Record Number of Abortions AND Governmental Funding

[thegreekdog]

Taxpayers should fund abortions.
You want to pay for the welfare or incarceration of a citizen that was brought up in a home that did not provide the child with a decent education or moral foundation? One that fast tracked him towards a life of poverty, ignorance, and one that gravitates towards criminal behaviour?

They should be handing out free abortion gift certificates like candy on Christmas. It reduces crime and poverty down the road, and increases the overall brain pool of your citizenry while reducing demand on services and law enforcement.


JRock

You are assuming that children who are aborted are those likely to have a poor education, poor moral foundation, live a life of povery, ignorance and crime?

Steven Levitt and John Donahue would say, "Yes.."

Christopher Foote and Christopher Goetz would say no.

But where's your cool link?
(I'm interesting in reading their stuff).

Click on the link you provided, scroll down.

[thegreekdog]

That's not clear from the article. The number of abortions went up by a small amount (1% over the time span listed in the article), so unless there are some other services they offer that became more popular, TGD may very well have a good point.

Ill just go ahead and assume one abortion, costs more than one condom, for the purposes of my hypothesis.

Also, Ill go ahead and assume the costs of delivering them went up, along with security necessary to provide those services.

Im not advocating it either mind you, just pointing out, its not difficult to imagine why the cheap things decreased, as the most expensive service increased.

So the number of abortions paid for by Planned Parenthood increased. Abortions are more expensive than other contraceptives. Therefore, the funding for Planned Parenthood increased while overall contraceptive services decreased. Makes sense to me. Also kind of shoots down the "taxpayer dollars don't fund abortions" argument that supporters of Planned Parenthood like to occasionally make (e.g. Player).

Perhaps all of that is true, however, your question was how can they receive more funding and offer less services, and I pointed out one scenario that showed how that was possibly not true.

I was agreeing that your scenario could be what is actually occuring.

[AAFitz]

That's not clear from the article. The number of abortions went up by a small amount (1% over the time span listed in the article), so unless there are some other services they offer that became more popular, TGD may very well have a good point.

Ill just go ahead and assume one abortion, costs more than one condom, for the purposes of my hypothesis.

Also, Ill go ahead and assume the costs of delivering them went up, along with security necessary to provide those services.

Im not advocating it either mind you, just pointing out, its not difficult to imagine why the cheap things decreased, as the most expensive service increased.

So the number of abortions paid for by Planned Parenthood increased. Abortions are more expensive than other contraceptives. Therefore, the funding for Planned Parenthood increased while overall contraceptive services decreased. Makes sense to me. Also kind of shoots down the "taxpayer dollars don't fund abortions" argument that supporters of Planned Parenthood like to occasionally make (e.g. Player).

Perhaps all of that is true, however, your question was how can they receive more funding and offer less services, and I pointed out one scenario that showed how that was possibly not true.

I was agreeing that your scenario could be what is actually occuring.

I seems to make sense, but it certainly was just a guess.

[AAFitz]

I think if the Conservatives were serious about actually saving lives, they would set up a fund and a system to make it very easy to raise children in the event of an unexpected pregnancy. It would be very easy to cut down the number of abortions with a program that invested in the eduction and fostering of those children, but it would mean a significant amount of money, and there is no way they would ever put their money where their mouths are....unless its a 30 year scotch donated by a weapons manufacturer that is.

[thegreekdog]

I think if the Conservatives were serious about actually saving lives, they would set up a fund and a system to make it very easy to raise children in the event of an unexpected pregnancy. It would be very easy to cut down the number of abortions with a program that invested in the eduction and fostering of those children, but it would mean a significant amount of money, and there is no way they would ever put their money where their mouths are....unless its a 30 year scotch donated by a weapons manufacturer that is.

Yeah, it's called adoption.

[jay_a2j]

I think if the Conservatives were serious about actually saving lives, they would set up a fund and a system to make it very easy to raise children in the event of an unexpected pregnancy. It would be very easy to cut down the number of abortions with a program that invested in the eduction and fostering of those children, but it would mean a significant amount of money, and there is no way they would ever put their money where their mouths are....unless its a 30 year scotch donated by a weapons manufacturer that is.

