Your money pays for the most effective law enforcement in America: Abortion v. Crime
Believe me, people who can afford it (and are less likely to birth criminals) don’t use Planned Parenthood.
Hairy Polemic - 05:03am on 03/31/2008
"No taxpayer money to kill innocent children”
Chief RZ - 05:03am on 03/31/2008
Correct your knee problem first.
Says the Clinton swallower!
Proof - 05:03am on 03/31/2008
Kenny
Abortion counts for almost all of Planned Parenthood’s financing. Every undercover operation into the group has found the same thing...their initial counsiling is abortion.
When I look at page 6 of PP’s Annual Report, I find a breakout of services provided. I note that abortion services constitutes 3% of services provided...are you suggesting that 3% of services brings in “almost all of Planned Parenthood’s financing?”
I find that kind of hard to believe although it wouldn’t be the first time.
MikeAdamson - 06:03am on 03/31/2008
“No taxpayer money to kill innocent children”
realitybasedbob - 07:03am on 03/31/2008
Hairy, the Steven Leavitt argument was contradicted when someone looked at the breakdown of crime statistics. If indeed abortion reduces crime, we should expect to see a quick DROP in crime around 1990 among juveniles. Reality is that the drop in crime at that time was among adults, and juvenile crime kept going at the same rate. Abortion had nothing to do with it. Incarceration of adult criminals probably did.
Leavitt’s big weakness; a reluctance/refusal to seek corroborating evidence.
I’m also the great-uncle of a child who was spared because (thank God!) my niece went somewhere else besides Planned Infanticide. Yes, the first thing presented--ONLY thing really--was prenatal infanticide.
And Mike, am I to believe that the nation’s leading employer of “prenatal infanticide providers” doesn’t recruit them? That they don’t, say, look around for people wanting to get into the business?
Please.
Bike Bubba - 11:03am on 03/31/2008
Beats me...all I know is that their AR says that abortion services constitutes 3% of their business.
MikeAdamson - 11:03am on 03/31/2008
In which case the annual report ought to suggest that they had thirty billion dollars of revenue, in which case we really don’t need to be giving them tax money, do we?
Of course, they don’t, and hence the “3%” figure is merely a tortured statistic, in which case we also do not need to be giving them public funds.
And either way, you still don’t get to be the nation’s #1 provider of prenatal infanticide without recruiting people. This is HR 101 stuff that apparently their PR people can’t be bothered to learn.
Bike Bubba - 11:03am on 03/31/2008
Odd contradiction in conservative thinking:
99% of conservatives bitch about entitlement spending (I fall into that 99%), yet a good chunk of conservatives blanch at the idea of providing “infanticide” for those who cannot afford to support themselves much less their unwanted children.
So which is it? I personally cannot in good conscience FORCE a poor, uneducated human being to keep her kid and then tell her that I’m going to let her and the kid starve. I can, on the other hand, let her and the kid starve when I haven’t FORCED her to keep the kid (having had no hand in the latter).
Hairy Polemic - 12:03pm on 03/31/2008
Since when are we letting anyone starve in this country, Hairy? Please; Dinesh D’Souza came here from India in part to see a country where the poor people are fat. You add up the free food that various agencies (food stamps/WIC/TANF/school lunch/breakfast/etc..) give out, and you get to 10,000 calories per day pretty quickly.
Your money pays for the most effective law enforcement in America: Abortion v. Crime
Believe me, people who can afford it (and are less likely to birth criminals) don’t use Planned Parenthood.
"No taxpayer money to kill innocent children”
Says the Clinton swallower!
Kenny
When I look at page 6 of PP’s Annual Report, I find a breakout of services provided. I note that abortion services constitutes 3% of services provided...are you suggesting that 3% of services brings in “almost all of Planned Parenthood’s financing?”
I find that kind of hard to believe although it wouldn’t be the first time.
Hairy, the Steven Leavitt argument was contradicted when someone looked at the breakdown of crime statistics. If indeed abortion reduces crime, we should expect to see a quick DROP in crime around 1990 among juveniles. Reality is that the drop in crime at that time was among adults, and juvenile crime kept going at the same rate. Abortion had nothing to do with it. Incarceration of adult criminals probably did.
Leavitt’s big weakness; a reluctance/refusal to seek corroborating evidence.
I’m also the great-uncle of a child who was spared because (thank God!) my niece went somewhere else besides Planned Infanticide. Yes, the first thing presented--ONLY thing really--was prenatal infanticide.
And Mike, am I to believe that the nation’s leading employer of “prenatal infanticide providers” doesn’t recruit them? That they don’t, say, look around for people wanting to get into the business?
Please.
Beats me...all I know is that their AR says that abortion services constitutes 3% of their business.
In which case the annual report ought to suggest that they had thirty billion dollars of revenue, in which case we really don’t need to be giving them tax money, do we?
Of course, they don’t, and hence the “3%” figure is merely a tortured statistic, in which case we also do not need to be giving them public funds.
And either way, you still don’t get to be the nation’s #1 provider of prenatal infanticide without recruiting people. This is HR 101 stuff that apparently their PR people can’t be bothered to learn.
Odd contradiction in conservative thinking:
99% of conservatives bitch about entitlement spending (I fall into that 99%), yet a good chunk of conservatives blanch at the idea of providing “infanticide” for those who cannot afford to support themselves much less their unwanted children.
So which is it? I personally cannot in good conscience FORCE a poor, uneducated human being to keep her kid and then tell her that I’m going to let her and the kid starve. I can, on the other hand, let her and the kid starve when I haven’t FORCED her to keep the kid (having had no hand in the latter).
Since when are we letting anyone starve in this country, Hairy? Please; Dinesh D’Souza came here from India in part to see a country where the poor people are fat. You add up the free food that various agencies (food stamps/WIC/TANF/school lunch/breakfast/etc..) give out, and you get to 10,000 calories per day pretty quickly.