"Pro-lifers" claim Planned Parenthood & doctors are "in it for the money" on abortion

Okay.....let's accept that for a moment.


When in human history has an activity which people make money from.....has that activity been successfully banned?

And not simply made more expensive or more dangerous to the people who WANT that activity.

Again I'm back to alcohol Prohibition in the 1920s. Alcohol was banned. People wanted alcohol. Bootleggers, etc. were able to provide it for them. Sure it was more expensive......or people were making dangerous "bathtub gin" or distilling wood alcohol.

But the product was still available because there was money to be made by providing it.

Or go to our "War on Drugs" and its most basic prohibition....marijuana.

Has the "War on Drugs" "worked"? If you say "Yes", allow me to ask you how hard is it to obtain marijuana (even outside of Colorado)....how hard was it to get booze in the 20s.....

and why the recently escaped "El Chapo"...

got so rich...as rich as Mr. Al Capone did in the 20s???


If "abortionists are in it for the money" as the "pro-lifers" like to disparage Planned Parenthood (which is non-proifit) or doctors (who risk their LIVES on occasion to provide abortion services)....

they'll make MORE money if abortion is banned, won't they?

((Naturally, you'll see "pro-lifers" quickly dismiss this....and then desperately try to steer the conversation AWAY from the OP's topic.))

 

Funny how those Anti-Choice conservatives suddenly hate profit , try to make it evil when it's been very obvious Profit is their god.

 

It's one thing to make money. It's takes a special kind of person to make money of mutilated body parts from fetuses.

Planned Parenthood executives make $400,000.00 or more per year. It is a highly profitable non-profit organization.

 

Salaries do not come under the terms of what a for-profit or non-profit business is, salaries are earned 'compensation' for services provided, where as in a for-profit business monies over and above what expenditure is used are distributed to its members, directors, or officers without services being provided

A non-profit business simply means that no part of the organization's income is distributed to its members, directors, or officers, which qualifies them for no taxation and the ability to re-invest any surplus monies back into the business.

So your quip attempting to align salaries of executives and a non-profit status is factually flawed.

 

If you make $400K, you are profiting. That's a very lucrative profit at that.

 

This is the only reason I think abortion needs to be legal. Its the same reason I think drugs and prostitution should be legal (or decriminalized). Although I don't particularly like drugs or prostitution, make them illegal and you make them unsafe and leave people open to exploitation. Make them legal and you can keep them regulated.

 

Drug dealers do not force others to use their drugs, prostitutes do not force men to have sex with them. But a woman who chooses abortion is forcing something on her unborn child, the little life within her.

 

There's no such thing as pro-life.

 

Let's make abortion illegal to sell, except as a freely performed service, and then see how many doctors are willing to do it "out of the goodness of their hearts".

 

And YOU want to FORCE women to give birth.

Many did.....and so did other women, the woman themselves did it....it didn't stop abortion . ....so why make it illegal? Just so you can see women suffering?

 

Tell me do you get paid for the work you do or not, if you do then by your so called logic you are also profiting which is of course absurd, salaries are 'compensation' for services provided.

A for profit business distributes monies to its members, directors, or officers WITHOUT them providing any services for that money.

So, as usual, you are incorrect.

 

It is a non-profit and has received federal funding since 1970.

 

Tell that to the thousands of women hooked on drugs by their pimps.

Just as that "little life" is forcing something onto the woman.

 

In other countries, such as mine, it is free.

The NHS offer abortions for free. You just have to see your GP and ask them to refer you to a clinic for an abortion. You can also get access to an NHS funded abortion by visiting your family planning clinic, sexual health clinic or Brook centre for young people. - http://www.healthcentre.org.uk/abortion/faqs-free-abortion.html

and there are plenty of doctors who will perform them.

 

Just like religions/churches do.

 

That's an odd definition of profit.

 

I didn't give you a definition of profit, I explained the difference between a For-proft business and a Non-profit business, in a NON-profit organization any excess that exceeds expenditure IS put back into the business, it is NOT, nor can it be, distributed to its members, directors, or officers as unearned remuneration.

What you are attempting to do, and failing to do, is lump salaries and profit into being the same thing, they have nothing to do with each other, salaries are an expenditure provided to people in exchange for their services.

Profit is as you have commented on. The difference between a for-profit business and a non-profit business is that a for-profit business can, if they wish, give unearned monies to its members, directors, or officers, a non-profit business cannot, it must invest any excess back into the business or lose it's non-profit status.

 

Churches don't receive government funding.

 

A lump salary of $400K is pretty sweet profit.

 

Wrong.

The goal of the President's Faith-Based and Community Initiative is clear - to enable faith-based and community organizations to provide compassionate care for the poor by receiving Federal grants on the same basis as other groups. President Bush believes that it is wrong for these groups to be discriminated against when it comes to partnering with the Federal government. This section provides information helpful to faith-based groups on how an organization can maintain its faith identity while delivering Federal services.

If these rules sound complicated, remember that thousands of faith-based organizations, from small daycare centers to homeless shelters, have taken Federal money and delivered services without a hitch. They have been able to comply with these principles " without sacrificing their faith identity. - http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/government/fbci/guidance/partnering.html

 

Nope, $400K is a salary for services rendered, just as you are paid for the services you render .. in fact salaries are a business expenditure that lessens profit ... basic accountancy really.

I take it that by ignoring the fact that I did not define profit as you wrongly attempted to accuse me of doing means you concede the strawman you created.

 

Yeah, well they personally profited to the tune of $400K. I don't know why you can't grasp that concept.

 

and I don't see how you cannot grasp the concept that wages are not profit. They did not personally profit to the tune of $400K, they were PAID for the services they provided to the tune of $400K.

Wages - A fixed regular payment earned for work or services, typically paid on a daily or weekly basis: - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/wage

As it stands, PP, as a non-profit organization, does not distribute extra monies, after all expenditure has been taken out, to people within their organization.

 

Even if it is an hourly wage or a salary, it is how much someone earns.

 

Your first statement is partially true, alot of dens like to keep a slave junky around to test their product on.