Senate to vote on defunding Planned Parenthood

[Potus]

I agree with Simfan that there is no real difference between a child the moment before it leaves the womb and the moment after it leaves the womb. What characteristic does a human being have at the point of birth that it did not have a day before birth that provides the human its right to life?

The fundamental question in this conversation is, "When does life begin?" Many believe it is at the point of conception, others seem to think there is an intrinsic change in the baby in the moments before and after birth, while others tend to ignore this question and return to the safe, comfortable space of their own ideology and self-righteous defense of "women's health."

If every person, upon entering the abortion debate, considered this question, I think we would end up with an awful lot of "I don't know" answers. I don't think it is fair to have a little bit of intellectual modesty on such a complicated question.

Roe famously managed to protect the right to an abortion while explicitly looking to dodge answering the question of when life begins. Assuming that we do not know the point at which human rights are conveyed upon a human being, that leaves us with two options:

1. We can have abortion laws that are strict, stringent, and limit the number of abortions that take place. If this is the path we choose, the only moral consequence is that a couple of people are born that wouldn't have been born otherwise.

2. We can have loose abortion laws that don't provide strict protections and legalize the majority of abortions. This option has grave moral consequences seeing as our loose abortion laws do not provide protections for some human beings with the right to life. The moral consequences of this path has an uncomfortable and horrendous result: the killing of innocent human beings.

Planned Parenthood is a monolithic political force in favor of the reckless and dangerous second path I listed above. Not only is it a political supporter of moral bankruptcy, but it seems to be profiting off of that moral bankruptcy.

The selling of human body parts after an abortion is sickening, wrong, and immoral. No matter whether you are on the side of caution or the cause of recklessness, we can all recognize that the selling of aborted babies's internal organs for a profit is something that should not be legal, let alone taxpayer-funded.

The constant chorus "Women's health! Women's health!" that defends the radical and reckless path above does not, in any way, discredit the numerous abortion regulations that provide an exemption for the life of the mother and other medically necessary abortions.

In answer to the poll, yes. Planned Parenthood should not be subsidized by the American taxpayer.

[Potus]

The anti-choicers sure love to strawman in abortion threads:

We are not talking about aborting the day before birth, we are talking about a time where the fetus is not viable (i.e. it cannot survive outside the womb even with technological and medical assistance) and has not reached the threshold of fetal thought.

Nor are "baby parts" being sold on the black market. Fetal tissue samples that otherwise would've been discarded can be used to advance medical knowledge and save lives.

If viability is how you determine the beginning of life, then advances in medical technology mean life begins earlier?

I'm not understanding your logic here. Up to 35% of babies born at 23 weeks survived in studies from 2003 and 2005. I don't understand the relationship between human knowledge, ability, and technology and the right to life.

That is essentially your claim, is it not? Viability conveys the right to life?

Baby parts are being sold under the guise of "reimbursement." This is undeniable. Saying the profits are in pursuit of "life saving medical research" is a way to justify the selling, not to deny its occurence.