Sunday, March 11, 2012

You Can't Have It Both Ways

If you really want to prevent abortions, you need to stop stigmatizing single mothers and restore funding to Planned Parenthood (which allocates far more resources to pre-natal care than to abortions).

Of course, if you care more about punishing women for having sex outside of marriage than you do about saving those unborn fetuses you pretend to be concerned about, then carry on with what you're doing, social conservatives.


Deekaman said...

Actually, it doesn't allocate more resources to pre-natal care, but you keep believing that.

And how does allowing people to live with the consequences of their actions INCREASE abortions? Your argument lacks any form of logic here.

I wish to punish no one for doing what they please, but I also believe that life has consequences (having suffered many of them myself). I really don't care if people have sex outside of marriage as is the belief of most Conservatives I know. To say otherwise is as false as claiming Conservatives want to prevent access to birth control.

The hypocrisy is in wanting everyone out of the business of what goes on in your bedroom, but wanting others to pay for the activities and their consequences.

But I know that logic falls on deaf ears.

Tim Morrissey said...

Here, above, in the comment by Deekaman, we see a perfect example of the outright lying that is being done by both political sides for the past several years. And I'm singling out Deekaman because it's convenient. Deekaman has apparently been reading the BS put out by John Kyle and others regarding expenditures of Planned Parenthood. You can find numbers and percentages all over the internet, but only ONE set of fact-checked (CNN, AP, WaPo, NYT) percentages exists. Here it is, Deekaman, and I know you'll say I'm full of BS.

STD's 35%
Contraception 35%
Cancer Screening 16%
Other women's health svcs 10%
Other 1%

I know that people of your ilk, like Dad29, Boots and Sabres, and many others, will simply reject these fact-checked percentages as being from the "lame-stream media" or some similar pejorative, but, when grown-ups argue (say nothing of debate) you need to define terms.

The baby-lovers use their set of figures; the baby-aborters use theirs; and somehow, the closest thing we can get to the "truth" of the matter, in terms of PP expenditures, is ignored.

This is the same thing that goes on regarding any number of issues, from the Walker recall (whose "job numbers" are real; whose "school savings" numbers are real), all the way to the national scene and the debate on climate change ("settled science"???), the financial footing of Social Security, and on and on.

It's disgusting, because there are so many sheep out there who never take the time to independently research ANY issue on which they take a position, and simply parrot what "opinion leaders" give them as gruel.

Ordinary Jill said...

Deekaman, if you really believe that conservative politicians are not working to restrict access to birth control, you have not been paying attention. You are a libertarian conservative. I believe that you do not want to prevent access to birth control. However, religious conservatives have been pushing all kinds of laws and policies (abstinence-only sex education, pharmacist conscience bills, employer opt-outs) that restrict access to birth control. Contraceptive coverage actually lowers insurance premiums, because contraception is cheaper than pregnancy, yet conservatives complain about "having to pay" for other peoples' contraception (ignoring the fact that others are paying for the costs of their own lifestyle-based health problems). Planned Parenthood is the primary healthcare provider for a huge number of low-income women in this country, including pregnant women. Abortion services comprise about 2-3% of Planned Parenthood's activities. You may choose to believe Representative "Not-intended-to-be-a-factual-statement," but don't expect me to drink the Kool-ade.

I don't particularly want to pay for other people's Viagra, when most erectile dysfunction is caused by smoking (the vast majority of men with ED are current or former smokers -- ask a urologist if you don't believe me). But most health insurance policies with prescription drug coverage cover Viagra and Cialis, even though most men are not taking it to improve their cardiovascular health. That's why it's so hypocritical to complain about birth control coverage, which is cheaper than ED medication, and far cheaper than the healthcare costs of pregnancy.

Anonymous said...

I agree with most of what you're saying Jill, but I'd like to add that I have really a pretty good prescription drug plan that does not cover any portion of the cost of ED drugs, and they are expensive. Not complaining, just saying what my group policy covers. And I've never been a smoker, just have more miles on my odometer than I used to have.