Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

PP - Right to Sex > Other's Right to Life

Geogeer
Posts: 4,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 6:45:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
http://www.ippf.org...

In Planned Parenthood's new publication Happy Healthy and Hot (see link above).

In this document Planned Parenthood argues that you if you are HIV Positive you have a RIGHT to have sex and not disclose it to your partner! You read that right. Your right to an orgasm means that you do not have to warn the other person that they could contract a deadly incurable disease.

Don't believe me? Let's look at the very wording of the document itself:

"Sharing your HIV status is called
disclosure. Your decision about whether to
disclose may change with different people
and situations. You have the right to
decide if, when, and how to disclose your
HIV status. You know best if and when it is safe
for you to disclose your status.
"

"There are many reasons that people
do not share their HIV status. They
may not want people to know they
are living with HIV because of
stigma and discrimination within
their community. They may worry
that people will find out something
else they have kept secret, like they
are using injecting drugs, having
sex outside of a marriage or having
sex with people of the same gender.
People in long-term relationships
who find out they are living with HIV
sometimes fear that their partner
will react violently or end the
relationship.
"

So because your partner may end the relationship with you, you don't have to tell them that having sex may be a death sentence.

"Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else. These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges."

Well it doesn't get any more blatant than that. Those evil countries that say you must disclose your known positive HIV status before having sex are trampling all over your right to assault with a deadly virus. So apparently a right to sex supersedes the right to life and the bodily rights of the other person.

"Get involved in advocacy to change laws that violate your rights. Contact your local network of people living with HIV. "

Darned Right! We need to overturn those evil laws that try to protect innocent people from being assaulted with a deadly virus - because orgasm!

There's more in here, but I think that this is damning enough as is.

However, none of this should come as a surprise since planned parenthood already makes is profit (sorry... surplus) off because the right to sex outweighs the right to life.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 6:47:48 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Last Line correction:

* However, none of this should come as a surprise since Planned Parenthood already makes is profit (sorry... surplus) off killing human beings, because the right to sex outweighs the right to life.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 7:10:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 6:45:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
http://www.ippf.org...

In Planned Parenthood's new publication Happy Healthy and Hot (see link above).

In this document Planned Parenthood argues that you if you are HIV Positive you have a RIGHT to have sex and not disclose it to your partner! You read that right. Your right to an orgasm means that you do not have to warn the other person that they could contract a deadly incurable disease.

Don't believe me? Let's look at the very wording of the document itself:

"Sharing your HIV status is called
disclosure. Your decision about whether to
disclose may change with different people
and situations. You have the right to
decide if, when, and how to disclose your
HIV status. You know best if and when it is safe
for you to disclose your status.
"


"There are many reasons that people
do not share their HIV status. They
may not want people to know they
are living with HIV because of
stigma and discrimination within
their community. They may worry
that people will find out something
else they have kept secret, like they
are using injecting drugs, having
sex outside of a marriage or having
sex with people of the same gender.
People in long-term relationships
who find out they are living with HIV
sometimes fear that their partner
will react violently or end the
relationship.
"

So because your partner may end the relationship with you, you don't have to tell them that having sex may be a death sentence.

"Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else. These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges."

Well it doesn't get any more blatant than that. Those evil countries that say you must disclose your known positive HIV status before having sex are trampling all over your right to assault with a deadly virus. So apparently a right to sex supersedes the right to life and the bodily rights of the other person.

"Get involved in advocacy to change laws that violate your rights. Contact your local network of people living with HIV. "

Darned Right! We need to overturn those evil laws that try to protect innocent people from being assaulted with a deadly virus - because orgasm!

There's more in here, but I think that this is damning enough as is.

However, none of this should come as a surprise since planned parenthood already makes is profit (sorry... surplus) off because the right to sex outweighs the right to life.

I know this will never resonate with you, but the International Planned Parenthood (not the US PP incidentally) has been working on HIV related problems for longer than most (read Reagan administration) even admitted it existed. I think I will not paint them with the myopic brush you have.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 7:22:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 7:10:16 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/2/2016 6:45:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
http://www.ippf.org...

In Planned Parenthood's new publication Happy Healthy and Hot (see link above).

In this document Planned Parenthood argues that you if you are HIV Positive you have a RIGHT to have sex and not disclose it to your partner! You read that right. Your right to an orgasm means that you do not have to warn the other person that they could contract a deadly incurable disease.

Don't believe me? Let's look at the very wording of the document itself:

"Sharing your HIV status is called
disclosure. Your decision about whether to
disclose may change with different people
and situations. You have the right to
decide if, when, and how to disclose your
HIV status. You know best if and when it is safe
for you to disclose your status.
"


"There are many reasons that people
do not share their HIV status. They
may not want people to know they
are living with HIV because of
stigma and discrimination within
their community. They may worry
that people will find out something
else they have kept secret, like they
are using injecting drugs, having
sex outside of a marriage or having
sex with people of the same gender.
People in long-term relationships
who find out they are living with HIV
sometimes fear that their partner
will react violently or end the
relationship.
"

So because your partner may end the relationship with you, you don't have to tell them that having sex may be a death sentence.

"Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else. These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges."

Well it doesn't get any more blatant than that. Those evil countries that say you must disclose your known positive HIV status before having sex are trampling all over your right to assault with a deadly virus. So apparently a right to sex supersedes the right to life and the bodily rights of the other person.

"Get involved in advocacy to change laws that violate your rights. Contact your local network of people living with HIV. "

Darned Right! We need to overturn those evil laws that try to protect innocent people from being assaulted with a deadly virus - because orgasm!

There's more in here, but I think that this is damning enough as is.

However, none of this should come as a surprise since planned parenthood already makes is profit (sorry... surplus) off because the right to sex outweighs the right to life.

I know this will never resonate with you, but the International Planned Parenthood (not the US PP incidentally) has been working on HIV related problems for longer than most (read Reagan administration) even admitted it existed. I think I will not paint them with the myopic brush you have.

That is the biggest evasion of an answer you've ever given and this isn't myopic at all. It is their very own publication!!! It is being myopic to avoid seeing what they are advocating.

Do you believe that a person should have to disclose their HIV positive status before having sex with someone?

So has Planned Parenthood denounced that their international organization is promoting the right to have sex without divulging one's HIV positive status? This brochure is promoting concepts that will spread HIV.
Overhead
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 7:24:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
It also advocates and assumes that safe sex will be practiced.

After the first paragraph you quote, there is another paragraph that begins, for instance, "Safer sex is a shared responsibility" and a section later on about practising safe sex.

Your title is also a misrepresentation as there is no such thing as a "right to sex" and instead the sexual rights talked about are rights relating sex. None of them however are a "right to sex" where you can demand sex whenever you want it.

Likewise as the booklet points out, sex encompasses a wide range of acts:

" Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse" But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex. Sex can include kissing, touching, licking, tickling, sucking, and cuddling"

Some of the acts that fall under their definition of sex have absolutely no chance of passing along HIV. Likewise, for those where there is a chance this will be very low due to the aforementioned focus on contraceptives.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 7:28:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 7:22:10 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 7:10:16 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/2/2016 6:45:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
http://www.ippf.org...

In Planned Parenthood's new publication Happy Healthy and Hot (see link above).

In this document Planned Parenthood argues that you if you are HIV Positive you have a RIGHT to have sex and not disclose it to your partner! You read that right. Your right to an orgasm means that you do not have to warn the other person that they could contract a deadly incurable disease.

