If they get tax dollats, why can't I get free abortions?

If they get tax dollats, why can't I get free abortions?
Where's the money go?

*dollars, sorry i'm a moron

It goes to the Clinton presidential campaign. They recently gave her 20 million.

Because they dont really do many abortions.

Because it's impossible for you to get pregnant

Oh, also, the whole thing about how tax dollars dont go to the abortions. Forgot about that tidbit.

Well I mean when I take a girl to the abortion clinic why do they charge her

>publicly funded enterprise that caters exclusively to women
>dats sexists!

As a protest to planned parenthood could a bunch of guys demand papshmeres

There were nearly a million abortions in the US alone in 2014. Planned Parenthood has a misleading way of accounting "services" so they can put out charts like these and say "abortions not a big deal because it's not even common". If you go in specifically to get an abortion they'll give you that plus they'll hand you a free condom so they can say that only 50% of the services they provided you with was abortion. They can further dilute that statistic by also giving you a free cancer screening even through you don't need it or some literature about STD's.

State tax dollars do fund abortions

>Implying planned parenthood is the only place that does abortions.
The way those stats are put (2009 btw) it indicates around 300,000 abortions done by them.
So, .2% of women in the US (guesstimate)
Its not substantial.
I do believe however, that a government funded organization should not be doing abortions, regardless of if the tax money funds them directly.

However, unfunding planned parenthood is a terrible idea, because they offer a lot of sex education, and are probably a large reason why our STD rates are a tad bit lower than many other countries.

Seventeen states fund medically required abortions through medicaid.

(I also believe a few assist in payment for pregnancies due to rape and incest. But not certain.)

Planned Parenthood will also refer woman to non Planned Parenthood doctors for an abortion and this doesn't get counted as PP performing an abortion. Regardless the number of abortions isn't important to me. The rarity of an act has no bearing on the morality of the action so the question is that if abortion itself is no big deal or just a routine surgery then why does Planet Parenthood feel the need to obscure the number?

They're not obscuring the number.
Theyre providing a direct number.

The referrals are usually done because a lot of clinics dont have abortion equipment on site, or a doctor for the procedure.
My two local one are this way, and refer people to a clinic a few hours away, because it's cheapest, and safest there.

The morality of abortion is a tough issue, and a conclusion has not been reached for it. Hence why I believe that Planned Parenthood shouldnt do abortions, if they are to recieve federal funding. (Statefunding, maybe.)

But, Planned Parenthood is something that we need.

They make these charts to show how rare abortion is and they dubiously count things as services in order to make the rate of abortions they perform lower. As I said if you go in for an abortion and walk out of their with a free condom, some STD literature, and a pamphlet on breast cancer they can technically say they that only 25% of the services they provided you were abortion. That is how they count services and they do this because want to make abortion look rare, they know deep down what they're doing is wrong so they minimize it.

Why is the morality of abortion so tough for you? It's either a human life or it isn't.

>Why is the morality of abortion so tough for you? It's either a human life or it isn't.
Is it worse to give sentience, and take it away, or to have never given it in the first place?

I see your point with the hiding of the abortions, but they dont hide them with a large amount of effort. Still, the number of abortions by them are published, in raw data.

However, theres that thing where people prefer to repost pretty graphs as opposed to a solid number.

I don't define life by sentience so it doesn't factor in on whether I believe abortion is wrong or not. Sentience is a trait or an ability of a normal human but to say that's what defines humanity commits of the fallacy of confusing cause and effect. You have to be a human before you can act like one, so you have to be a human before you can become sentient.

I dont seem to see the value in a human as you do.
I see the value in a human, in their sentience.

I also belief life to be, at its simplest, sentience.

I don't get why all the fucking whiner celebrities don't just make their own abortion fund

I think that's a dangerous view because there are case where people may never gain sentience or an adult human may lose sentience and with this standard for defining life we would be justified in killing them.

If one truly loses sentience, I do not consider them to be living.
And, if one is to never gain sentience, I do not consider them to be alive.
Sentience: the ability to feel or perceive.

What if somebody were to temporarily lose sentience? With this standard for defining life we would be justified in murdering that person so long as we got to them before the regained sentience. I don't know of any specific case where somebody had a catastrophic brain injury with a chance to recover but with the great advances in medical technology this dilemma shouldn't be ignored because it is a possibility.

>1 in 500 women in the US per annum
>but roughly half of the women in the US are infertile (mostly either too young or post-menopausal)
>conservatively, 1 in 300 per annum
>not substantial

That becomes the gray area, for sure.

Care to switch over to Chatzy, before thread dies?

us21 chatzy com/59742235401993

They are virtue signalling to land better roles, they don't actually want to put in the kind of work necessary to make that, they just want the social benefits of someone who had.

>If one truly loses sentience, I do not consider them to be living.
So its okay to kill sleeping people because they aren't technically alive?

Clearly if you need abortions plural

People feel, and percieve when asleep.

Hmm, that seems a lot more substantial than I would think.
However, thats also the chance of dying in a British hospital from medical error.
And, also the chance that a complete stranger is a cousin (5th, in britain.
Also, about the rate of death from firearms or narcotics in the US.
So, not terribly large.

Yea, that must be why they called it being unconscious because people are so aware of their surroundings in that condition.

You hear a thundercrack in your dream, and awake, still hearing the thunder. You feel emotions, you remember your dreams. You can recall the impact they had/have on you.
You are sentient when sleeping.

are we killing people when we put them under for anesthesia?

The issue with that definition is that "feeling" and "percieving" are themselves nebulous concepts. Who is to say that a fetus is unable to feel at 4 weeks? What is qualified as perception?

We need to clearly define what is considered living by some undeniable, quantifiable metric before the abortion debate can truly begin to be solved. Of course, most politicians do not want to do this as it would actually require them to do something and not just bicker

>You hear a thundercrack in your dream, and awake, still hearing the thunder.
Exploding head syndrome, there may not have been thunder at all, the only thing you heard was your own imagination.

>you remember your dreams
You remember your childhood too, that doesn't mean you are still perceiving your childhood because it doesn't come straight from the senses, it comes from a fading memory of a distant sense.

>You are sentient when sleeping.
Then you are sentient when you are dead, too, people have reported memories that came after their brain death.

It's still believed that people maintain a form of conciousness under the influence of most anesthetics.
So, no.
Also, it is a temporary state.
Exactly. I realize my definition and belief of human life is very different from the majority.
>exploding head syndrome
I dont think that means what you think it means

>remembering your childhood
It's a thought, and experience, a feeling.

>memories after their brain death.
Care to elaborate?

Exactly, they do charge and profit $500million a year. Profit! Their CEO makes $500k a year. They """"Donate"""""" baby fetuses for tax write offs to cut out their tax liabilities.

>still believed
>form of consciousness
>most
so, you don't have an actual argument

gestation is a temporary state

>I dont think that means what you think it means
It means you heard thunder that wasn't there because you aren't actually perceiving anything when you are unconscious, you are imagining it.

You are conflating the actual sense of touch with abstract emotional reactions, you can't directly perceive your childhood and for all you know if you die in your sleep, you will dream forever and your killer will have done you a favor.

Just google it, look into NDEs, there is that neurosurgeon who wrote Proof of Heaven about peoples experiences with memories after death.