First Republican Debate Set

Trump is in cahoots with the Clintons. It's WCW, Hogan joining the NWO level.

 

I think he is spot on in regards to how PP calculates the 3%. Never meant to imply that he was some sort of neutral observer though.

 

So, it is a big part of what they do. Thanks for playing.

 

Legally, it cannot be and it isn't.

 

Your doctor friend is wrong. Go to a few Planned Parenthood facilities and see for yourself. You know they treat men too, right?

 

No, it's not a big part, as noted. However, they aren't in the business of caving on a core idea of catering to the needs and rights of their female clientele. Why should they have to give up any portion of their services, no matter if it's 3% or 83% of their business, if they feel it isn't wrong to continue to provide them? So, yeah, I think I'm still in the game.

 

The "3%" argument is absurd, for two reasons:

1. It's misleading, for the reasons you mentioned. If you give really small things the same weight as big things, then you can get that kind of number, but it's like a car dealership saying they're primarily in the oil change business. Technically true, sure. But so misleading as to be virtually meaningless.

2. Even if it weren't misleading, it shouldn't make anyone who is horrified by abortion practices feel any better. "We only kill the children of 10% of our patients! The other 90% get services that are super important!" Put in those terms, no one is buying that argument. Everyone is saying "you know what, this is horrifying, let's get rid of these bastards and invest our money in some other clinic for that other 90% of stuff that isn't evil." If you think abortion is not horrifying and is a right worth protecting, then you don't see that as what's going on. But you should not expect anyone horrified by the procedure to be mollified by the 3% crap. No one in their right minds is buying that argument.

 

I bolded the horse shit.

 

That's your opinion, at least the first bolded item

 

Do you honestly think anyone "loves" abortions? IMO, your friend seems to have a bias.

 

I think he is correct about how they tally counts on their services. What conclusions to draw or what percentages come out to or whatever, aside.

 

Abortion procedures = money, thus yes, I think there are definitely doctors out there who "love" abortions.*

*-not implied directly to PP themselves, a general scope and probably a very small sample size. There are asshats in every field who will do anything for a buck and collateral damage be damned.

 

So it's a big part of what they do. Thanks for saying it again.

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/gop-2016-debate-jeb-bush-donald-trump-121076.html#.VcNnkHFViko

 

I don't think it's unreasonable that they should have to give up abortions if they are taking public money. No one is stopping them from operating completely independently. And if it's such a minor part of what they offer, it shouldn't be a big deal to give up no?

 

What if it was 100; what does it matter?

 

Of course it is and why in the hell should it be federally funded? Are you arguing that I should pay for it? It has a legit purpose?

What in the hell should cost enough for it to need money? Counseling?

 

There are turds in all fields.

 

So, you're saying that people in their right minds would support a clinic that kills 10% of their patients' children?

Because, if you're not, then the "children" part is your only complaint, and that part was clearly presented as an argument conditional on someone already being pro-life.

So I'm not entirely sure what the problem is.

 

He believes that the fetus is dehumanized and thus just a medical procedure