Don't believe me? Let's look at the very wording of the document itself:

"Sharing your HIV status is called
disclosure. Your decision about whether to
disclose may change with different people
and situations. You have the right to
decide if, when, and how to disclose your
HIV status. You know best if and when it is safe
for you to disclose your status.
"


"There are many reasons that people
do not share their HIV status. They
may not want people to know they
are living with HIV because of
stigma and discrimination within
their community. They may worry
that people will find out something
else they have kept secret, like they
are using injecting drugs, having
sex outside of a marriage or having
sex with people of the same gender.
People in long-term relationships
who find out they are living with HIV
sometimes fear that their partner
will react violently or end the
relationship.
"

So because your partner may end the relationship with you, you don't have to tell them that having sex may be a death sentence.

"Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else. These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges."

Well it doesn't get any more blatant than that. Those evil countries that say you must disclose your known positive HIV status before having sex are trampling all over your right to assault with a deadly virus. So apparently a right to sex supersedes the right to life and the bodily rights of the other person.

"Get involved in advocacy to change laws that violate your rights. Contact your local network of people living with HIV. "

Darned Right! We need to overturn those evil laws that try to protect innocent people from being assaulted with a deadly virus - because orgasm!

There's more in here, but I think that this is damning enough as is.

However, none of this should come as a surprise since planned parenthood already makes is profit (sorry... surplus) off because the right to sex outweighs the right to life.

I know this will never resonate with you, but the International Planned Parenthood (not the US PP incidentally) has been working on HIV related problems for longer than most (read Reagan administration) even admitted it existed. I think I will not paint them with the myopic brush you have.

That is the biggest evasion of an answer you've ever given and this isn't myopic at all. It is their very own publication!!! It is being myopic to avoid seeing what they are advocating.

Do you believe that a person should have to disclose their HIV positive status before having sex with someone?

So has Planned Parenthood denounced that their international organization is promoting the right to have sex without divulging one's HIV positive status? This brochure is promoting concepts that will spread HIV.

No, not at all. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that they know the best way to encourage discussion of infection. Swaziland, for example, has ~30% of the population infected. Think the same message works in the US as in Swaziland?

The way to confront things like AIDS is to start by removing the sort of politics you have interjected here. You don't like PP anything, so you project scorn on this message without giving any thought to it.

Hallmark of pro-life. Making things worse for everyone one indignant thoughtless policy at a time.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 7:51:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 7:28:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/2/2016 7:22:10 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 7:10:16 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/2/2016 6:45:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
http://www.ippf.org...

In Planned Parenthood's new publication Happy Healthy and Hot (see link above).

In this document Planned Parenthood argues that you if you are HIV Positive you have a RIGHT to have sex and not disclose it to your partner! You read that right. Your right to an orgasm means that you do not have to warn the other person that they could contract a deadly incurable disease.

Don't believe me? Let's look at the very wording of the document itself:

"Sharing your HIV status is called
disclosure. Your decision about whether to
disclose may change with different people
and situations. You have the right to
decide if, when, and how to disclose your
HIV status. You know best if and when it is safe
for you to disclose your status.
"


"There are many reasons that people
do not share their HIV status. They
may not want people to know they
are living with HIV because of
stigma and discrimination within
their community. They may worry
that people will find out something
else they have kept secret, like they
are using injecting drugs, having
sex outside of a marriage or having
sex with people of the same gender.
People in long-term relationships
who find out they are living with HIV
sometimes fear that their partner
will react violently or end the
relationship.
"

So because your partner may end the relationship with you, you don't have to tell them that having sex may be a death sentence.

"Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else. These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges."

Well it doesn't get any more blatant than that. Those evil countries that say you must disclose your known positive HIV status before having sex are trampling all over your right to assault with a deadly virus. So apparently a right to sex supersedes the right to life and the bodily rights of the other person.

"Get involved in advocacy to change laws that violate your rights. Contact your local network of people living with HIV. "

Darned Right! We need to overturn those evil laws that try to protect innocent people from being assaulted with a deadly virus - because orgasm!

There's more in here, but I think that this is damning enough as is.

However, none of this should come as a surprise since planned parenthood already makes is profit (sorry... surplus) off because the right to sex outweighs the right to life.

I know this will never resonate with you, but the International Planned Parenthood (not the US PP incidentally) has been working on HIV related problems for longer than most (read Reagan administration) even admitted it existed. I think I will not paint them with the myopic brush you have.

That is the biggest evasion of an answer you've ever given and this isn't myopic at all. It is their very own publication!!! It is being myopic to avoid seeing what they are advocating.

Do you believe that a person should have to disclose their HIV positive status before having sex with someone?

So has Planned Parenthood denounced that their international organization is promoting the right to have sex without divulging one's HIV positive status? This brochure is promoting concepts that will spread HIV.

No, not at all. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that they know the best way to encourage discussion of infection. Swaziland, for example, has ~30% of the population infected. Think the same message works in the US as in Swaziland?

Is not telling someone you are about to engage in sex with that you have HIV in any possible way going to reduce the likelihood of that person getting HIV. Please tell me what universe that logic works in.

By that logic, there should be no food labels because people don't have the right to know everything that is being put into their bodies.

The way to confront things like AIDS is to start by removing the sort of politics you have interjected here. You don't like PP anything, so you project scorn on this message without giving any thought to it.

Hallmark of pro-life. Making things worse for everyone one indignant thoughtless policy at a time.

These pamphlets were distributed to the World Association of Girl Scouts and Girl Guides. This includes girls from the USA. So obviously PP (international if you must) believes this to be true to every nation in the world.

So not only does the brochure advocate for every possible degenerate sexual activity, and abortion to cover up the unexpected results of irresponsible sexual activity (cha-ching!). They also advocate the right of minors to take potentially harmful substances without their parent's knowledge. To top it all off, you should not have to divulge to the person you are having sex with that you have HIV/AIDS. And to go even further, everyone should petition their governments not to have any laws protecting innocent people from having knowledge that they are about to have sex with an HIV+ person.

Is this really your belief? Every HIV positive person has the right not to inform someone they are going to have sex with that they are HIV positive?

If so I would love to understand how this will improve rates of AIDS around the world. I really would.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 7:57:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 7:51:35 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 7:28:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/2/2016 7:22:10 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 7:10:16 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/2/2016 6:45:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
http://www.ippf.org...

In Planned Parenthood's new publication Happy Healthy and Hot (see link above).

In this document Planned Parenthood argues that you if you are HIV Positive you have a RIGHT to have sex and not disclose it to your partner! You read that right. Your right to an orgasm means that you do not have to warn the other person that they could contract a deadly incurable disease.

Don't believe me? Let's look at the very wording of the document itself:

"Sharing your HIV status is called
disclosure. Your decision about whether to
disclose may change with different people
and situations. You have the right to
decide if, when, and how to disclose your
HIV status. You know best if and when it is safe
for you to disclose your status.
"


"There are many reasons that people
do not share their HIV status. They
may not want people to know they
are living with HIV because of
stigma and discrimination within
their community. They may worry
that people will find out something
else they have kept secret, like they
are using injecting drugs, having
sex outside of a marriage or having
sex with people of the same gender.
People in long-term relationships
who find out they are living with HIV
sometimes fear that their partner
will react violently or end the
relationship.
"

So because your partner may end the relationship with you, you don't have to tell them that having sex may be a death sentence.

"Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else. These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges."

Well it doesn't get any more blatant than that. Those evil countries that say you must disclose your known positive HIV status before having sex are trampling all over your right to assault with a deadly virus. So apparently a right to sex supersedes the right to life and the bodily rights of the other person.

"Get involved in advocacy to change laws that violate your rights. Contact your local network of people living with HIV. "

Darned Right! We need to overturn those evil laws that try to protect innocent people from being assaulted with a deadly virus - because orgasm!

