Senate to vote on defunding Planned Parenthood

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

I don't understand why they need funds from the government. Why can't they just be a private non-profit? I hope they try to defund it, even though Obama will veto it.

Because these sort of programs pay for themselves. Less burden on government services and all.

Universal euthanasia at 80 would also reduce the burden on government services, you know. I'm not convinced this is the best line of reasoning to justify this.

You got me - although I should add that I don't consider embryos persons, while I do consider granny a person and would thus object to euthanising her.

And that is where we differ.

You don't consider grandma to be a human?!

I was waiting for someone to make that joke.

All I will say is this: there is no intrinsic difference between a child a second before leaving the womb and a second after leaving it. Neither can survive on its own, neither can communicate with other people, neither understands the world around it, and so forth. With that in mind, at what point, if not implantation, can a definitive line be drawn between being human and not being human?

Yes, it's called neurological and brain development. Next.

[Simfan34]

You don't think it's not even a little disingenuous to suggest that getting a STD test and getting an abortion are comparable activities?

Nope, both are legal women's health activities.

So are taking vitamins or an eye examination.

I don't understand why they need funds from the government. Why can't they just be a private non-profit? I hope they try to defund it, even though Obama will veto it.

Because these sort of programs pay for themselves. Less burden on government services and all.

Universal euthanasia at 80 would also reduce the burden on government services, you know. I'm not convinced this is the best line of reasoning to justify this.

You got me - although I should add that I don't consider embryos persons, while I do consider granny a person and would thus object to euthanising her.

And that is where we differ.

You don't consider grandma to be a human?!

I was waiting for someone to make that joke.

All I will say is this: there is no intrinsic difference between a child a second before leaving the womb and a second after leaving it. Neither can survive on its own, neither can communicate with other people, neither understands the world around it, and so forth. With that in mind, at what point, if not implantation, can a definitive line be drawn between being human and not being human?

Yes, it's called neurological and brain development. Next.

And yet that process is nowhere near complete upon leaving the womb. Indeed, it does not conclude until decades after that point.

[Gass3268]

You don't think it's not even a little disingenuous to suggest that getting a STD test and getting an abortion are comparable activities?

Nope, both are legal women's health activities.

So are taking vitamins or an eye examination.

Yup

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

I don't understand why they need funds from the government. Why can't they just be a private non-profit? I hope they try to defund it, even though Obama will veto it.

Because these sort of programs pay for themselves. Less burden on government services and all.

Universal euthanasia at 80 would also reduce the burden on government services, you know. I'm not convinced this is the best line of reasoning to justify this.

You got me - although I should add that I don't consider embryos persons, while I do consider granny a person and would thus object to euthanising her.

And that is where we differ.

You don't consider grandma to be a human?!

I was waiting for someone to make that joke.

All I will say is this: there is no intrinsic difference between a child a second before leaving the womb and a second after leaving it. Neither can survive on its own, neither can communicate with other people, neither understands the world around it, and so forth. With that in mind, at what point, if not implantation, can a definitive line be drawn between being human and not being human?

Yes, it's called neurological and brain development. Next.

And yet that process is nowhere near complete upon leaving the womb. Indeed, it does not conclude until decades after that point.

Nowhere did I argue that completion was necessary ; it's quite obvious that I'm implicitly referring to a minimum criterion.

What makes us a human "being" is our human thinking. Logically, the place to draw the line is where the beginning of characteristic human thinking begins. I recommend Carl Sagan's take for a very logical and balanced approach to the issue.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Yeah I'm sure the liberal defense conservative outrage of this shady over this organization has nothing to do with planned parenthood spending millions on ads for democratic candidates

That's better.

[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.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

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.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former 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.

[Gass3268]

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.

Exactly, Planned Parenthood is not selling fetal tissue, they are donating it to research centers. What they are doing its 100% legal under the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act, which allowed research on human fetal tissue regardless of whether the tissue came from a voluntary abortion. A bill that even Mitch McConnell voted for.

[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.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

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.

No it doesn't, nice strawman though. Pro-choice (and to a lesser extent, even "pro-life") are umbrella terms, encompassing a wide variety of views on the subject. If you poll that there should be exception for the life of the mother, there is overwhelming (~75-80% iirc) support in favor. Partial-birth is the opposite. I am pro-choice because I agree with the scope and precedent Roe v Wade laid down, and that women should be able to get an abortion for any reason so long as it's before ~3rd trimester.

