[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Wow, I waited till I got married. Can I get a share of PP’s money for teaching myself? I got all the same information from common sense.
[/quote]
Judging by STD and teen pregnancy rates, what you consider common sense isn’t.[/quote]
I never got an std or a teen girl pregnant.[/quote]
You’re still not getting that this isn’t about you and that you aren’t representation of majority of teenagers in the US.
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
No idea what you’re even talking about. [/quote]
The links Sloth provided. It talked about how showing pornography to children has neural repercussions. In order for those links to be relevant you have to equate sexual health material to pornography.
[/quote]
work the googles. pornography = “Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity.”
Visual material- Check. Explicit description or display of sexual organs - Check. Explicit description or display of sexual activity - Check. Yep, its porn.[/quote]
So I suppose you’re going to argue for the removal of uterus models from doctor’s offices? And for anatomy books to be banned from schools? We’ve apparently stepped back to the 14th century. Down with knowledge (if it’s deemed inappropriate by the Church). Absolutely the most ridiculous argument on this board to date. I’m not going to continue discussing this. All I’m going to say is that I’m thoroughly thankful that you’re a minority.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Other things Planned Parenthood told me:
“This IUD will make you infertile if you sleep with someone with certain STDs without protection”
“You might have cancer. Here’s a form to make sure you get that checked out this week”
“You have healthy weight and blood pressure”
“Your hormone and other tests came back normal”
“If you need personal counseling, we have those services”
“We need to follow up on that.”
Such an evil service! [/quote]
“yes, we will kill your baby if you think it might be inconvinient.”
“Hey little 10 year old girl, this is how to take it in the ass”
It is not necessary that everything an organization does is bad for the organization to be bad. They can do some good and still be bad. Hitler got trains to run on time.[/quote]
I’ve stated this before- I don’t care about whether or no planned parenthood continues to provide abortions and I personally think that they should have stopped when it became a partisan issue. It’s a stupid political move on their part.
That being said, I think it’s also ridiculous that Republicans are discrediting all of the women who’ve been helped by planned parenthood, which is millions, and are also willing to put them on the line over the abortion political issue.
Both parties (planned parenthood and the republican party) need to put aside their ultimatums and start talking about compromises. Stop trying to paint the other party as evil. I know for a FACT that anyone who saw the planned parenthood gynecologist I had would have had to BEG for information of the nature you’re referring to and they would have received an EARFUL about having more than one partner. To paint all of the good that’s been done by this organization the same awful color because of a few stories is to do exactly what you’re accusing Planned Parenthood of; needlessly endangering lives.
Instead of tearing the other side a new asshole, let’s be realistic. Not even close to the majority of Planned Parenthood providers are as you’re describing. Planned Parenthood does save lives, many lives. They are the first line of medical help for hundreds of thousands of women. Planned Parenthood gives out sound medical advice regarding sex, including limiting and testing the number of partners you have.
They’ve made a stupid political decision to put these women on the line with the abortion issue, but so has the entire republican party. What can be done about this?
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
No idea what you’re even talking about. [/quote]
The links Sloth provided. It talked about how showing pornography to children has neural repercussions. In order for those links to be relevant you have to equate sexual health material to pornography.
[/quote]
work the googles. pornography = “Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity.”
Visual material- Check. Explicit description or display of sexual organs - Check. Explicit description or display of sexual activity - Check. Yep, its porn.[/quote]
Terrible definition.
By that definition this is also porn.
What about reading the Old Testament to children? There are stories in there that contain rape and genocide in them. DO you have a problem with that?
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Wow the point of that last paragraph sailed over your head.
[/quote]
No it didn’t.
Absolute nonsense. She could have gone to her General Practitioner or any Doctor that she wanted to see. Same as the nonsense about birth control. ANYONE can walk into a drug store/supermarket and buy whatever contraceptives they want. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that Planned Parenthood is fulfilling any need that cannot be fulfilled without them.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Sure. Let’s just let people brutally beat their children, feed them starvation diets, make them eat their own vomit, etc. Oh wait, all of those parenting methods are not allowed. Why is the government preventing these parents from doing as they see fit?[/quote]
Because in those cases the parents would be committing a number of criminal offenses. What a waste of time it is trying “debate” with people like you and raj.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Wow the point of that last paragraph sailed over your head.
