92 of 97 Planned Parenthood locations called dont offer prenatal care...

[Kellhound]

There's no "glaring hole", because your argument is predicated on a false premise. Fetal "homicide" laws are not about "real" homicides; they allow the fetus to be treated as a legal victim, solely for the singular purpose of that particular homicide case and only under certain circumstances. They do not grant any sense of personhood whatsoever.



When the "inconvenience" involves the seizure of the control of one's own body and the decision-making process regarding such, the answer to that question is an unequivocal resounding "YES".

As becomes obvious the moment you analyze any other circumstance where you could theoretically abrogate someone's bodily rights over some other theoretical person's right to life. For instance, you cannot be forced to provide blood transfusions or bone marrow or whatnot against your will. They cannot even seize organs from your deceased body if you did not pre-emptively grant permission. You're granting a fetus rights we grant to no other person of any sort whatsoever. Not even dead people. That's why it's such an obvious answer. There's no dispute on these cases save for the case of pregnant women, which means all this isn't about right-to-life at all, it's about attacking women's rights and enshrining their purpose under the law as being child-bearing devices, not people. That's why opposing abortion rights is horrendous. Because you're inventing premises you don't even truly believe to pursue a goal you cannot otherwise justify.

The statement was to your statement actually. The point being that ones view is predicated on when they believe life begins and when it attains value.
I am also not saying it should be illegal, just that the institutions providing for it should receive no federal funding.

- - - Updated - - -

The reality of what happens when no one supports abortions:

Unwanted babies get tossed into a ditch to rot. (I would toss a rape baby there.)

Women die from medical complications that arise from unwanted pregnancies. (rape babies get to live, raped mother gets to die)

Women get tossed in prison if discovered tossing unwanted babies in ditches. (raped mother goes to jail with her rapist)

Tax dollars are spent on any unwanted babies found in ditches that did not die. (lets raise rape babies!)

There is nothing good that comes from not supporting abortions unless you consider living life unwanted a good thing. (foster care can't even handle the unwanted babies it currently has, but lets add more anyway, just don't ask YOU to help foster them, right?)

So you are saying that no one supports abortions and that without federal money none would be performed again?

My youngest daughter just so happens to be one of those unwanted babies, so your last sentence is false in the extreme. Also, there are very very few babies up for adoption in foster care, they actually go quite fast.

[TITAN308]

Aren't "designer" babies (and children) from overseas the current hotness for families that can actually afford to adopt and give a child a better life?

Hollywood is first place that comes to mind.

[Kellhound]

I ask, because the demands you're making of the government aren't reflective of Western government for over 100 years.

Which demands? That people pay for their own stupidity and dont expect others to pay to bail them out so they can just go do it again?

- - - Updated - - -

I hope you are as vociferous in your disgust of the private prison systems that'll house all those unwanted pregnancies in 20 years as you are of Planned Parenthood.

I am actually.

[Total Crica]

The statement was to your statement actually. The point being that ones view is predicated on when they believe life begins and when it attains value.
I am also not saying it should be illegal, just that the institutions providing for it should receive no federal funding.

- - - Updated - - -



So you are saying that no one supports abortions and that without federal money none would be performed again?

My youngest daughter just so happens to be one of those unwanted babies, so your last sentence is false in the extreme. Also, there are very very few babies up for adoption in foster care, they actually go quite fast.

Really?

Your argument that for all the bad that comes from not supporting abortions is the good that someone will be able to adopt an unwanted baby while tons of foster children are already in need of help?

So, you just want unwilling women to breed for free for women who can't have babies instead of women who can't have babies paying willing women to have babies for them?

Well, add that to the list of bad things that result from not supporting abortion.

[Endus]

The statement was to your statement actually. The point being that ones view is predicated on when they believe life begins and when it attains value.

And that's wrong. Worse, you don't even believe it, really, or you'd be all supportive of forced organ donations and the like. Do you think the government should be able to force you to donate a kidney to a stranger, just because they've decided you're a match?

Because if you don't, you can't honestly make a personhood argument for the fetus and think that has any bearing on abortion rights.

I am also not saying it should be illegal, just that the institutions providing for it should receive no federal funding.

With no justification beyond your subjective moral distaste, which matters to nobody but yourself.

[Kellhound]

Foster system always has a need for help. There has never been a time that it doesn't have a need for help. That is why they are called "foster kids" because no one is adopting them.

Most foster children are not legally free to be adopted, most that are are older. Being a foster parent is also far more arduous than being a regular parent.

[TITAN308]

So, you just want to force unwilling women to breed for women who can't have babies instead of paying a willing women to have a baby for women who can't have babies? Well, add that to the list of bad things that result from not supporting abortion.

Ok here is my trouble with your statement, your usage of the word force.

[Nekosom]

The statement was to your statement actually. The point being that ones view is predicated on when they believe life begins and when it attains value.
I am also not saying it should be illegal, just that the institutions providing for it should receive no federal funding.

Planned Parenthood provides these services because the government cannot/will not. I'd be happy as could be if the Federal Government had a program as comprehensive as Planned Parenthood. Cut off Planned Parenthood's funding and the extraordinarily valuable services they provide go with it. Yes, funding can provided to alternative services, but those organizations are in no position to provide the breadth of services Planned Parenthood does. Not to mention a number of them are Christian organizations who are against contraceptives (and thus, are functionally useless).

Your tax dollars don't go toward abortions. Period. How can that possibly not be enough for you?

[Total Crica]

Ok here is my trouble with your statement, your usage of the word force.

I saw that after I posted, realized it doesn't apply and amended it.

