Yantelope V2

Well at least according to Charity navigator PP is actually worse then Komen when it comes to administration fees. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4509 http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4338

The allegation is that the money going to them is not being used for its intended purpose and you are right that they are being investigated (which is what I said). Funding probably would have been restored if the investigation had found nothing anyway. One more reason why the outrage is silly.

It's not even an attack piece. Komen's website was hacked edit: defaced (they thought it was a hack at the time), There was a large public outcry. It's a simple piece calling out those people for being fools.

I think you're reading too much into the implication that it was PP themselves when he repeatedly referes to the "PP set" numerous times in the article above. Anyway, regardless of who the outrage is from it's still rediculous. Let me try to explain it a different way. Lets say you are poor and have $20 in your pocket and you're going to buy groceries. I walk up to you and give you $20 under the condition that you use it to buy groceries. You take my $20 and buy groceries with it then you use the $20 in your wallet to buy video games. Technically you used my $20 to buy groceries but in reality all I succeeded in doing was buying you videogames. That's why PP is being investigated. Komen is doing their due dilligence making sure the money they donate is being used on the intended purpose and people are raising hell over it. It's a preposterous and rediculous fake outrage.

Well, FWIW, metacritic shows THQ averages 2 points below average in their game releases. http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/company/popular EA is a 72 Bethesda is a 70 Activision is 67 Ubi is a 66 THQ is near the bottom with 64

I don't know, I tend to think that it's the talent inside of your development studios that decides if you live or die. I mean, Square Enix has been floating aloft brand names recently but I don't think they'll continue to do it with the garbage they've been churning out. Then again, it aslo depends on how many times people will rebuy FFVI. Due to content alone Darksiders and Saints Row will always be niche games I think. Maybe GTA broke through to mainstream success despite content but you also weren't beating people to death with giant dongs.

The article is saying that it's silly for PP and its supporters to piss and moan when they stop getting free money. It also brings up the previous point "Komen was retargeting the $680,000 they granted Planned Parenthood, not dousing it with kerosene and setting it alight."

So this article came out today that had me scratching my head a bit. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/40078/Just_how_badly_did_uDraw_hurt_THQ_anyway.php How did they think they were going to sell so much of this? Also, isn't THQ just in major trouble period because they don't have a single strong franchise? They managed to kill what potential was in Red Faction. UFC is not the NFL and Homefront is nowhere near being a competitor to either COD or Battlefield. Even Ubisoft has Assassin's Creed and Clancy to fall back on.

As an aside, it seems like if you were able to adopt more children out of foster care and into homes it would cost the state less money not more. It seems like reform would actually lower the costs of foster care. That's kind of a knee jerk reaction but I could be wrong.

@Dean: I didn't think Gerbil was being serious. You think that condoms would fix the starvation problems in africa? You're also making a claim to have some quantification for "psychological harm" as if the baby is going to be nothing but a source of pain for the victim. This is not always the case. No life is being lost by keeping a rape baby alive unless your arguing that it would completely psychologically destroy a person even if given up for adoption. Also, your final statment "You oppose abortion because you are told to." You're writing me off as a religious zealot. Just know that my beliefs are mine by choice though. My choice. @Kovach: I don't personally spend a lot of time or energy fighting abortion (outside of this thread I guess).

Don't worry, you'll get 5 more tomorrow and you can come back and neg me down again.

Oh I believe you, I'm not Catholic though. I'm actually a bit surprised nobody has posted this yet:

@Dean, Jack, Johnny: What makes it the mother's choice? Clearly she has no choice to end her childs life after it is born so is this going to the "it's her body she can do what she wants with it" argument? If it is then we're just back to the whole argument of when life begins right? Oh yeah, and agian, the reason why Christians "meddle" in other peoples lives is we're trying to protect what we consider life. I think I stated that already. Still a "when life begins" argument.

I tell you what, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. It's a two front thing for me personally. I mean ideally and religiously I believe that it's best for kids to be in a family with a mother and a father. Pragmatically it might be better for a kid to be in a gay household than in an orphanage. It's arguing ideals vs pragmatism. Ideally I wish every child could have a loving father and mother. We kinda covered this several pages back: If the parents/mother feels they are able to economically and emotionally support a child. That's where my point about Uganda comes in. Millions of children starve to death every year. Should they have been aborted?

Again, we already have that here. http://www.babymosesdallas.org/

@MrJack: Well then just quit beating around the bush and answer my questions. What is the determining factor in the quality of life which decides who should live and who should die?

Why do we have to provide a certain quality of life before we can fight to preseve life? Not sure what sense that makes. You're still dancing around the issue of "quality of life" which is garbage to begin with. You want to go around terminating every pregnancy in uganda because their quality of life will be awful?

It won't make their life worse like the baby will, that's for sure. It's comments like this which break my heart. I hate that people look at babies as if they were nothing but burdens. We put so much value on careers and money and free time and videogames and we place so little value on human life or the joy of parenthood. I said before that parenthood is about sacrifice, it really is, so is love and marriage and most of the very best things in life.

It's prejudicial to say that people who are anti-abortion are unwilling to adopt or take care of children who would be up for adoption if abortion were illegal. "people are so adamant in preventing the abortion of a non-person so that it can become a member of the foster care system" "people care so much about what is basically a non-person (argue sentience all you want, but until the late stages of pregnancies it's not a human) but as soon as the kid is actually born and dumped into the foster care system everyone stops giving a shit." You're basing these statements on what? Just because a kid is born and put up for adoption doesn't mean that pro-lifers stop caring about them. Or are you saying terminating a life is okay because it prevents "throwing more people into a broken system"? Is this going back to quality of life? Do you want to answer my previous quesitons on quality of life? @Dukeofpwn, nothing is fair about being a rape victim. Are you saying that aborting the baby will make that person's life somehow better?

Yes, two wrongs do not make a right. @6264 and Jack: I said it a ways back. I know a lot of people who would love to adopt but can't. My brother in-law just adopted his neice who's mother is a drug addict. You guys are passing judgment on perceptions of people not on actual people. Your comments are nothing but prejudicial.

@6264, we need to fix the broken adoption system. Fo sho. @Johnny, you don't see how the statement "You're meddling in other people's lives, possibly destroying all plans for the future someone has." cuts both ways? By definition that's what abortion is. Also, clearly the subject of when life begins is debatebale as we're currently debating it. @Dean, sure it costs the state tons of money to have the Baby Moses law but I'm fairly certain everyone prefers paying taxes for that to keep babies out of dumpsters. I know I do. To all the people who say "stuff happens, babies aren't planned". Take responsibility for your actions. If you got hammered and slept with a nobody and got pregrnant that's still your choice. If you have sex with a condom you're gambling that it'll keep you from getting pregnant. Still your choice, still your actions. Again, aside from rape, it's always your choice.

That's not exactly true because we have baby moses laws here in Texas anyway. http://www.babymosesdallas.org/ Have the baby and give it up if you don't want it. Also, with the exception of rape, people aren't making women get pregnant, they're becoming pregnant by choice. Women already have a choice to not have a baby without abortion.

Right, so before you can decide if people have a right to choose for themselves then you have to argue over when life begins and so it all ends with no hard answers and you have two sides who argue eternally. It's certainly not as simple as just following science or letting people do what they want though.