[/quote]
No it didn’t.
Absolute nonsense. She could have gone to her General Practitioner or any Doctor that she wanted to see. Same as the nonsense about birth control. ANYONE can walk into a drug store/supermarket and buy whatever contraceptives they want. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that Planned Parenthood is fulfilling any need that cannot be fulfilled without them.[/quote]
Providing they have a general practitioner. I certainly didn’t when I went to Planned Parenthood at age 15, nor did anyone else in my family.
You cannot buy regular birth control pills, the ring, or depo without a prescription for it. Also, the morning after pill costs $50+ through the pharmacy whereas it’s free through Planned Parenthood. Please stop pretending that Planned Parenthood doesn’t serve a need.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Sure. Let’s just let people brutally beat their children, feed them starvation diets, make them eat their own vomit, etc. Oh wait, all of those parenting methods are not allowed. Why is the government preventing these parents from doing as they see fit?[/quote]
Because in those cases the parents would be committing a number of criminal offenses. What a waste of time it is trying “debate” with people like you and raj.[/quote]
Once again, you don’t get it. Criminal offense=the government is involved in deciding what’s good parenting and telling people how to do it because not everyone is a stellar parent. Both raj and I got that and moved on.
If a parent didn’t warn their child that they could contract a deadly disease through sexual relations, would you consider that neglect? Why or why not?
Considering how impossible it would be for an outsider to tell how many kids had been told about it, what do you propose is done to educate these children about the possibility of contracting a disease through sex, without telling them about sex? This is taking into consideration that the parents have not told them; which many have not.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
No idea what you’re even talking about. [/quote]
The links Sloth provided. It talked about how showing pornography to children has neural repercussions. In order for those links to be relevant you have to equate sexual health material to pornography.
[/quote]
work the googles. pornography = “Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity.”
Visual material- Check. Explicit description or display of sexual organs - Check. Explicit description or display of sexual activity - Check. Yep, its porn.[/quote]
So I suppose you’re going to argue for the removal of uterus models from doctor’s offices? And for anatomy books to be banned from schools? We’ve apparently stepped back to the 14th century. Down with knowledge (if it’s deemed inappropriate by the Church). Absolutely the most ridiculous argument on this board to date. I’m not going to continue discussing this. All I’m going to say is that I’m thoroughly thankful that you’re a minority.[/quote]
wow, you are a serious bitch when someone disagrees with you. When did I say I wanted anything removed from the doctors office? Thats right, i didnt you fuggin twit. When did I mention the church? Didnt. any other things you want to go on a pissy little unrelated tangent about?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
No idea what you’re even talking about. [/quote]
The links Sloth provided. It talked about how showing pornography to children has neural repercussions. In order for those links to be relevant you have to equate sexual health material to pornography.
[/quote]
work the googles. pornography = “Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity.”
Visual material- Check. Explicit description or display of sexual organs - Check. Explicit description or display of sexual activity - Check. Yep, its porn.[/quote]
Terrible definition.
By that definition this is also porn.
What about reading the Old Testament to children? There are stories in there that contain rape and genocide in them. DO you have a problem with that?[/quote]
I sure do think it is silly to expose young children to such things. any other questions?
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
No idea what you’re even talking about. [/quote]
The links Sloth provided. It talked about how showing pornography to children has neural repercussions. In order for those links to be relevant you have to equate sexual health material to pornography.
[/quote]
work the googles. pornography = “Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity.”
Visual material- Check. Explicit description or display of sexual organs - Check. Explicit description or display of sexual activity - Check. Yep, its porn.[/quote]
So I suppose you’re going to argue for the removal of uterus models from doctor’s offices? And for anatomy books to be banned from schools? We’ve apparently stepped back to the 14th century. Down with knowledge (if it’s deemed inappropriate by the Church). Absolutely the most ridiculous argument on this board to date. I’m not going to continue discussing this. All I’m going to say is that I’m thoroughly thankful that you’re a minority.[/quote]
wow, you are a serious bitch when someone disagrees with you. When did I say I was against removing anything from the doctors office? Thats right, i didnt you self righteous twit. When did I mention the church? Didnt. any other things you want to go on a pissy little tangent about?[/quote]
If you can’t understand how what you said implied that, that’s too bad.