Might work if not for that pesky little fact that most abortions are out of pure convenience. NOT the inability to raise them...and EVEN if that were the case we have this little thing called WELFARE. You can't honestly be advocating the slaughter of the unborn for financial reasons??? Liberaliam...tis what happens when you are born without common sense.

[Lootifer]

LOL @ trying to argue with Jay, better off trying to argue with Hapsmo; at least he gets all crazy aggro and stuff...

[notyou2]

In its latest annual report for fiscal year 2011 to 2012, Planned Parenthood reveals that it performed 333,964 abortions in 2011 – a record year for the organization.

According to annual reports, the organization performed 332,278 abortions in 2009, 329,445 in 2010, making the total number of abortions in three years to 995,687.

Planned Parenthood reported receiving a record $542 million in taxpayer funding, according to a Susan B. Anthony List analysis of the report, in the form of government grants, contracts, and Medicaid reimbursements. The amount is 45 percent of Planned Parenthood’s annual revenue.

“While government subsidies to Planned Parenthood have reached an all time high, so too has the number of lives ended by this profit-driven abortion business,” SBA List’s President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement. “Destroying nearly one million children in three years is not health care and does not reflect a concern for vulnerable women and girls.”

Contraceptive services at Planned Parenthood have dropped by 12 percent since 2009, and cancer screening & prevention services have dropped by 29 percent.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/planned-parenthood-reports-record-year-for-abortions/article/2517801#.UOtbone-bkF

Since when is a non-profit agency a "profit driven business". Cut out the sensationalism and you may get more people interested.

However, I personally think the world needs less people, not more. INCREASE FUNDING!!!!!

[BigBallinStalin]

Taxpayers should fund abortions.
You want to pay for the welfare or incarceration of a citizen that was brought up in a home that did not provide the child with a decent education or moral foundation? One that fast tracked him towards a life of poverty, ignorance, and one that gravitates towards criminal behaviour?

They should be handing out free abortion gift certificates like candy on Christmas. It reduces crime and poverty down the road, and increases the overall brain pool of your citizenry while reducing demand on services and law enforcement.


JRock

You are assuming that children who are aborted are those likely to have a poor education, poor moral foundation, live a life of povery, ignorance and crime?

Steven Levitt and John Donahue would say, "Yes.."

Christopher Foote and Christopher Goetz would say no.

But where's your cool link?
(I'm interesting in reading their stuff).

Click on the link you provided, scroll down.

Ah, but there's a happy ending!

[Foote and Goetz mention some mistakes], so "Donohue and Levitt claim that with these new changes the results are smaller, but still statistically significant."

So, TGD, we're back at, "Yes."

[Lootifer]

Inb4 TGD mentions the homocides vs. arrest date or whatever it is debate.

[john9blue]

"20 deaths is a tragedy. 1,000,000 deaths is a statistic."

[AAFitz]

I think if the Conservatives were serious about actually saving lives, they would set up a fund and a system to make it very easy to raise children in the event of an unexpected pregnancy. It would be very easy to cut down the number of abortions with a program that invested in the eduction and fostering of those children, but it would mean a significant amount of money, and there is no way they would ever put their money where their mouths are....unless its a 30 year scotch donated by a weapons manufacturer that is.

Might work if not for that pesky little fact that most abortions are out of pure convenience. NOT the inability to raise them...and EVEN if that were the case we have this little thing called WELFARE. You can't honestly be advocating the slaughter of the unborn for financial reasons??? Liberaliam...tis what happens when you are born without common sense.

Stupid tis when you choose not to think.

I very clearly do not suggest that in any way, and only someone without sense, common or otherwise, would even imply that from what I wrote. If anything, I am suggesting many lives could be saved with a financial commitment to doing just that. However, the real point is that conservatives constantly complain that welfare costs too much now, and I am almost positive you have done the same, but I don't see the same conservatives arguing that we should increase welfare it to decrease the number of abortions, which absolutely are very related to financial reasons. Suggesting they are out of pure convenience again, is just...its just fucking stupid, but I suppose believing in fantasy is your thing, so Ill ignore that part...