- - - Updated - - -

Most foster children are not legally free to be adopted, most that are are older. Being a foster parent is also far more arduous than being a regular parent.

All foster kids can be adopted. Are you a good enough person to adopt them is the question.

[Kellhound]

And that's wrong. Worse, you don't even believe it, really, or you'd be all supportive of forced organ donations and the like. Do you think the government should be able to force you to donate a kidney to a stranger, just because they've decided you're a match?

Because if you don't, you can't honestly make a personhood argument for the fetus and think that has any bearing on abortion rights.



With no justification beyond your subjective moral distaste, which matters to nobody but yourself.

If I see a person bleeding to death and do nothing, am I a murderer?

I am the only person whose opinion matter to me, and my objection goes beyond that anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Planned Parenthood provides these services because the government cannot/will not. I'd be happy as could be if the Federal Government had a program as comprehensive as Planned Parenthood. Cut off Planned Parenthood's funding and the extraordinarily valuable services they provide go with it. Yes, funding can provided to alternative services, but those organizations are in no position to provide the breadth of services Planned Parenthood does. Not to mention a number of them are Christian organizations who are against contraceptives (and thus, are functionally useless).

Your tax dollars don't go toward abortions. Period. How can that possibly not be enough for you?

Because none of it is the responsibility of the federal government.

[Total Crica]

none of it is the responsibility of the federal government.

Nor is caring for the unwanted children that result in not supporting abortion.

Who is going to clean out the ditches they land in?

[Kellhound]

I saw that after I posted, realized it doesn't apply and amended it.

- - - Updated - - -



All foster kids can be adopted. Are you a good enough parent to adopt them is the question.

That is flat out wrong. The foster care system's primary intent is to reunify families. Only after both parents have had their parental rights terminated by a court of law is a foster child free to be adopted, which takes years usually.

- - - Updated - - -

Nor is caring for the unwanted children that result in not supporting abortion.

Who is going to clean out the ditches they land in?

That is the responsibility of the state and local governments, as they deem fit.

[Total Crica]

That is flat out wrong. The foster care system's primary intent is to reunify families. Only after both parents have had their parental rights terminated by a court of law is a foster child free to be adopted, which takes years usually.

- - - Updated - - -



That is the responsibility of the state and local governments, as they deem fit.

And all of that is the result of not supporting abortion. None of which is good. Most parties involved wind up in "for profit" prisons.

[Kellhound]

And all of that is the result of not supporting abortion. None of which is good.

Sounds like what you are advocating is forced abortions for "unfit" parents.

[Total Crica]

Sounds like what you are advocating is forced abortions for "unfit" parents.

I do not want to force a woman to abort an unwanted pregnancy. I want a woman to choose for herself what she wants to do about her unwanted pregnancy. I want our government to support all healthcare choices she has available to her. I want our government to support all choices available to all of us when it comes to healthcare because healthy citizens make our country better.

[Nekosom]

Because none of it is the responsibility of the federal government.

Then argue that point. Don't get into this nonsense of "Well, a small part of this organization goes toward something I dislike, thus I dismiss everything about the organization." You don't think healthcare should be provided by the government. Cool. Still a terrible opinion, but at least it's a consistent one.

As for me, I support an organization that has helped contribute to an all-time low in unwanted pregnancies. That has helped a whole lot of dumb girls to have the ability to grow up to become smart women, because a single mistake didn't determine the course of their life. They provide a service who contribution will probably never be fully known. And I sure hope it stays that way.

[Kellhound]

I do not want to force a woman to abort an unwanted pregnancy. I want a woman to choose for herself what she wants to do about her unwanted pregnancy. I want our government to support all choices she has available to her. I want our government to support all choices available to all of us when it comes to healthcare because healthy citizens make our country better.

The federal government should stay neutral.

- - - Updated - - -

Then argue that point. Don't get into this nonsense of "Well, a small part of this organization goes toward something I dislike, thus I dismiss everything about the organization." You don't think healthcare should be provided by the government. Cool. Still a terrible opinion, but at least it's a consistent one.

As for me, I support an organization that has helped contribute to an all-time low in unwanted pregnancies. That has helped a whole lot of dumb girls to have the ability to grow up to become smart women, because a single mistake didn't determine the course of their life. They provide a service who contribution will probably never be fully known. And I sure hope it stays that way.

Then by all means, donate all of your money to them.

[Total Crica]

The federal government should stay neutral.

A government supporting any healthcare choices it's citizens make for themselves is a neutral position.

[Wyrt]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/u...=fb-share&_r=2

Live Action, whose website asks visitors to sign a petition asking that taxpayer funds for Planned Parenthood be cut off, has targeted the organization for nearly a decade. Live Action’s founder and president, Lila Rose, who has said she started campaigning against abortion when she was 15 years old, has worked hand in hand with James O’Keefe, whose undercover videos helped to bring down Acorn, once the nation’s largest grass-roots community organizing group, after a sting operation.

I'll take manufactured bullshit by an O'Keefe Clone for $500, Alex.



Also Statements made by PP:

Ms. Carter said that “100 percent” of the organization’s health centers would provide what would be considered an initial prenatal visit, which would include a referral for further prenatal services that would be available elsewhere.

“It is safe to say that not every single one of our health centers provides prenatal care, and we’ve never said otherwise,” Ms. Carter said.

Oh, O'Keefe?

Yeah, this is definitely fake.

[Endus]

If I see a person bleeding to death and do nothing, am I a murderer?

Obviously not, and I don't see how that's in any way relevant to anything being discussed.

Because none of it is the responsibility of the federal government.

General welfare clause. You're wrong, definitively and objectively.