As for me being a bitch, if pointing out your logic fail makes me one, I suppose I’ll accept the title.
As for the rest of your little rant, apparently I touched on a nerve.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Wow, I waited till I got married. Can I get a share of PP’s money for teaching myself? I got all the same information from common sense.
[/quote]
Judging by STD and teen pregnancy rates, what you consider common sense isn’t.[/quote]
I never got an std or a teen girl pregnant.[/quote]
The point is that your common sense isn’t all that common.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Providing they have a general practitioner. I certainly didn’t when I went to Planned Parenthood at age 15, nor did anyone else in my family.
[/quote]
You should have. And even if you didn’t you could have gone to any Doctor you liked.
They don’t serve a need. You have yet to explain how they do. Why can’t people go to a Doctor to get that?
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Once again, you don’t get it. Criminal offense=the government is involved in deciding what’s good parenting and telling people how to do it because not everyone is a stellar parent. Both raj and I got that and moved on.
[/quote]
No, nothing to do with telling people how to be parents. ‘Brutally beating’ and ‘starving’ someone is a criminal offense.
If a parent didn’t warn their kid about poisonous snakes or climbing trees would you consider that neglect? Don’t answer that.
[quote]
Considering how impossible it would be for an outsider to tell how many kids had been told about it, what do you propose is done to educate these children about the possibility of contracting a disease through sex, without telling them about sex? This is taking into consideration that the parents have not told them; which many have not.[/quote]
It’s not my job nor the state’s job to do that.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Providing they have a general practitioner. I certainly didn’t when I went to Planned Parenthood at age 15, nor did anyone else in my family.
[/quote]
You should have. And even if you didn’t you could have gone to any Doctor you liked.
They don’t serve a need. You have yet to explain how they do. Why can’t people go to a Doctor to get that?[/quote]
I’m really tired of having this argument over and over again with middle class guys who’ve never gone without insurance a day in their life.
Tell me, how was I supposed to go see a regular doctor, given that my family made too much to qualify for medicare, but too little to have decent food to eat on all nights of the week? I worked as much as I was legally allowed to as a teenager while attending high school and I still didn’t have enough spare cash to pay for all of my own food and clothing all of the time. Even with insurance, a regular practitioner would have charged co-pay amounts that seem piddly to you, but are a big deal when you’re feeding a family of 3 on $5 a DAY (that’s a lot of top ramen and goolash, btw).
I would really like to know.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
I’m really tired of having this argument over and over again with middle class guys who’ve never gone without insurance a day in their life.
[/quote]
Well, I’m sure you must know all about me, my class and my insurance coverage.
[quote]
Tell me, how was I supposed to go see a regular doctor, given that my family made too much to qualify for medicare, but too little to have decent food to eat on all nights of the week? I worked as much as I was legally allowed to as a teenager while attending high school and I still didn’t have enough spare cash to pay for all of my own food and clothing all of the time. Even with insurance, a regular practitioner would have charged co-pay amounts that seem piddly to you, but are a big deal when you’re feeding a family of 3 on $5 a DAY (that’s a lot of top ramen and goolash, btw).
I would really like to know.[/quote]
Well, how about you doing it the same way you paid to see a Doctor when you had a chest infection and needed anti-biotics or any of the other things that you obviously did see a Doctor for at some stage in your life?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
I’m really tired of having this argument over and over again with middle class guys who’ve never gone without insurance a day in their life.
[/quote]
Well, I’m sure you must know all about me, my class and my insurance coverage.
[quote]
Tell me, how was I supposed to go see a regular doctor, given that my family made too much to qualify for medicare, but too little to have decent food to eat on all nights of the week? I worked as much as I was legally allowed to as a teenager while attending high school and I still didn’t have enough spare cash to pay for all of my own food and clothing all of the time. Even with insurance, a regular practitioner would have charged co-pay amounts that seem piddly to you, but are a big deal when you’re feeding a family of 3 on $5 a DAY (that’s a lot of top ramen and goolash, btw).
