Indiana Gov. Daniels to sign Planned Parenthood bill

Nothing about this bill cancels a woman's "right" to kill her child, it just won't be funded by the taxpayers of Indiana.

This has nothing to do with a woman's right to choose abortion, but the tax payer dollars being used to pay for it. Apparently, the government doesn't have a problem with abortion, they just don't want to use tax dollars to pay for it. How sad that it comes down to $$$$$$.

What the government doesn't seem to realize is that they will be supporting the majority of these unwaNted children that can't or won't be taken care of by the birth parent, (for whatever reason), via services such as welfare, food stamps, medicaid, etc.... Makes no sense to me!?!?! :bash

Sorry, I have to agree with some liberal commentators. The attacks on Planned Parenthood are only 1/2 about stopping abortion. I think some Republicans also would prefer people refrain from pre-marital sex so they think limiting Planned Parenthood funding & access to contraception will limit sex but that only works for a percentage of the people.
Net result? More unwanted kids, and a lot of those will wind up being on the dole.

Trouble wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Right. What we need is more government making a decision that belongs to a woman alone.

Ha! Serously! You say you want the government out of the lives of women but you hold your hand out asking for government money to pay for the results of irresponsible men and selfish women who change their mind?

Whatever.

This assumes all pregnancies are the result of mutual consent as in irresponsible men and selfish women. You and I both know that is not the case. If you want to talk about the right of the fetus, then isn't consideration about being able to care for a young one a responsible thought process? The problem as I see it personal decision are not about your way or may way being right. They are about respecting other people's decisions. Whether you are for or against abortion is only a justification for forcing your views, morals and ethics on another because you consider them the BEST choice. Low and behold to those who dare have an opposing view. Even responsible and unselfish women can reach sound decisions that go against what you would readily judge as unacceptable. There is no right or wrong way, only different ways. And as others point out, why should the taxpayers fund this anyway? It really does not address the fundamental problem or responsible parenthood. Just out of curiosity, perhaps we could learn something from aboriginal tribes? I'm sure they do not have a government program to legislate child birth, or programs that dictate who or who can not have sex, etc.

You may well be true in your statement but the real question is whether or not the Government should be taking taxpayer money and funding P.P. This group can raise private money if they want to. There is a great percentage of people who DO agree with what they do that makes that feasible. Do those who do NOT agree not also have the right to decide where there tax dollars go?

major bean wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Right. What we need is more government making a decision that belongs to a woman alone.

The woman made the decision to reproduce. She does not have the right to change her mind and rescind that decision once it is made.

You are being mighty presumptuous in saying a woman made the decision. Not all pregnancies are by choice but forced upon the woman. And, no matter what you maintain, there is always a right to change your mind. Your statement is akin to saying that if a married man accepts a job you no longer have the right to rescind that decision because he is is responsible for the well being of his family.

Nmysys wrote: You may well be true in your statement but the real question is whether or not the Government should be taking taxpayer money and funding P.P. This group can raise private money if they want to. There is a great percentage of people who DO agree with what they do that makes that feasible. Do those who do NOT agree not also have the right to decide where there tax dollars go?

I think you and others before nailed it. This is about the rights of the taxpayers as much as anything.

:thumbsup: Way to go Indiana, you're really making a dent now! Eliminate funding that didn't pay for the 5,580 abortions performed in Indiana last year, one state's slice of the 27% of U.S. abortions done by Planned Parenthood each year! Never mind all those private clinics doing them...or will be doing more of them now.

And now that women won't have access to low-cost birth control, gynecological check-ups, and cancer screenings, will we get an increase in problems due to a lack of those services? Will those 5,500+ women who would've gotten abortions at Planned Parenthood this year now just get them somewhere else, or will us taxpayers just being paying for those low-income kids now with food stamps and welfare? Cuz you know men and women aren't going to stop having sex. Or being stupid about it, since we aren't allowed to teach kids the truth but just :can't hear about the fact that they are doing it and being irresponsible. As if we didn't already have too many people on this planet, now we're going to add more - brilliant!

It has been shown time and again that government funding of services like Planned Parenthood lowers costs to taxpayers, increases the overall health of a society when family planning is practiced, and increases the living status of individuals who don't get overburdened with children, but hey, the end is near so let's breed like rabbits and head toward that cliff a hell of a lot sooner! :thumbsup: :bash :bash

Just in case you wanted to know where I got my abortions statistics for Indiana:
http://www.irtl.org/2011/01/number-of-a ... al-report/

Well put Wicked.

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

Trouble wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Right. What we need is more government making a decision that belongs to a woman alone.

Ha! Serously! You say you want the government out of the lives of women but you hold your hand out asking for government money to pay for the results of irresponsible men and selfish women who change their mind?

Whatever.

This assumes all pregnancies are the result of mutual consent as in irresponsible men and selfish women. You and I both know that is not the case. If you want to talk about the right of the fetus, then isn't consideration about being able to care for a young one a responsible thought process? The problem as I see it personal decision are not about your way or may way being right. They are about respecting other people's decisions. Whether you are for or against abortion is only a justification for forcing your views, morals and ethics on another because you consider them the BEST choice. Low and behold to those who dare have an opposing view. Even responsible and unselfish women can reach sound decisions that go against what you would readily judge as unacceptable. There is no right or wrong way, only different ways. And as others point out, why should the taxpayers fund this anyway? It really does not address the fundamental problem or responsible parenthood. Just out of curiosity, perhaps we could learn something from aboriginal tribes? I'm sure they do not have a government program to legislate child birth, or programs that dictate who or who can not have sex, etc.

No "right or wrong"?
Robbery. Right or wrong?
Assault. Right or wrong?
Murder. Right or wrong?
Fraud. Right or wrong?
Abortion. Right or wrong?

Your argument will be that these are crimes against other people. Well, guess what, buddy, abortion involves another individual, the baby. And abortion is murder.

Face it. You have no morals. That immoral relativism went out way back in the 70's along with sensitive men.