There's more in here, but I think that this is damning enough as is.

However, none of this should come as a surprise since planned parenthood already makes is profit (sorry... surplus) off because the right to sex outweighs the right to life.

I know this will never resonate with you, but the International Planned Parenthood (not the US PP incidentally) has been working on HIV related problems for longer than most (read Reagan administration) even admitted it existed. I think I will not paint them with the myopic brush you have.

That is the biggest evasion of an answer you've ever given and this isn't myopic at all. It is their very own publication!!! It is being myopic to avoid seeing what they are advocating.

Do you believe that a person should have to disclose their HIV positive status before having sex with someone?

So has Planned Parenthood denounced that their international organization is promoting the right to have sex without divulging one's HIV positive status? This brochure is promoting concepts that will spread HIV.

No, not at all. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that they know the best way to encourage discussion of infection. Swaziland, for example, has ~30% of the population infected. Think the same message works in the US as in Swaziland?

Is not telling someone you are about to engage in sex with that you have HIV in any possible way going to reduce the likelihood of that person getting HIV. Please tell me what universe that logic works in.

By that logic, there should be no food labels because people don't have the right to know everything that is being put into their bodies.

The way to confront things like AIDS is to start by removing the sort of politics you have interjected here. You don't like PP anything, so you project scorn on this message without giving any thought to it.

Hallmark of pro-life. Making things worse for everyone one indignant thoughtless policy at a time.

These pamphlets were distributed to the World Association of Girl Scouts and Girl Guides. This includes girls from the USA. So obviously PP (international if you must) believes this to be true to every nation in the world.

So not only does the brochure advocate for every possible degenerate sexual activity, and abortion to cover up the unexpected results of irresponsible sexual activity (cha-ching!). They also advocate the right of minors to take potentially harmful substances without their parent's knowledge. To top it all off, you should not have to divulge to the person you are having sex with that you have HIV/AIDS. And to go even further, everyone should petition their governments not to have any laws protecting innocent people from having knowledge that they are about to have sex with an HIV+ person.

Is this really your belief? Every HIV positive person has the right not to inform someone they are going to have sex with that they are HIV positive?

If so I would love to understand how this will improve rates of AIDS around the world. I really would.

This is your spin. To me, and I am not entirely behind the thing, they are trying to encourage people to actual disclose HIV status.

I really think if you could remove your blinders on this one, you would read it that way. As it sits, anything that remotely stinks of PP you reject.

Like I said. Pro-life, making life worse for everyone. Lets just not talk about HIV, how about that?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 7:58:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 7:24:50 PM, Overhead wrote:
It also advocates and assumes that safe sex will be practiced.

After the first paragraph you quote, there is another paragraph that begins, for instance, "Safer sex is a shared responsibility" and a section later on about practising safe sex.

Your title is also a misrepresentation as there is no such thing as a "right to sex" and instead the sexual rights talked about are rights relating sex. None of them however are a "right to sex" where you can demand sex whenever you want it.

The title is only so long.

Likewise as the booklet points out, sex encompasses a wide range of acts:

" Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse" But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex. Sex can include kissing, touching, licking, tickling, sucking, and cuddling"

Some of the acts that fall under their definition of sex have absolutely no chance of passing along HIV. Likewise, for those where there is a chance this will be very low due to the aforementioned focus on contraceptives.

Does that remove the fact of what they did say? It is like putting out a brochure on drinking and driving. You could talk about all the benefits of calling a cab, arranging with a nearby friend for a place to crash, or having a designated driver.

You could also note that seat belts drastically improve one's chance of surviving any crash that did happen.

But noting that in the end driving drunk is a matter of personal freedom and that everyone should petition their local governments to remove laws preventing drinking and driving.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 8:03:12 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Looks like you lifted this story from lifenews.com who incidentally mislabeled and used the Planned Parenthood USA logo.

Very dishonest lifenews. Very dishonest.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 8:03:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 6:47:48 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Last Line correction:

* However, none of this should come as a surprise since Planned Parenthood already makes is profit (sorry... surplus) off killing human beings, because the right to sex outweighs the right to life.

Alright, time for a dose of reality.

Planned Parenthood (in addition to only 3% of its services being abortion-related) has 2 and only 2 sources of government funding: Title X and Medicaid.

The Department of Health and Human Services states that Title X funds cannot legally be used for abortion services, and the Hyde Amendment prevents Medicaid funds from being used for abortion services.

In short, PP does not use federal funds - that is, taxpayer dollars - to pay for abortions because it is illegal to do so.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 8:05:34 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 7:58:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 7:24:50 PM, Overhead wrote:
It also advocates and assumes that safe sex will be practiced.

After the first paragraph you quote, there is another paragraph that begins, for instance, "Safer sex is a shared responsibility" and a section later on about practising safe sex.

Your title is also a misrepresentation as there is no such thing as a "right to sex" and instead the sexual rights talked about are rights relating sex. None of them however are a "right to sex" where you can demand sex whenever you want it.

The title is only so long.

Likewise as the booklet points out, sex encompasses a wide range of acts:

" Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse" But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex. Sex can include kissing, touching, licking, tickling, sucking, and cuddling"

Some of the acts that fall under their definition of sex have absolutely no chance of passing along HIV. Likewise, for those where there is a chance this will be very low due to the aforementioned focus on contraceptives.

Does that remove the fact of what they did say? It is like putting out a brochure on drinking and driving. You could talk about all the benefits of calling a cab, arranging with a nearby friend for a place to crash, or having a designated driver.

You could also note that seat belts drastically improve one's chance of surviving any crash that did happen.

But noting that in the end driving drunk is a matter of personal freedom and that everyone should petition their local governments to remove laws preventing drinking and driving.

I don't see any benefit in arguing this one out with you. On the one hand, we have an organization working to encourage people to discuss HIV status, and engage in safe-sex, and on you side we have <crickets>.

I think I will stick with the guys actually working to make the world a better place to live.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 8:34:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 8:03:14 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/2/2016 6:47:48 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Last Line correction:

* However, none of this should come as a surprise since Planned Parenthood already makes is profit (sorry... surplus) off killing human beings, because the right to sex outweighs the right to life.

Alright, time for a dose of reality.

Planned Parenthood (in addition to only 3% of its services being abortion-related) has 2 and only 2 sources of government funding: Title X and Medicaid.

The Department of Health and Human Services states that Title X funds cannot legally be used for abortion services, and the Hyde Amendment prevents Medicaid funds from being used for abortion services.

In short, PP does not use federal funds - that is, taxpayer dollars - to pay for abortions because it is illegal to do so.

And, as I noted, he is barking at the wrong organization. IPPF is not PP USA, but never let that get in the way of bashing anything remotely involved in improving sexual health issues.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 8:53:28 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 8:38:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
This is disgusting.

What part? Actually read the brochure and tell me exactly what is "disgusting".
Geogeer
Posts: 4,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 8:59:04 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 7:57:03 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/2/2016 7:51:35 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 7:28:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/2/2016 7:22:10 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 7:10:16 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/2/2016 6:45:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
http://www.ippf.org...

In Planned Parenthood's new publication Happy Healthy and Hot (see link above).

In this document Planned Parenthood argues that you if you are HIV Positive you have a RIGHT to have sex and not disclose it to your partner! You read that right. Your right to an orgasm means that you do not have to warn the other person that they could contract a deadly incurable disease.