Further, conservatives argued against health care, which allows people to die, for nothing more than financial reasons, and again, I am almost positive, you did the same. It may be time to retire that high horse you are riding on, if you want to talk about financial reasons and suffering.

Again, I'm not suggesting anything, other than the fact that you are yours, are hypocritcal to the bone.

In any case, there are plenty of wanted children dying and worse, suffering every single day. If you gave one iota of an actual care, you'd worry about the suffering of them first, but that would be hard, it would mean sacrifice, and certainly would mean massive financial support, so, take the easy road and preach from your computer desk, and pretend you give a shit about Christs teachings.

Some may even buy it, but you better hope God isn't as smart as you say he is.

Perhaps conservatism...tis what happens when you are born without a soul?

[Haggis_McMutton]

I think if the Conservatives were serious about actually saving lives, they would set up a fund and a system to make it very easy to raise children in the event of an unexpected pregnancy. It would be very easy to cut down the number of abortions with a program that invested in the eduction and fostering of those children, but it would mean a significant amount of money, and there is no way they would ever put their money where their mouths are....unless its a 30 year scotch donated by a weapons manufacturer that is.

Might work if not for that pesky little fact that most abortions are out of pure convenience. NOT the inability to raise them...and EVEN if that were the case we have this little thing called WELFARE. You can't honestly be advocating the slaughter of the unborn for financial reasons??? Liberaliam...tis what happens when you are born without common sense.

Stupid tis when you choose not to think.

I very clearly do not suggest that in any way, and only someone without sense, common or otherwise, would even imply that from what I wrote. If anything, I am suggesting many lives could be saved with a financial commitment to doing just that. However, the real point is that conservatives constantly complain that welfare costs too much now, and I am almost positive you have done the same, but I don't see the same conservatives arguing that we should increase welfare it to decrease the number of abortions, which absolutely are very related to financial reasons. Suggesting they are out of pure convenience again, is just...its just fucking stupid, but I suppose believing in fantasy is your thing, so Ill ignore that part...

Further, conservatives argued against health care, which allows people to die, for nothing more than financial reasons, and again, I am almost positive, you did the same. It may be time to retire that high horse you are riding on, if you want to talk about financial reasons and suffering.

Again, I'm not suggesting anything, other than the fact that you are yours, are hypocritcal to the bone.

Perhaps conservatism...tis what happens when you are born without a soul?

[Lootifer]

I think if the Conservatives were serious about actually saving lives, they would set up a fund and a system to make it very easy to raise children in the event of an unexpected pregnancy. It would be very easy to cut down the number of abortions with a program that invested in the eduction and fostering of those children, but it would mean a significant amount of money, and there is no way they would ever put their money where their mouths are....unless its a 30 year scotch donated by a weapons manufacturer that is.

Might work if not for that pesky little fact that most abortions are out of pure convenience. NOT the inability to raise them...and EVEN if that were the case we have this little thing called WELFARE. You can't honestly be advocating the slaughter of the unborn for financial reasons??? Liberaliam...tis what happens when you are born without common sense.

Stupid tis when you choose not to think.

I very clearly do not suggest that in any way, and only someone without sense, common or otherwise, would even imply that from what I wrote. If anything, I am suggesting many lives could be saved with a financial commitment to doing just that. However, the real point is that conservatives constantly complain that welfare costs too much now, and I am almost positive you have done the same, but I don't see the same conservatives arguing that we should increase welfare it to decrease the number of abortions, which absolutely are very related to financial reasons. Suggesting they are out of pure convenience again, is just...its just fucking stupid, but I suppose believing in fantasy is your thing, so Ill ignore that part...

Further, conservatives argued against health care, which allows people to die, for nothing more than financial reasons, and again, I am almost positive, you did the same. It may be time to retire that high horse you are riding on, if you want to talk about financial reasons and suffering.

Again, I'm not suggesting anything, other than the fact that you are yours, are hypocritcal to the bone.

In any case, there are plenty of wanted children dying and worse, suffering every single day. If you gave one iota of an actual care, you'd worry about the suffering of them first, but that would be hard, it would mean sacrifice, and certainly would mean massive financial support, so, take the easy road and preach from your computer desk, and pretend you give a shit about Christs teachings.