I would really like to know.[/quote]
Well, how about you doing it the same way you paid to see a Doctor when you had a chest infection and needed anti-biotics or any of the other things that you obviously did see a Doctor for at some stage in your life?[/quote]
You really don’t know about this, do you?
Okay, I will lay it out. Any time I had to go see an actual general doctor for anything, I paid out of pocket. This meant that I never went to a general doctor EVEN ONCE between ages 12-22. If I got sick, I waited it out in bed. I didn’t take any medicine between those ages. Not one antibiotic. Had I been grievously injured or deathly ill, my family would have gone into debt to take care of it. Thankfully that didn’t happen to any of us in those ten years. My mom was sick for several months on end at a few different points and she didn’t go to the doctor.
People who are poor don’t have a regular practitioner. They don’t go to the doctor for anything less than life-threatening symptoms and they pile up credit card debt when they do because they’re paying out of pocket for everything. The hospital might work out a deal, but it’s rare that the wipe the whole bill, and as I mentioned, even $20 is a big deal when you’re paying $5 a day to feed a family of 3.
I had one friend who spent the first 8 years of his adult life paying off his medical bills from when he broke some bones.
It’s sad that there’s such a big disconnect between the income levels out there that you have no clue what life is like for those who don’t make as much as you.
Also, why am I assuming that you make more that my family did and that you were of a higher income class? Because you assume that everyone has a general practitioner who they regularly get antibiotics from when sick. Only someone who’s always had that would make such an assumption.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
You really don’t know about this, do you?
Okay, I will lay it out. Any time I had to go see an actual general doctor for anything, I paid out of pocket. This meant that I never went to a general doctor EVEN ONCE between ages 12-22.
[/quote]
So you went to one before you were 12?
Really? I never thought of that. But see if you develop a chest infection that then gets to the stage of pleurisy or pneumonia, and it seems clear you are having trouble fighting it off then it might be best to go to a Doctor/hospital.
Good for you.
I didn’t have a regular practitioner after the age of 12 either.
Pleurisy and pneumonia are life-threatening.
They won’t ‘wipe the whole bill?’ How uncharitable of them.
Yes, I have to pay my medical bills too. No one will ‘wipe them off.’
Sorry, how much do you think I make and why? Oh I see you answer that below…
Why are you assuming that?
[quote]
Because you assume that everyone has a general practitioner who they regularly get antibiotics from when sick. Only someone who’s always had that would make such an assumption.[/quote]
I see. I had a GP up until the age of 12. I have taken anti-biotics probably three or four times in my life including from the dentist and after minor surgery.
So you can’t even take care of your own basic healthcare needs and you want the productive members of society to ‘write the whole bill’ off? What can you do olee? Obviously you’re getting a very expensive pseudo-education at college - who pays for that olee? What have you learned so far that my fathers’ generation hadn’t learned by the time they left primary school? Is there anything that you can do by yourself without help from productive people olee? Anything?
Mark Steyn on the Planned Parenthood racket:
'Until the other day, Komen were also generous patrons of Planned Parenthood, the “women’s health” organization. The Foundation then decided it preferred to focus on organizations that are “providing the lifesaving mammogram.” Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms, despite its president, Cecile Richards, testifying to the contrary before Congress last year.
Komen’s 2010 donation of $580,000 is less than Ms. Richards’ salary and benefits. Planned Parenthood commandos hacked into the Komen website and changed its slogan from “Help us get 26.2 or 13.1 miles closer to a world without breast cancer” to “Help us run over poor women on our way to the bank.” But, if you’re that eager to run over poor women on the way to the bank, I’d recommend a gig with Planned Parenthood: the average salary of the top eight executives is $270,000, which makes them officially part of what the Obama administration calls “the one percent.” In America today, few activities are as profitable as a “nonprofit.” Planned Parenthood receives almost half a billion dollars or about 50 percent of its revenues in taxpayer funding.
A billion dollars seems a lot, even for 322,000 abortions a year. But it enables Planned Parenthood to function as a political heavyweight. Ms Richards’ business is an upscale progressives’ ideological protection racket, for whom the “poor women’s” abortion mill is a mere pretext. The Komen Foundation will not be the last to learn that you can “race for the cure,” but you can’t hide. Celebrate conformity ? or else.