Don't believe me? Let's look at the very wording of the document itself:

"Sharing your HIV status is called
disclosure. Your decision about whether to
disclose may change with different people
and situations. You have the right to
decide if, when, and how to disclose your
HIV status. You know best if and when it is safe
for you to disclose your status.
"


"There are many reasons that people
do not share their HIV status. They
may not want people to know they
are living with HIV because of
stigma and discrimination within
their community. They may worry
that people will find out something
else they have kept secret, like they
are using injecting drugs, having
sex outside of a marriage or having
sex with people of the same gender.
People in long-term relationships
who find out they are living with HIV
sometimes fear that their partner
will react violently or end the
relationship.
"

So because your partner may end the relationship with you, you don't have to tell them that having sex may be a death sentence.

"Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else. These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges."

Well it doesn't get any more blatant than that. Those evil countries that say you must disclose your known positive HIV status before having sex are trampling all over your right to assault with a deadly virus. So apparently a right to sex supersedes the right to life and the bodily rights of the other person.

"Get involved in advocacy to change laws that violate your rights. Contact your local network of people living with HIV. "

Darned Right! We need to overturn those evil laws that try to protect innocent people from being assaulted with a deadly virus - because orgasm!

There's more in here, but I think that this is damning enough as is.

However, none of this should come as a surprise since planned parenthood already makes is profit (sorry... surplus) off because the right to sex outweighs the right to life.

I know this will never resonate with you, but the International Planned Parenthood (not the US PP incidentally) has been working on HIV related problems for longer than most (read Reagan administration) even admitted it existed. I think I will not paint them with the myopic brush you have.

That is the biggest evasion of an answer you've ever given and this isn't myopic at all. It is their very own publication!!! It is being myopic to avoid seeing what they are advocating.

Do you believe that a person should have to disclose their HIV positive status before having sex with someone?

So has Planned Parenthood denounced that their international organization is promoting the right to have sex without divulging one's HIV positive status? This brochure is promoting concepts that will spread HIV.

No, not at all. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that they know the best way to encourage discussion of infection. Swaziland, for example, has ~30% of the population infected. Think the same message works in the US as in Swaziland?

Is not telling someone you are about to engage in sex with that you have HIV in any possible way going to reduce the likelihood of that person getting HIV. Please tell me what universe that logic works in.

By that logic, there should be no food labels because people don't have the right to know everything that is being put into their bodies.

The way to confront things like AIDS is to start by removing the sort of politics you have interjected here. You don't like PP anything, so you project scorn on this message without giving any thought to it.

Hallmark of pro-life. Making things worse for everyone one indignant thoughtless policy at a time.

These pamphlets were distributed to the World Association of Girl Scouts and Girl Guides. This includes girls from the USA. So obviously PP (international if you must) believes this to be true to every nation in the world.

So not only does the brochure advocate for every possible degenerate sexual activity, and abortion to cover up the unexpected results of irresponsible sexual activity (cha-ching!). They also advocate the right of minors to take potentially harmful substances without their parent's knowledge. To top it all off, you should not have to divulge to the person you are having sex with that you have HIV/AIDS. And to go even further, everyone should petition their governments not to have any laws protecting innocent people from having knowledge that they are about to have sex with an HIV+ person.

Is this really your belief? Every HIV positive person has the right not to inform someone they are going to have sex with that they are HIV positive?

If so I would love to understand how this will improve rates of AIDS around the world. I really would.

This is your spin. To me, and I am not entirely behind the thing, they are trying to encourage people to actual disclose HIV status.

Then they should not be advocating for people to get the laws protecting the innocent partner removed.

I really think if you could remove your blinders on this one, you would read it that way. As it sits, anything that remotely stinks of PP you reject.

Please show me the error of what I posted. I took only their words without twisting them in any way. While they mention all sorts of stuff about protection etc... at the end of the day, they ultimately believe that people's sex life is more valuable than the life of the person they are having sex with.

Like I said. Pro-life, making life worse for everyone. Lets just not talk about HIV, how about that?

Ah avoiding the difficult things.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 9:06:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
So not only does the brochure advocate for every possible degenerate sexual activity, and abortion to cover up the unexpected results of irresponsible sexual activity (cha-ching!). They also advocate the right of minors to take potentially harmful substances without their parent's knowledge. To top it all off, you should not have to divulge to the person you are having sex with that you have HIV/AIDS. And to go even further, everyone should petition their governments not to have any laws protecting innocent people from having knowledge that they are about to have sex with an HIV+ person.

Is this really your belief? Every HIV positive person has the right not to inform someone they are going to have sex with that they are HIV positive?

If so I would love to understand how this will improve rates of AIDS around the world. I really would.

This is your spin. To me, and I am not entirely behind the thing, they are trying to encourage people to actual disclose HIV status.

Then they should not be advocating for people to get the laws protecting the innocent partner removed.

I really think if you could remove your blinders on this one, you would read it that way. As it sits, anything that remotely stinks of PP you reject.

Please show me the error of what I posted. I took only their words without twisting them in any way. While they mention all sorts of stuff about protection etc... at the end of the day, they ultimately believe that people's sex life is more valuable than the life of the person they are having sex with.

Like I said. Pro-life, making life worse for everyone. Lets just not talk about HIV, how about that?

Ah avoiding the difficult things.

Look, I have noted, you are reading through a distorted lens. They are not encouraging anyone to not disclose, they are doing just the opposite. It is your delusional thinking that not talking about things like HIVs is the better solution. It is YOU who are twisting the words.

Find anywhere in this brochure where it says you should not disclose HIV status before having sex? Show me anywhere they are not encouraging open discussion? It is so damn obvious you can't see straight on anything that has PP anywhere near it.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 9:17:43 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 8:03:14 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/2/2016 6:47:48 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Last Line correction:

* However, none of this should come as a surprise since Planned Parenthood already makes is profit (sorry... surplus) off killing human beings, because the right to sex outweighs the right to life.

Alright, time for a dose of reality.

Planned Parenthood (in addition to only 3% of its services being abortion-related) has 2 and only 2 sources of government funding: Title X and Medicaid.

Really?

That isn't how it works.

Pap Smear - 1 service
Pregnancy test - 1 service
Sonogram - 1 service
Abortion - 1 service

These and maybe more are all involved in one abortion. This is an easily manipulatable statistic. On a dollar percentage the numbers would be very different. Selling a $10 box with 2 pregnancy tests in it is different than a $500 abortion.

The Department of Health and Human Services states that Title X funds cannot legally be used for abortion services, and the Hyde Amendment prevents Medicaid funds from being used for abortion services.

And what does that have to do with Planned Parenthood encouraging people to demand government rescind or not implement laws that require HIV positive people disclose their infection prior to engaging in sex. Is this the type of company you want responsible for health services?

In short, PP does not use federal funds - that is, taxpayer dollars - to pay for abortions because it is illegal to do so.

Planned Parenthood ran at a surplus of $127 million dollars because of the money it earns off of abortion. Pretty good for a non-profit. Yet none of this has to do with abortion. A good try a deflection from the topic though.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 9:18:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 8:05:34 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/2/2016 7:58:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 7:24:50 PM, Overhead wrote:
It also advocates and assumes that safe sex will be practiced.

After the first paragraph you quote, there is another paragraph that begins, for instance, "Safer sex is a shared responsibility" and a section later on about practising safe sex.

Your title is also a misrepresentation as there is no such thing as a "right to sex" and instead the sexual rights talked about are rights relating sex. None of them however are a "right to sex" where you can demand sex whenever you want it.

The title is only so long.

Likewise as the booklet points out, sex encompasses a wide range of acts:

" Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse" But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex. Sex can include kissing, touching, licking, tickling, sucking, and cuddling"

Some of the acts that fall under their definition of sex have absolutely no chance of passing along HIV. Likewise, for those where there is a chance this will be very low due to the aforementioned focus on contraceptives.