Some may even buy it, but you better hope God isn't as smart as you say he is.

Perhaps conservatism...tis what happens when you are born without a soul?

Dude dont even bother seriously; as far as the rationality grade of conservative posters on this forum it goes something like this:

Nobunga/TGD: A
Phatsco: Ranges from B+ to C-
Nightstrike: C
Jay and Hapsmo: F-

[AAFitz]

I think if the Conservatives were serious about actually saving lives, they would set up a fund and a system to make it very easy to raise children in the event of an unexpected pregnancy. It would be very easy to cut down the number of abortions with a program that invested in the eduction and fostering of those children, but it would mean a significant amount of money, and there is no way they would ever put their money where their mouths are....unless its a 30 year scotch donated by a weapons manufacturer that is.

Might work if not for that pesky little fact that most abortions are out of pure convenience. NOT the inability to raise them...and EVEN if that were the case we have this little thing called WELFARE. You can't honestly be advocating the slaughter of the unborn for financial reasons??? Liberaliam...tis what happens when you are born without common sense.

Stupid tis when you choose not to think.

I very clearly do not suggest that in any way, and only someone without sense, common or otherwise, would even imply that from what I wrote. If anything, I am suggesting many lives could be saved with a financial commitment to doing just that. However, the real point is that conservatives constantly complain that welfare costs too much now, and I am almost positive you have done the same, but I don't see the same conservatives arguing that we should increase welfare it to decrease the number of abortions, which absolutely are very related to financial reasons. Suggesting they are out of pure convenience again, is just...its just fucking stupid, but I suppose believing in fantasy is your thing, so Ill ignore that part...

Further, conservatives argued against health care, which allows people to die, for nothing more than financial reasons, and again, I am almost positive, you did the same. It may be time to retire that high horse you are riding on, if you want to talk about financial reasons and suffering.

Again, I'm not suggesting anything, other than the fact that you are yours, are hypocritcal to the bone.

In any case, there are plenty of wanted children dying and worse, suffering every single day. If you gave one iota of an actual care, you'd worry about the suffering of them first, but that would be hard, it would mean sacrifice, and certainly would mean massive financial support, so, take the easy road and preach from your computer desk, and pretend you give a shit about Christs teachings.

Some may even buy it, but you better hope God isn't as smart as you say he is.

Perhaps conservatism...tis what happens when you are born without a soul?

Dude dont even bother seriously; as far as the rationality grade of conservative posters on this forum it goes something like this:

Nobunga/TGD: A
Phatsco: Ranges from B+ to C-
Nightstrike: C
Jay and Hapsmo: F-

Sage advice no doubt, but not fighting against such arrogant ignorance I feel could help make me part of the problem, from a historical context. The fact that I know any rationally constructed argument based on reality will be ignored on a conscious and subconscious level, is irrelevant.

[jay_a2j]

Stupid tis when you choose not to think.

I very clearly do not suggest that in any way, and only someone without sense, common or otherwise, would even imply that from what I wrote. If anything, I am suggesting many lives could be saved with a financial commitment to doing just that. However, the real point is that conservatives constantly complain that welfare costs too much now, and I am almost positive you have done the same, but I don't see the same conservatives arguing that we should increase welfare it to decrease the number of abortions, which absolutely are very related to financial reasons. Suggesting they are out of pure convenience again, is just...its just fucking stupid, but I suppose believing in fantasy is your thing, so Ill ignore that part...

Further, conservatives argued against health care, which allows people to die, for nothing more than financial reasons, and again, I am almost positive, you did the same. It may be time to retire that high horse you are riding on, if you want to talk about financial reasons and suffering.

Again, I'm not suggesting anything, other than the fact that you are yours, are hypocritcal to the bone.

In any case, there are plenty of wanted children dying and worse, suffering every single day. If you gave one iota of an actual care, you'd worry about the suffering of them first, but that would be hard, it would mean sacrifice, and certainly would mean massive financial support, so, take the easy road and preach from your computer desk, and pretend you give a shit about Christs teachings.

