

@stanleybmanly, It does, but not enough to indicate superiority.

It started after the videos were released to the public.

Like I said. They’re late to the game, and PP has worked at , and received the trust of women through decades of good solid work. The very fact that copycat outfits arise to displace them is mere recognition of the fact that PP has a damned good and well earned reputation. Fly by night imitators have an uphill battle trying to substitute Jesus for contraception. The mistakes of the past in the pro life movement have left the impression that alternative women’s clinics are mere shills for religious proselytizing, and particularly religious attitudes on sexuality have rendered such places “hostile” to sexually active unmarried women.

@pinc In other words, you are a pure enough Capitalist that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING aside from dollars and cents makes a lick of difference to anything? Morality, compassion or even sustainability are irrelevant? I’m curious how your ability to make a buck trumps your well-being; I fail to see how running your business as you see fit is enough compensation for allowing others the right to hang you by your small intestine and rape your dog right in front of you.

As for those who have issues with mandated things, I really think that such people should spend a few years living in a place that actually has government as weak as those people want, but I don’t see too many of them moving to Afghanistan or Africa. I can only guess that they want that freedom only for themselves but don’t want the consequences of others having the same freedom. As I personally have certain expectations of others, I feel it reasonable for society to have expectations of me, but I can understand how some people may consider that too onerous, preferring instead to live in a lawless wasteland.

@pinc See this is what drives me crazy about conservative tactics. There’s not a nickel’s worth of credibility to those videos, and everybody knows it. Once again, we’re treated to a circus of absolute buffoonery not even thinly disguised as legitimate documentation of “criminal activity”
The very association with the thoroughly discredited and laughingly named “Center for Medical Progress” should be clue enough to steer anyone with a shred of respectability as far away as possible from the contrived “documentary”. But nope! Once more the outraged solidly Republican singularity puffs up and treats us to another carnival of the idiots. Nothing will come of it. The parade of fools will simply move to the next concocted and ridiculous pile of nonsense. It’s embarrassing.

@pinc
I think you should spend some more time researching that website, because I have. The purposefully vague objectives, lack of transparency, no real information about each clinics, and the list of anti-planned parenthood sponsors makes me believe It is built as propaganda-aid, not an actual viable and objective resource for specialized woman’s health services.

The majority of the clinics I researched that are listed on that site are NOT specialized for women, and do NOT have on staff OB-GYNs. What is even more troubling is that it seems you believe pregnancy testing, STI/HIV testing/treatment are “specialized services for women.” Those are services that virtually every general practice will offer. You can’t walk into a general practice clinic and get a pap smear test, or anything else that would require an OB-GYN, specialized equipment, or specialized trained staff.

You said “They’re first adding the subsidized family planning services,” however I don’t see where that is mentioned on the website… I’m really interested in where you discovered that website. Was it in a news article you read? If so, please post the link or source.

Based on the information i’ve read on the website and what you have explained, the majority of the clinics listed are not comparable to the specialized services planned parenthood offers.

@jerv If I answered you earlier that I have no problem with most of the human rights that should be indicative that I find morality to be relevant. However, since the nature of morality is subjective, it is always subjected to debate on what is right and wrong. I think economic freedom is right, therefore some of the human rights are wrong. Same thing for the methods of achieving sustainability and what standards are used to define it. My view of sustainability is for trade and industry to be controlled by private owners for profit rather than by the state.

It should be both. Everyone should have the freedom to be able to make a buck without their well-being threatened by others.

You cannot user other nations governments as examples due to historical differences, ethnicity/cultural divides coupled with different environments and corrupt governments. The morals are different there too.

@Silence04 Sounds like a he said she said situation. Propaganda from you, and alleged propaganda from them.

I’m not sure what you have researched on this website, but right on the front page, in the FAQ, it says, Federally Qualified Health Centers and Rural Health Centers are health clinics which are federally funded and require a certain set of services. For a more in depth explanation of the required qualifications, and an overview of the similarities and differences between these types of centers click here.

The federally qualified centers are exactly like planned parenthood. They follow the same standards which means they have OB-GYN staff. I listed the data for those in my previous answer. Those were the first ones being posted on getcares website. There are about 15,000 of those. That already is the majority.

I never said that I think it is specialized for women. I only showed that data to prove the consistency in standards between planned parenthood and other government funded clinics.

There is plenty of information in the news on this link

@pinc I figured as much, but I’m still trying to figure out where on the spectrum you fall. Personally, I consider humans and their labor to have value, as well as considering wealth to be useless if not used to improve quality of life, so I tend towards a middle ground.

My view of sustainability involves not doing what has historically proven to fail, especially not that which has historically failed by inflicting costs out of proportion to the benefits gained. Historically, few companies have done well without either external control or becoming exploitative. While I agree with the theory of having the private sector regulate itself for a variety of reasons, I have even more reasons not to, mostly based on precedent. After someone racks up their four-hundred-and-twelfth DUI, what do you think the odds are of them driving drunk again in the near future?

I do use other nations as examples while bearing the differences in mind. While some may say, “That’s different, therefore utterly irrelevant!”, I am a bit more analytical and thus less dismissive. For example, how many times have you stuck your hand on a hot stove? I’ve only done it once because my mind uses things like precedent to look at the past and remember, “Stoves are hot!” to keep from repeating past mistakes. Likewise, I make use of parallels; an electric stove may not have flames, but that doesn’t mean that they burners don’t heat up. I don’t need to stick my hand on an electric stovetop to know that; I can just use past experience with sticking my hand on a recently-used burner regardless of whether it’s an electric or gas stove. It’s called “pattern recognition”.

The same logic applies when discussing economics and the inextricably linked fields of politics and humanities (ethics, morality and religion). If one dismisses both precedent and parallels, one may as well just lobotomize themselves as they are basically dismissing everything except their own personal prejudices. Of course, those with prejudices often lack knowledge to begin with; humans fear the unknown, and tend to hate what they fear. It’s funny (in a depressing way) how many Islamophobes know almost nothing of Theology.

@pinc I’m not sure how you could possibly twist anything I’m saying into propaganda. I’m just asking questions and pointing out fallacies about that website.

I have yet to find a clinic listed on that site in Chicago that has an on staff OBGYN, which is concerning and makes me think the “15,000” number is inaccurate. Also what is concerning is the website is very bias, just look at their sponsors:
http://www.adflegal.org/issues/sanctity-of-life/beginning-of-life/planned-parenthood/the-whole-story
http://www.cwfa.org/help-us-defund-planned-parenthood-now/
http://studentsforlife.org/plannedparenthood/
http://www.citizenlink.com/splash-defund-planned-parenthood/?redirect_to=/?skip_splash=1

Since the sponsors are clearly pure propaganda, the makers of the site have a clear advantage by pushing the same agenda.

Therefore, you shouldn’t be using this website as source of factual, unbiased data.

@pinc. Don’t allow the weight of voices here opposed to your position back here dissuade you from coming back. Rational discussion from those sharing your views is hard to come by. I personally would be extremely uneasy if abortions went unopposed here, because one way or another either someone or something dies. The great fallacy about abortion, and the thing that forces me to come down on the side permitting them is that this has never in fact been an issue. Women who have wanted the procedure have always been able to procure one. It was ALWAYS a question of affordability. The only REAL question is WHICH women are entitled to have control over their bodies as well as the most important decision of their lives. And then there’s the question of whether or not and at what point should the state be allowed to compel a woman to bear a child?