Does that remove the fact of what they did say? It is like putting out a brochure on drinking and driving. You could talk about all the benefits of calling a cab, arranging with a nearby friend for a place to crash, or having a designated driver.

You could also note that seat belts drastically improve one's chance of surviving any crash that did happen.

But noting that in the end driving drunk is a matter of personal freedom and that everyone should petition their local governments to remove laws preventing drinking and driving.

I don't see any benefit in arguing this one out with you. On the one hand, we have an organization working to encourage people to discuss HIV status, and engage in safe-sex, and on you side we have <crickets>.

I think I will stick with the guys actually working to make the world a better place to live.

Still no answer. It does tend to get quiet when you don't have an answer to the indefensible.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 9:20:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 9:18:44 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 8:05:34 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/2/2016 7:58:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 7:24:50 PM, Overhead wrote:
It also advocates and assumes that safe sex will be practiced.

After the first paragraph you quote, there is another paragraph that begins, for instance, "Safer sex is a shared responsibility" and a section later on about practising safe sex.

Your title is also a misrepresentation as there is no such thing as a "right to sex" and instead the sexual rights talked about are rights relating sex. None of them however are a "right to sex" where you can demand sex whenever you want it.

The title is only so long.

Likewise as the booklet points out, sex encompasses a wide range of acts:

" Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse" But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex. Sex can include kissing, touching, licking, tickling, sucking, and cuddling"

Some of the acts that fall under their definition of sex have absolutely no chance of passing along HIV. Likewise, for those where there is a chance this will be very low due to the aforementioned focus on contraceptives.

Does that remove the fact of what they did say? It is like putting out a brochure on drinking and driving. You could talk about all the benefits of calling a cab, arranging with a nearby friend for a place to crash, or having a designated driver.

You could also note that seat belts drastically improve one's chance of surviving any crash that did happen.

But noting that in the end driving drunk is a matter of personal freedom and that everyone should petition their local governments to remove laws preventing drinking and driving.

I don't see any benefit in arguing this one out with you. On the one hand, we have an organization working to encourage people to discuss HIV status, and engage in safe-sex, and on you side we have <crickets>.

I think I will stick with the guys actually working to make the world a better place to live.

Still no answer. It does tend to get quiet when you don't have an answer to the indefensible.

Answer to what? I have answered you, asked several question you evade.

There is nothing disturbing in the brochure, you are using selective reading.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 9:21:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 9:06:30 PM, TBR wrote:
So not only does the brochure advocate for every possible degenerate sexual activity, and abortion to cover up the unexpected results of irresponsible sexual activity (cha-ching!). They also advocate the right of minors to take potentially harmful substances without their parent's knowledge. To top it all off, you should not have to divulge to the person you are having sex with that you have HIV/AIDS. And to go even further, everyone should petition their governments not to have any laws protecting innocent people from having knowledge that they are about to have sex with an HIV+ person.

Is this really your belief? Every HIV positive person has the right not to inform someone they are going to have sex with that they are HIV positive?

If so I would love to understand how this will improve rates of AIDS around the world. I really would.

This is your spin. To me, and I am not entirely behind the thing, they are trying to encourage people to actual disclose HIV status.

Then they should not be advocating for people to get the laws protecting the innocent partner removed.

I really think if you could remove your blinders on this one, you would read it that way. As it sits, anything that remotely stinks of PP you reject.

Please show me the error of what I posted. I took only their words without twisting them in any way. While they mention all sorts of stuff about protection etc... at the end of the day, they ultimately believe that people's sex life is more valuable than the life of the person they are having sex with.

Like I said. Pro-life, making life worse for everyone. Lets just not talk about HIV, how about that?

Ah avoiding the difficult things.

Look, I have noted, you are reading through a distorted lens. They are not encouraging anyone to not disclose, they are doing just the opposite. It is your delusional thinking that not talking about things like HIVs is the better solution. It is YOU who are twisting the words.

Find anywhere in this brochure where it says you should not disclose HIV status before having sex? Show me anywhere they are not encouraging open discussion? It is so damn obvious you can't see straight on anything that has PP anywhere near it.

It says that you should not have to and that you should petition governments from having such laws.

It is like saying drinking and driving may not be the right thing for you and there are many alternatives, but it is your personal right and you should petition the government to repeal all drinking and driving laws.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 9:27:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 9:20:53 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:18:44 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 8:05:34 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/2/2016 7:58:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 7:24:50 PM, Overhead wrote:
It also advocates and assumes that safe sex will be practiced.

After the first paragraph you quote, there is another paragraph that begins, for instance, "Safer sex is a shared responsibility" and a section later on about practising safe sex.

Your title is also a misrepresentation as there is no such thing as a "right to sex" and instead the sexual rights talked about are rights relating sex. None of them however are a "right to sex" where you can demand sex whenever you want it.

The title is only so long.

Likewise as the booklet points out, sex encompasses a wide range of acts:

" Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse" But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex. Sex can include kissing, touching, licking, tickling, sucking, and cuddling"

Some of the acts that fall under their definition of sex have absolutely no chance of passing along HIV. Likewise, for those where there is a chance this will be very low due to the aforementioned focus on contraceptives.

Does that remove the fact of what they did say? It is like putting out a brochure on drinking and driving. You could talk about all the benefits of calling a cab, arranging with a nearby friend for a place to crash, or having a designated driver.

You could also note that seat belts drastically improve one's chance of surviving any crash that did happen.

But noting that in the end driving drunk is a matter of personal freedom and that everyone should petition their local governments to remove laws preventing drinking and driving.

I don't see any benefit in arguing this one out with you. On the one hand, we have an organization working to encourage people to discuss HIV status, and engage in safe-sex, and on you side we have <crickets>.

I think I will stick with the guys actually working to make the world a better place to live.

Still no answer. It does tend to get quiet when you don't have an answer to the indefensible.

Answer to what? I have answered you, asked several question you evade.

There is nothing disturbing in the brochure, you are using selective reading.

What question have I evaded? I will gladly answer.

You're the one who won't clearly answer. But here let's give you a simple yes or no question.

I am in agreement with the Planned Parenthood International brochure titled Happy Healthy and Hot when they make the following statements:

"Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else. These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges."

and

"Get involved in advocacy to change laws that violate your rights"


There is a simple yes or no question with no twisting of the content of the brochure for you to answer.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 9:38:57 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 9:21:03 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:06:30 PM, TBR wrote:
So not only does the brochure advocate for every possible degenerate sexual activity, and abortion to cover up the unexpected results of irresponsible sexual activity (cha-ching!). They also advocate the right of minors to take potentially harmful substances without their parent's knowledge. To top it all off, you should not have to divulge to the person you are having sex with that you have HIV/AIDS. And to go even further, everyone should petition their governments not to have any laws protecting innocent people from having knowledge that they are about to have sex with an HIV+ person.

Is this really your belief? Every HIV positive person has the right not to inform someone they are going to have sex with that they are HIV positive?

If so I would love to understand how this will improve rates of AIDS around the world. I really would.

This is your spin. To me, and I am not entirely behind the thing, they are trying to encourage people to actual disclose HIV status.

Then they should not be advocating for people to get the laws protecting the innocent partner removed.

I really think if you could remove your blinders on this one, you would read it that way. As it sits, anything that remotely stinks of PP you reject.

Please show me the error of what I posted. I took only their words without twisting them in any way. While they mention all sorts of stuff about protection etc... at the end of the day, they ultimately believe that people's sex life is more valuable than the life of the person they are having sex with.

Like I said. Pro-life, making life worse for everyone. Lets just not talk about HIV, how about that?

Ah avoiding the difficult things.

