Senate to vote on defunding Planned Parenthood

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The money is being given to other organizations instead under the provisions of this bill, so I see no problem with it. Planned Parenthood provides some perfectly ethical services, but they are in love with abortion, and they sell parts of aborted fetuses. I see little reason they need or deserve to exist. If they want to see people get abortions so much, they can pay for their organization themselves.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If it isn't defunded, Congress should at least prohibit them from donating to political campaigns while receiving federal funds. I mean, Planned Parenthood is a corporation, and they engage in a lot of corporate money speech, which the left usually says is bad. It just seems weird that the feds give money to a non-profit which has lots of profits, enabling it to divert those profits into attack ads against Republicans.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If it isn't defunded, Congress should at least prohibit them from donating to political campaigns while receiving federal funds. I mean, Planned Parenthood is a corporation, and they engage in a lot of corporate money speech, which the left usually says is bad. It just seems weird that the feds give money to a non-profit which has lots of profits, enabling it to divert those profits into attack ads against Republicans.

I would agree with that but I like how Wulfric thinks one of the country's largest healthcare providers funds can be replaced without at least a shaky transition.

If a shaky transition is needed to show more respect to human life, it's something that we as a country should be willing to endure.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Fetuses aren't human though.

If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Fetuses aren't human though.

If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

What's the argument for a fetus being a human being other than the fact that, after birth, it becomes a human being?

Hint: There isn't one, and it's not a human while it's a fetus.

If they're not human, then what species are they? Alien? This is the most ridiculous argument the pro choice people come up with. Reasonable people can differ on whether they believe the fetus is alive. But the whole it's not human thing is stupid and completely nonsensical. Sure, it's not a fully formed human. But they're still human. Just because one's brain or heart isn't fully developed doesn't mean they are a different creature from what they will ultimately turn out to be.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Fetuses aren't human though.

If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

What's the argument for a fetus being a human being other than the fact that, after birth, it becomes a human being?

Hint: There isn't one, and it's not a human while it's a fetus.

If they're not human, then what species are they? Alien? This is the most ridiculous argument the pro choice people come up with. Reasonable people can differ on whether they believe the fetus is alive. But the whole it's not human thing is stupid and completely nonsensical. Sure, it's not a fully formed human. But they're still human. Just because one's brain or heart isn't fully developed doesn't mean they are a different creature from what they will ultimately turn out to be.

A fetus is a pre-human, not a human.

Sapience is the very essence of what makes us human. A fetus isn't sapient.

Take a fetus out of the womb at 3 months and see how well it works for you.

Per dictionary.com, Sapient means 'having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment'. Sure, a fetus doesn't have great wisdom or sound judgement, but neither does a toddler. Do we have to start calling a toddler a 'pre-human' now?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Fetuses aren't human though.

If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

What's the argument for a fetus being a human being other than the fact that, after birth, it becomes a human being?

Hint: There isn't one, and it's not a human while it's a fetus.

So than what is a fetus.

The post above you explains it, if you'd be so kind as to read it.

Fetuses aren't human though.

If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

What's the argument for a fetus being a human being other than the fact that, after birth, it becomes a human being?

Hint: There isn't one, and it's not a human while it's a fetus.

If they're not human, then what species are they? Alien? This is the most ridiculous argument the pro choice people come up with. Reasonable people can differ on whether they believe the fetus is alive. But the whole it's not human thing is stupid and completely nonsensical. Sure, it's not a fully formed human. But they're still human. Just because one's brain or heart isn't fully developed doesn't mean they are a different creature from what they will ultimately turn out to be.

A fetus is a pre-human, not a human.

Sapience is the very essence of what makes us human. A fetus isn't sapient.

Take a fetus out of the womb at 3 months and see how well it works for you.

Per dictionary.com, Sapient means 'having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment'. Sure, a fetus doesn't have great wisdom or sound judgement, but neither does a toddler. Do we have to start calling a toddler a 'pre-human' now?

That's an odd definition, since any reasonable definition wouldn't use "great wisdom."

Sapience is essentially the step above sentience. You can argue that a fetus demonstrates sentience, since it can react in a reflexive way to external stimuli, but it does not demonstrate sapience.

I looked around at other definitions of sapience, and pretty much everything has being "wise" or "sagacious (having or showing keen mental discernment and good judgement)" or "of sound judgment" in the definition. One version did have "intelligent life", but it was listed down in the alternate definitions with the notation "chiefly used in science fiction". Not the best word choice.

Based on your '3 months' line above, I think what you're trying to say is that because fetuses are incapable of survival outside the womb, they are not humans. Well, leaving aside the point that, by that definition, fetuses become human three weeks before birth (the last three weeks of pregnancy are completely unnecessary for the purpose of allowing the fetus to survive without an incubator's help), what you're also implying here is that dependency on someone else makes one not human. Since any human under 12 or so would surely die if left to survive on the streets absent some helpful bystander, what you are essentially saying is that humans are not humans in their first years of life outside the womb.

Ah, how an argument can fall apart.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

Being pro-choice means one supports all abortion, typically up to and including partial birth abortions, with no restriction at any point during the pregancy.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Susan Collins and Bob Casey take massive dump on the idea of defunding Planned Parenthood.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Kirk is going to vote against it and Murkowski may do so as well. No idea how Capito would vote as she's had a mixed record on abortion in the past. Only Donnelly and Manchin are currently question marks for the Democrats. No way this is getting 60 votes.

What about Heitkamp, Tester, and McCaskill? I know they're pro-choice, but they could easily pull a "I'm representing my state here!" excuse and get some help for their future reelection bids.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'm glad this bill failed. We Democrats have once again stood up to the Republicans' War on Women, and we must continue the fight to protect women's reproductive rights.

The Republicans are on your side.

Since when has legalizing abortion been in the beliefs of most republicans?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'm glad this bill failed. We Democrats have once again stood up to the Republicans' War on Women, and we must continue the fight to protect women's reproductive rights.

The Republicans are on your side.

Since when has legalizing abortion been in the beliefs of most republicans?

Not most registered Republicans, but most GOP politicians.  Republican-appointed justices handed us Roe v. Wade, and the current SCOTUS, though it is mostly Republican appointees, won't overturn it.  The GOP controlled all branches of government a decade ago and did nothing then too.

Roe is probably gone if the GOP wins the presidency in 2016. I don't see how Ginsburg makes it through 2020, and you can probably get past the Senate with a Huntsman-type - clearly pro-life, but otherwise quite moderate.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'm glad this bill failed. We Democrats have once again stood up to the Republicans' War on Women, and we must continue the fight to protect women's reproductive rights.

The Republicans are on your side.

Since when has legalizing abortion been in the beliefs of most republicans?

Not most registered Republicans, but most GOP politicians.  Republican-appointed justices handed us Roe v. Wade, and the current SCOTUS, though it is mostly Republican appointees, won't overturn it.  The GOP controlled all branches of government a decade ago and did nothing then too.

Roe is probably gone if the GOP wins the presidency in 2016. I don't see how Ginsburg makes it through 2020, and you can probably get past the Senate with a Huntsman-type - clearly pro-life, but otherwise quite moderate.

The Republican establishment wants Roe v. Wade upheld.

Yet the overwhelming majority of republican congressmen are solidly pro-life. All but three republican senators just voted to defund the biggest abortion provider in the country.

There is clearly no merit to your theory.