Some may even buy it, but you better hope God isn't as smart as you say he is.

Perhaps conservatism...tis what happens when you are born without a soul?

Readable Score: 46 (The higher the score the easier the article is to read!)
Grade Level: 8




Nice....

[john9blue]

^ wtf lol, really dude?

[2dimes]

Stupid tis when you choose not to think.

I very clearly do not suggest that in any way, and only someone without sense, common or otherwise, would even imply that from what I wrote. If anything, I am suggesting many lives could be saved with a financial commitment to doing just that. However, the real point is that conservatives constantly complain that welfare costs too much now, and I am almost positive you have done the same, but I don't see the same conservatives arguing that we should increase welfare it to decrease the number of abortions, which absolutely are very related to financial reasons. Suggesting they are out of pure convenience again, is just...its just fucking stupid, but I suppose believing in fantasy is your thing, so Ill ignore that part...

Further, conservatives argued against health care, which allows people to die, for nothing more than financial reasons, and again, I am almost positive, you did the same. It may be time to retire that high horse you are riding on, if you want to talk about financial reasons and suffering.

Again, I'm not suggesting anything, other than the fact that you are yours, are hypocritcal to the bone.

In any case, there are plenty of wanted children dying and worse, suffering every single day. If you gave one iota of an actual care, you'd worry about the suffering of them first, but that would be hard, it would mean sacrifice, and certainly would mean massive financial support, so, take the easy road and preach from your computer desk, and pretend you give a shit about Christs teachings.

Some may even buy it, but you better hope God isn't as smart as you say he is.

Perhaps conservatism...tis what happens when you are born without a soul?

Readable Score: 46 (The higher the score the easier the article is to read!)
Grade Level: 8




Nice....

That's not nice how would you feel if someone did that?
Like this.

Might work if not for that pesky little fact that most abortions are out of pure convenience. NOT the inability to raise them...and EVEN if that were the case we have this little thing called WELFARE. You can't honestly be advocating the slaughter of the unborn for financial reasons??? Liberaliam...tis what happens when you are born without common sense.

Readable Score: 58 (The higher the score the easier the article is to read!)
Grade Level: 6

[thegreekdog]

Ah, but there's a happy ending!

[Foote and Goetz mention some mistakes], so "Donohue and Levitt claim that with these new changes the results are smaller, but still statistically significant."

So, TGD, we're back at, "Yes."

Without being able to read the Donohue/Levitt report, I cannot make an accurate determination as to its, um, accuracy. My initial reaction and my continued reaction (until I'm able to read the report) is that it would be impossible to prove that the legality (and therefore increase) of abortions caused lower crime.

[BigBallinStalin]

Ah, but there's a happy ending!

[Foote and Goetz mention some mistakes], so "Donohue and Levitt claim that with these new changes the results are smaller, but still statistically significant."

So, TGD, we're back at, "Yes."

Without being able to read the Donohue/Levitt report, I cannot make an accurate determination as to its, um, accuracy. My initial reaction and my continued reaction (until I'm able to read the report) is that it would be impossible to prove that the legality (and therefore increase) of abortions caused lower crime.

Well, that's econometrics for you. If one is clever enough, one can control for a variety of variables in order to determine the impact that abortion rates have on crime.

When you've got two hours....
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/ ... ed2001.pdf

[thegreekdog]

Ah, but there's a happy ending!

[Foote and Goetz mention some mistakes], so "Donohue and Levitt claim that with these new changes the results are smaller, but still statistically significant."

So, TGD, we're back at, "Yes."

Without being able to read the Donohue/Levitt report, I cannot make an accurate determination as to its, um, accuracy. My initial reaction and my continued reaction (until I'm able to read the report) is that it would be impossible to prove that the legality (and therefore increase) of abortions caused lower crime.

Well, that's econometrics for you. If one is clever enough, one can control for a variety of variables in order to determine the impact that abortion rates have on crime.

When you've got two hours....
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/ ... ed2001.pdf

I read the introduction. Once the authors indicated the various other things that may have reduced crime, I figured it was okay for me to stop reading. But, in the interest of figuring out how they came up with this novel theory, I will continue reading.