Look, I have noted, you are reading through a distorted lens. They are not encouraging anyone to not disclose, they are doing just the opposite. It is your delusional thinking that not talking about things like HIVs is the better solution. It is YOU who are twisting the words.

Find anywhere in this brochure where it says you should not disclose HIV status before having sex? Show me anywhere they are not encouraging open discussion? It is so damn obvious you can't see straight on anything that has PP anywhere near it.

It says that you should not have to and that you should petition governments from having such laws.

read page 6
http://www.ippf.org...

this is your sticking point? Is that right?

"Some countries have laws that say people
living with HIV must tell their sexual
partner(s) about their status before having
sex, even if they use condoms or only
engage in sexual activity with a low risk
of giving HIV to someone else. These laws
violate the rights of people living with HIV
by forcing them to disclose or face the
possibility of criminal charges. "


It is like saying drinking and driving may not be the right thing for you and there are many alternatives, but it is your personal right and you should petition the government to repeal all drinking and driving laws.

This is what it says about drinking
"Some people have sex when they
have been drinking alcohol or
using drugs. This is your choice.
Being drunk or high can affect the
decisions you might make about sex
and safer sex. If you want to have
sex and think you might get drunk
or high, plan ahead by bringing
condoms and lube or putting them
close to where you usually have
sex. That way you won"t forget
them in the heat of the moment.
Your partner must be able to freely
consent to sexual activity. It is not
okay to have sex with someone
who is so drunk or high that they
are staggering, incoherent or have
passed out."

All this is clearly in effort to get people TO DISCLOSE.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 9:48:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 9:38:57 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:21:03 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:06:30 PM, TBR wrote:
So not only does the brochure advocate for every possible degenerate sexual activity, and abortion to cover up the unexpected results of irresponsible sexual activity (cha-ching!). They also advocate the right of minors to take potentially harmful substances without their parent's knowledge. To top it all off, you should not have to divulge to the person you are having sex with that you have HIV/AIDS. And to go even further, everyone should petition their governments not to have any laws protecting innocent people from having knowledge that they are about to have sex with an HIV+ person.

Is this really your belief? Every HIV positive person has the right not to inform someone they are going to have sex with that they are HIV positive?

If so I would love to understand how this will improve rates of AIDS around the world. I really would.

This is your spin. To me, and I am not entirely behind the thing, they are trying to encourage people to actual disclose HIV status.

Then they should not be advocating for people to get the laws protecting the innocent partner removed.

I really think if you could remove your blinders on this one, you would read it that way. As it sits, anything that remotely stinks of PP you reject.

Please show me the error of what I posted. I took only their words without twisting them in any way. While they mention all sorts of stuff about protection etc... at the end of the day, they ultimately believe that people's sex life is more valuable than the life of the person they are having sex with.

Like I said. Pro-life, making life worse for everyone. Lets just not talk about HIV, how about that?

Ah avoiding the difficult things.

Look, I have noted, you are reading through a distorted lens. They are not encouraging anyone to not disclose, they are doing just the opposite. It is your delusional thinking that not talking about things like HIVs is the better solution. It is YOU who are twisting the words.

Find anywhere in this brochure where it says you should not disclose HIV status before having sex? Show me anywhere they are not encouraging open discussion? It is so damn obvious you can't see straight on anything that has PP anywhere near it.

It says that you should not have to and that you should petition governments from having such laws.

read page 6
http://www.ippf.org...

this is your sticking point? Is that right?

"Some countries have laws that say people
living with HIV must tell their sexual
partner(s) about their status before having
sex, even if they use condoms or only
engage in sexual activity with a low risk
of giving HIV to someone else. These laws
violate the rights of people living with HIV
by forcing them to disclose or face the
possibility of criminal charges. "




It is like saying drinking and driving may not be the right thing for you and there are many alternatives, but it is your personal right and you should petition the government to repeal all drinking and driving laws.

This is what it says about drinking
"Some people have sex when they
have been drinking alcohol or
using drugs. This is your choice.
Being drunk or high can affect the
decisions you might make about sex
and safer sex. If you want to have
sex and think you might get drunk
or high, plan ahead by bringing
condoms and lube or putting them
close to where you usually have
sex. That way you won"t forget
them in the heat of the moment.
Your partner must be able to freely
consent to sexual activity. It is not
okay to have sex with someone
who is so drunk or high that they
are staggering, incoherent or have
passed out."

Apparently you missed the obvious analogy.

All this is clearly in effort to get people TO DISCLOSE.

Then why is it advocating that you have the right not to disclose your infection to someone you might realistically infect and laws that state you must disclose should be overturned?

Doesn't fly.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 9:49:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 9:17:43 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 8:03:14 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/2/2016 6:47:48 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Last Line correction:

* However, none of this should come as a surprise since Planned Parenthood already makes is profit (sorry... surplus) off killing human beings, because the right to sex outweighs the right to life.

Alright, time for a dose of reality.

Planned Parenthood (in addition to only 3% of its services being abortion-related) has 2 and only 2 sources of government funding: Title X and Medicaid.

Really?

Yes.

That isn't how it works.

Pap Smear - 1 service
Pregnancy test - 1 service
Sonogram - 1 service
Abortion - 1 service

These and maybe more are all involved in one abortion. This is an easily manipulatable statistic. On a dollar percentage the numbers would be very different. Selling a $10 box with 2 pregnancy tests in it is different than a $500 abortion.

Sure. Prove PP is breaking the law by manipulating them.

The Department of Health and Human Services states that Title X funds cannot legally be used for abortion services, and the Hyde Amendment prevents Medicaid funds from being used for abortion services.

And what does that have to do with Planned Parenthood encouraging people to demand government rescind or not implement laws that require HIV positive people disclose their infection prior to engaging in sex. Is this the type of company you want responsible for health services?

Nothing, because PP isn't doing that. You're referring to an entirely different organization.

In short, PP does not use federal funds - that is, taxpayer dollars - to pay for abortions because it is illegal to do so.

Planned Parenthood ran at a surplus of $127 million dollars because of the money it earns off of abortion. Pretty good for a non-profit. Yet none of this has to do with abortion. A good try a deflection from the topic though.

I didn't take issue with anything you said except what I quoted.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 9:53:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 9:48:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:38:57 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:21:03 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:06:30 PM, TBR wrote:
So not only does the brochure advocate for every possible degenerate sexual activity, and abortion to cover up the unexpected results of irresponsible sexual activity (cha-ching!). They also advocate the right of minors to take potentially harmful substances without their parent's knowledge. To top it all off, you should not have to divulge to the person you are having sex with that you have HIV/AIDS. And to go even further, everyone should petition their governments not to have any laws protecting innocent people from having knowledge that they are about to have sex with an HIV+ person.

Is this really your belief? Every HIV positive person has the right not to inform someone they are going to have sex with that they are HIV positive?

If so I would love to understand how this will improve rates of AIDS around the world. I really would.

This is your spin. To me, and I am not entirely behind the thing, they are trying to encourage people to actual disclose HIV status.

Then they should not be advocating for people to get the laws protecting the innocent partner removed.

I really think if you could remove your blinders on this one, you would read it that way. As it sits, anything that remotely stinks of PP you reject.

Please show me the error of what I posted. I took only their words without twisting them in any way. While they mention all sorts of stuff about protection etc... at the end of the day, they ultimately believe that people's sex life is more valuable than the life of the person they are having sex with.

Like I said. Pro-life, making life worse for everyone. Lets just not talk about HIV, how about that?

Ah avoiding the difficult things.

Look, I have noted, you are reading through a distorted lens. They are not encouraging anyone to not disclose, they are doing just the opposite. It is your delusional thinking that not talking about things like HIVs is the better solution. It is YOU who are twisting the words.