[Gass3268]

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.

Being Pro-Life essentially means Pro-Birth and nothing more. As Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B. said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

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.

Did you just really write out your entire post responding to only one prong of my two prong criteria? Seriously? For what it's worth, the neurological threshold should take precedence. Our brains, our thoughts, are what make us human.

WRT viability via technology, I must again recommend Carl Sagan's essay I linked above.

[Gass3268]

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.

Let us be clear, no fetal tissue (remember this is a fetus we are talking about, not an actual baby) is being sold, just the costs for processing and storing the tissue are being reimbursed, which is legal under Federal Law. Also the woman who had the fetal tissue extracted has to consent to it being used for research.

[Gass3268]

What you need to know about how fetal tissue is used for research

[ProgressiveCanadian]

No (Sane)

[Maxwell]

I'll be the black sheep here - I don't particularly care about them selling aborted fetuses. I don't consider it life before the third trimester, and with that being said, anything they do to what they have left is hopefully good science. If it isn't, so what?

That being said: I don't think we should fund Planned Parenthood anyway.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The use of the organs and tissue from the aborted does not make the abortions worse.  The problem would be if this need for medical research somehow leads to encouraging abortion, but there isn't currently evidence for that I don't think. (PP has enough other motives - both ideological and financial - to encourage abortion.)

But what being presented with this fact of research on the aborted in graphic detail does is elicit an emotional reaction, since it puts the attention on the body of the unborn, and the fact of the essential humanness in the fetus' physicality, and how these human body parts are treated so violently in the abortion process.  The value of the fetal body parts are precisely because these are human body parts.

Frankly, it is good for the pro-life cause to bring this up to change consciousness on the issue of abortion.  Making research on fetal organs and tissue illegal should not be the goal here, since the results of that research may at least provide some redemptive value to the killings.

[YaBoyNY]

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 ability to think. The ability to rationalize. The very things that make us human.

[Simfan34]

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 ability to think. The ability to rationalize. The very things that make us human.

...it does? I don't think this is accurate.

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.

No one ever claimed that anyone was arguing for abortion just before birth. The idea was was to raise the question of when and how one can try and draw a line between "living" and "non-living" or whatever distinction determines whether one would be killing a human being or not. The point here is that it is very hard to draw a line that isn't ultimately arbitrary, not to claim that anyone supports prepartum abortion or postnatal infanticide. That is a strawman.

For example, the word "viable" is nebulous. The boundaries of "technological and medical assistance" are not immovable, while, conversely, a newborn child cannot survive on its own outside the womb, either. Is it also "not viable"? Again, I ask that not to argue a point, but to emphasise the difficulty of trying to make these clear-cut distinctions when dealing with an issue steeped with ambiguity. "(Fetal) Thought" is an even more ambiguous concept.

As for the videos... no, there are no organs or tissue being sold on the "black market". But there are organs or tissue being sold. Planned Parenthood claims they're being "donated", but that's clearly not a settled matter. This latest video seems to suggest explicit profit-seeking; and I'm not sure whether they're still claiming that there's nothing illegal about them or if it is a fraud. I think I've heard both...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You don't think it's not even a little disingenuous to suggest that getting a STD test and getting an abortion are comparable activities?

Nope, both are legal women's health activities.

I'd say that abortion is far more comparable to plastic surgery. While sometimes it's done for medical reasons, it's most often done as a lifestyle choice, albeit one far more consequential than plastic surgery, and one done to maintain the status quo rather than to alter it.

[Classic Conservative]

YES(normal, sane, catholic, not a murder)

[Gass3268]

Indiana clears Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing after videos

[Rockefeller GOP]

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.

That's a very good post if you don't support late-term abortions, but many on the left do.

Personally, I think being pro-choice until the third trimester is the most sensible way to go.

[Bojack Horseman]

No, and we'll have the second government shutdown in as many years over this. The Ted Cruz/Steve Stockman wing of the Republican Party has drawn a line in the sand, saying they'll shut the government down again if Planned Parenthood isn't defunded.

As for the abortion debate, the only problem with abortion is the fact that not enough unfit mothers are having abortions.