Some others for the untested theory thread:

The drop in crime is caused by more effective computers.
The drop in crime is caused by the rise of the Internet.
The drop in crime is cuased by the rise of MTV.

[jay_a2j]

That's not nice how would you feel if someone did that?
Like this.

Might work if not for that pesky little fact that most abortions are out of pure convenience. NOT the inability to raise them...and EVEN if that were the case we have this little thing called WELFARE. You can't honestly be advocating the slaughter of the unborn for financial reasons??? Liberaliam...tis what happens when you are born without common sense.

Readable Score: 58 (The higher the score the easier the article is to read!)
Grade Level: 6

I'd feel fine, since my entry was only 3 sentences and "tis" is slang, not a word.

[Gillipig]

We don't need population increase, so it makes sense to sponsor abortions. To help someone get an abortion costs way less than to help someone raise a child.

[AAFitz]

That's not nice how would you feel if someone did that?
Like this.

Might work if not for that pesky little fact that most abortions are out of pure convenience. NOT the inability to raise them...and EVEN if that were the case we have this little thing called WELFARE. You can't honestly be advocating the slaughter of the unborn for financial reasons??? Liberaliam...tis what happens when you are born without common sense.

Readable Score: 58 (The higher the score the easier the article is to read!)
Grade Level: 6

I'd feel fine, since my entry was only 3 sentences and "tis" is slang, not a word.

I think tis, is perhaps the only thing right with that post. I believe he was more referring to the fact it was unreadable because of its entire structure, irrelevant of its content.

Personally, I was hoping our 6th graders had surpassed this level.

[AAFitz]

Stupid tis when you choose not to think.

I very clearly do not suggest that in any way, and only someone without sense, common or otherwise, would even imply that from what I wrote. If anything, I am suggesting many lives could be saved with a financial commitment to doing just that. However, the real point is that conservatives constantly complain that welfare costs too much now, and I am almost positive you have done the same, but I don't see the same conservatives arguing that we should increase welfare it to decrease the number of abortions, which absolutely are very related to financial reasons. Suggesting they are out of pure convenience again, is just...its just fucking stupid, but I suppose believing in fantasy is your thing, so Ill ignore that part...

Further, conservatives argued against health care, which allows people to die, for nothing more than financial reasons, and again, I am almost positive, you did the same. It may be time to retire that high horse you are riding on, if you want to talk about financial reasons and suffering.

Again, I'm not suggesting anything, other than the fact that you are yours, are hypocritcal to the bone.

In any case, there are plenty of wanted children dying and worse, suffering every single day. If you gave one iota of an actual care, you'd worry about the suffering of them first, but that would be hard, it would mean sacrifice, and certainly would mean massive financial support, so, take the easy road and preach from your computer desk, and pretend you give a shit about Christs teachings.

Some may even buy it, but you better hope God isn't as smart as you say he is.

Perhaps conservatism...tis what happens when you are born without a soul?

Readable Score: 46 (The higher the score the easier the article is to read!)
Grade Level: 8




Nice....

Ill dumb it down for ya next time. Sorry, I forget how basic your education was.

This is indeed one long run on sentence, that could use a period instead of a comma or too, but I think ignoring it is rather telling on your part. Given the paragraph I quoted of yours, I think its worthy of a Peabody in comparison.

In any case, there are plenty of wanted children dying and worse, suffering every single day. If you gave one iota of an actual care, you'd worry about the suffering of them first, but that would be hard, it would mean sacrifice, and certainly would mean massive financial support, so, take the easy road and preach from your computer desk, and pretend you give a shit about Christs teachings.

What was nice was how you dodged the most important part though...about what to do about the dying children right now...or is this not important to you? Awfully convenient to skip commenting on millions of starving children, while suggesting how evil it is to kill unborn ones. And just so you know, that's what hypocritical means.

You posted an incoherent post about liberals, posted about the evils of unborn children being murdered, and when confronted with the simple question of what should be done about the millions of starving, suffering children that are wanted, and alive right now, you can only comment on a run on sentence.

Oh yeah, God has a true ally in you, doesn't he? You should put the halo on your avatar.