Find anywhere in this brochure where it says you should not disclose HIV status before having sex? Show me anywhere they are not encouraging open discussion? It is so damn obvious you can't see straight on anything that has PP anywhere near it.

It says that you should not have to and that you should petition governments from having such laws.

read page 6
http://www.ippf.org...

this is your sticking point? Is that right?

"Some countries have laws that say people
living with HIV must tell their sexual
partner(s) about their status before having
sex, even if they use condoms or only
engage in sexual activity with a low risk
of giving HIV to someone else. These laws
violate the rights of people living with HIV
by forcing them to disclose or face the
possibility of criminal charges. "




It is like saying drinking and driving may not be the right thing for you and there are many alternatives, but it is your personal right and you should petition the government to repeal all drinking and driving laws.

This is what it says about drinking
"Some people have sex when they
have been drinking alcohol or
using drugs. This is your choice.
Being drunk or high can affect the
decisions you might make about sex
and safer sex. If you want to have
sex and think you might get drunk
or high, plan ahead by bringing
condoms and lube or putting them
close to where you usually have
sex. That way you won"t forget
them in the heat of the moment.
Your partner must be able to freely
consent to sexual activity. It is not
okay to have sex with someone
who is so drunk or high that they
are staggering, incoherent or have
passed out."

Apparently you missed the obvious analogy.

All this is clearly in effort to get people TO DISCLOSE.

Then why is it advocating that you have the right not to disclose your infection to someone you might realistically infect and laws that state you must disclose should be overturned?

Doesn't fly.

Well, you DO have the right, and the laws of countries are not necessarily respecting medical privacy.

So. Again, you are dismissing page after page of discussion about DISCLOSING HIV because you have the wording about trying to protect rights.

Yea. Right back to what I said to start. Your looking at this through your hate for PP USA.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 9:59:42 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 9:49:33 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:17:43 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 8:03:14 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/2/2016 6:47:48 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Last Line correction:

* However, none of this should come as a surprise since Planned Parenthood already makes is profit (sorry... surplus) off killing human beings, because the right to sex outweighs the right to life.

Alright, time for a dose of reality.

Planned Parenthood (in addition to only 3% of its services being abortion-related) has 2 and only 2 sources of government funding: Title X and Medicaid.

Really?

Yes.

That isn't how it works.

Pap Smear - 1 service
Pregnancy test - 1 service
Sonogram - 1 service
Abortion - 1 service

These and maybe more are all involved in one abortion. This is an easily manipulatable statistic. On a dollar percentage the numbers would be very different. Selling a $10 box with 2 pregnancy tests in it is different than a $500 abortion.

Sure. Prove PP is breaking the law by manipulating them.

They are under no legal obligation to do it either way. There is a perceptional advantage to break it down to make abortions appear to be a tiny insignificant aspect of their organization.

There are lies, damned lies and statistics - Twain (or possibly Disraeli)

The Department of Health and Human Services states that Title X funds cannot legally be used for abortion services, and the Hyde Amendment prevents Medicaid funds from being used for abortion services.

And what does that have to do with Planned Parenthood encouraging people to demand government rescind or not implement laws that require HIV positive people disclose their infection prior to engaging in sex. Is this the type of company you want responsible for health services?

Nothing, because PP isn't doing that. You're referring to an entirely different organization.

Planned Parenthood International - so you are claiming there are no ties of any sort between them and that they accidentally share a name? Has PP ever condemned PP international?

Are you willing to condemn PPI over this statement?

In short, PP does not use federal funds - that is, taxpayer dollars - to pay for abortions because it is illegal to do so.

Planned Parenthood ran at a surplus of $127 million dollars because of the money it earns off of abortion. Pretty good for a non-profit. Yet none of this has to do with abortion. A good try a deflection from the topic though.

I didn't take issue with anything you said except what I quoted.

So your original comment addressed nothing of the topic being discussed... You took issue with nothing?
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 10:02:28 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 9:59:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:49:33 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:17:43 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 8:03:14 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/2/2016 6:47:48 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Last Line correction:

* However, none of this should come as a surprise since Planned Parenthood already makes is profit (sorry... surplus) off killing human beings, because the right to sex outweighs the right to life.

Alright, time for a dose of reality.

Planned Parenthood (in addition to only 3% of its services being abortion-related) has 2 and only 2 sources of government funding: Title X and Medicaid.

Really?

Yes.

That isn't how it works.

Pap Smear - 1 service
Pregnancy test - 1 service
Sonogram - 1 service
Abortion - 1 service

These and maybe more are all involved in one abortion. This is an easily manipulatable statistic. On a dollar percentage the numbers would be very different. Selling a $10 box with 2 pregnancy tests in it is different than a $500 abortion.

Sure. Prove PP is breaking the law by manipulating them.

They are under no legal obligation to do it either way. There is a perceptional advantage to break it down to make abortions appear to be a tiny insignificant aspect of their organization.

So, in other words, nothing in reality supports your viewpoint, but you want to believe it anyway. Gotcha.

There are lies, damned lies and statistics - Twain (or possibly Disraeli)

The Department of Health and Human Services states that Title X funds cannot legally be used for abortion services, and the Hyde Amendment prevents Medicaid funds from being used for abortion services.

And what does that have to do with Planned Parenthood encouraging people to demand government rescind or not implement laws that require HIV positive people disclose their infection prior to engaging in sex. Is this the type of company you want responsible for health services?

Nothing, because PP isn't doing that. You're referring to an entirely different organization.

Planned Parenthood International - so you are claiming there are no ties of any sort between them and that they accidentally share a name? Has PP ever condemned PP international?

I'm claiming they're not the same organization, and they're not. So attacking one for the actions of the other is disingenuous.

Are you willing to condemn PPI over this statement?

Sure.

In short, PP does not use federal funds - that is, taxpayer dollars - to pay for abortions because it is illegal to do so.

Planned Parenthood ran at a surplus of $127 million dollars because of the money it earns off of abortion. Pretty good for a non-profit. Yet none of this has to do with abortion. A good try a deflection from the topic though.

I didn't take issue with anything you said except what I quoted.

So your original comment addressed nothing of the topic being discussed... You took issue with nothing?

Like I said, I took issue with nothing you said, except what I quoted. I proved PP doesn't use federal funds for abortions. That's all I cared about doing in this thread.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 10:05:58 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 9:53:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:48:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:38:57 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:21:03 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:06:30 PM, TBR wrote:
So not only does the brochure advocate for every possible degenerate sexual activity, and abortion to cover up the unexpected results of irresponsible sexual activity (cha-ching!). They also advocate the right of minors to take potentially harmful substances without their parent's knowledge. To top it all off, you should not have to divulge to the person you are having sex with that you have HIV/AIDS. And to go even further, everyone should petition their governments not to have any laws protecting innocent people from having knowledge that they are about to have sex with an HIV+ person.

Is this really your belief? Every HIV positive person has the right not to inform someone they are going to have sex with that they are HIV positive?

If so I would love to understand how this will improve rates of AIDS around the world. I really would.

This is your spin. To me, and I am not entirely behind the thing, they are trying to encourage people to actual disclose HIV status.

Then they should not be advocating for people to get the laws protecting the innocent partner removed.

I really think if you could remove your blinders on this one, you would read it that way. As it sits, anything that remotely stinks of PP you reject.

Please show me the error of what I posted. I took only their words without twisting them in any way. While they mention all sorts of stuff about protection etc... at the end of the day, they ultimately believe that people's sex life is more valuable than the life of the person they are having sex with.

Like I said. Pro-life, making life worse for everyone. Lets just not talk about HIV, how about that?

Ah avoiding the difficult things.

Look, I have noted, you are reading through a distorted lens. They are not encouraging anyone to not disclose, they are doing just the opposite. It is your delusional thinking that not talking about things like HIVs is the better solution. It is YOU who are twisting the words.

Find anywhere in this brochure where it says you should not disclose HIV status before having sex? Show me anywhere they are not encouraging open discussion? It is so damn obvious you can't see straight on anything that has PP anywhere near it.

It says that you should not have to and that you should petition governments from having such laws.

read page 6
http://www.ippf.org...

this is your sticking point? Is that right?

"Some countries have laws that say people
living with HIV must tell their sexual
partner(s) about their status before having
sex, even if they use condoms or only
engage in sexual activity with a low risk
of giving HIV to someone else. These laws
violate the rights of people living with HIV
by forcing them to disclose or face the
possibility of criminal charges. "




It is like saying drinking and driving may not be the right thing for you and there are many alternatives, but it is your personal right and you should petition the government to repeal all drinking and driving laws.

This is what it says about drinking
"Some people have sex when they
have been drinking alcohol or
using drugs. This is your choice.
Being drunk or high can affect the
decisions you might make about sex
and safer sex. If you want to have
sex and think you might get drunk
or high, plan ahead by bringing
condoms and lube or putting them
close to where you usually have
sex. That way you won"t forget
them in the heat of the moment.
Your partner must be able to freely
consent to sexual activity. It is not
okay to have sex with someone
who is so drunk or high that they
are staggering, incoherent or have
passed out."

Apparently you missed the obvious analogy.

All this is clearly in effort to get people TO DISCLOSE.

Then why is it advocating that you have the right not to disclose your infection to someone you might realistically infect and laws that state you must disclose should be overturned?

Doesn't fly.

Well, you DO have the right, and the laws of countries are not necessarily respecting medical privacy.

It is not medical privacy when your actions are about to infect someone with a deadly virus. It is called clear and knowing consent.

So. Again, you are dismissing page after page of discussion about DISCLOSING HIV because you have the wording about trying to protect rights.

One could write pages about the ills of drinking and driving. Yet if at the end you say, but it is your right to drink and drive and endanger yourself, those with you and others on the road - you have defeated your argument - particular when your message further encourages people to have drinking and driving laws repealed.

Yea. Right back to what I said to start. Your looking at this through your hate for PP USA.

You still haven't answer the simple yes or no question. Your evasion shows your inability to call out wrong by an organization you admire.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 10:22:04 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 10:05:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:53:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:48:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:38:57 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:21:03 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:06:30 PM, TBR wrote:
So not only does the brochure advocate for every possible degenerate sexual activity, and abortion to cover up the unexpected results of irresponsible sexual activity (cha-ching!). They also advocate the right of minors to take potentially harmful substances without their parent's knowledge. To top it all off, you should not have to divulge to the person you are having sex with that you have HIV/AIDS. And to go even further, everyone should petition their governments not to have any laws protecting innocent people from having knowledge that they are about to have sex with an HIV+ person.

Is this really your belief? Every HIV positive person has the right not to inform someone they are going to have sex with that they are HIV positive?

If so I would love to understand how this will improve rates of AIDS around the world. I really would.

This is your spin. To me, and I am not entirely behind the thing, they are trying to encourage people to actual disclose HIV status.

Then they should not be advocating for people to get the laws protecting the innocent partner removed.

I really think if you could remove your blinders on this one, you would read it that way. As it sits, anything that remotely stinks of PP you reject.

Please show me the error of what I posted. I took only their words without twisting them in any way. While they mention all sorts of stuff about protection etc... at the end of the day, they ultimately believe that people's sex life is more valuable than the life of the person they are having sex with.

Like I said. Pro-life, making life worse for everyone. Lets just not talk about HIV, how about that?

Ah avoiding the difficult things.

Look, I have noted, you are reading through a distorted lens. They are not encouraging anyone to not disclose, they are doing just the opposite. It is your delusional thinking that not talking about things like HIVs is the better solution. It is YOU who are twisting the words.

Find anywhere in this brochure where it says you should not disclose HIV status before having sex? Show me anywhere they are not encouraging open discussion? It is so damn obvious you can't see straight on anything that has PP anywhere near it.

It says that you should not have to and that you should petition governments from having such laws.

read page 6
http://www.ippf.org...

this is your sticking point? Is that right?

"Some countries have laws that say people
living with HIV must tell their sexual
partner(s) about their status before having
sex, even if they use condoms or only
engage in sexual activity with a low risk
of giving HIV to someone else. These laws
violate the rights of people living with HIV
by forcing them to disclose or face the
possibility of criminal charges. "




It is like saying drinking and driving may not be the right thing for you and there are many alternatives, but it is your personal right and you should petition the government to repeal all drinking and driving laws.

This is what it says about drinking
"Some people have sex when they
have been drinking alcohol or
using drugs. This is your choice.
Being drunk or high can affect the
decisions you might make about sex
and safer sex. If you want to have
sex and think you might get drunk
or high, plan ahead by bringing
condoms and lube or putting them
close to where you usually have
sex. That way you won"t forget
them in the heat of the moment.
Your partner must be able to freely
consent to sexual activity. It is not
okay to have sex with someone
who is so drunk or high that they
are staggering, incoherent or have
passed out."

Apparently you missed the obvious analogy.

All this is clearly in effort to get people TO DISCLOSE.

Then why is it advocating that you have the right not to disclose your infection to someone you might realistically infect and laws that state you must disclose should be overturned?

Doesn't fly.

Well, you DO have the right, and the laws of countries are not necessarily respecting medical privacy.

It is not medical privacy when your actions are about to infect someone with a deadly virus. It is called clear and knowing consent.

So. Again, you are dismissing page after page of discussion about DISCLOSING HIV because you have the wording about trying to protect rights.

One could write pages about the ills of drinking and driving. Yet if at the end you say, but it is your right to drink and drive and endanger yourself, those with you and others on the road - you have defeated your argument - particular when your message further encourages people to have drinking and driving laws repealed.

Yea. Right back to what I said to start. Your looking at this through your hate for PP USA.

You still haven't answer the simple yes or no question. Your evasion shows your inability to call out wrong by an organization you admire.

Look. IF this is your only sticking point, it should be noted how deceptive you are being. From the same page.

Strategies to protect yourself:
" Find out the specifi c laws in your country, visit www.gnpplus.net/criminalisation/ and
read Verdict on a Virus (IPPF, GNP+, ICW) www.ippf.org/en/Resources/Guides-toolkits/
Verdict+on+a+virus.htm or speak to your service providers or local support group.
" Open communication and trust are important for healthy relationships. At the same
time, it is also wise to take steps to protect yourself from criminalization. The best
way to protect yourself is to share your status with your partner(s) before becoming
intimate (including kissing, oral sex or full penetrative vaginal and anal sex). New laws
criminalising the transmission and exposure of HIV to others are based on whether the
person living with HIV has disclosed their HIV-positive status to their partner(s) or kept
it hidden. If you have disclosed to your partner, it could be a good idea to keep "proof"
that you have told your partner about your HIV status.
" Demonstrate that you have taken steps to reduce the chances of your partner(s)
becoming infected. This includes choosing lower risk sexual activities, using condoms
consistently and adhering to your treatment (if you are on ART).
" Get involved in advocacy to change laws that violate your rights. Contact your local
network of people living with HIV.

You are working hard to find an issue with the brochure, that is all.

You still haven't answer the simple yes or no question. Your evasion shows your inability to call out wrong by an organization you admire.
What is the question? Do I have a problem with this brochure? NO!