House votes to defund Planned Parenthood

[muzicman0]

My example is not exactly subject to that kind of error. The ultrasounds will show that a massive chunk of the fetus' head is missing.

 

For the sake of the hypothetical let's assume that we can determine with absolute certainty that the fetus will be born without a brain. Would you still argue that it is human life?

Does it meet the scientific criteria of human life? If so, then yes, I would. If the fetus doesn't show the criteria for life, then no I wouldn't. Hypothetical situations aren't really a basis for a debate though.

 

I'm not wanting to make this a religious debate, so I will leave my answer to the above, but there is more I could say on the subject.

 

I think you are right in the above post though...you won't change my mind, and I won't change yours. But...what I do know, is that I have a great job, and if I don't go do something...well, then, I won't have a great job...so, I'm signing off for a while...will check in later!

[carlfense]

My example is not exactly subject to that kind of error. The ultrasounds will show that a massive chunk of the fetus' head is missing.

 

For the sake of the hypothetical let's assume that we can determine with absolute certainty that the fetus will be born without a brain. Would you still argue that it is human life?

Does it meet the scientific criteria of human life? If so, then yes, I would. If the fetus doesn't show the criteria for life, then no I wouldn't. Hypothetical situations aren't really a basis for a debate though.

 

I'm not wanting to make this a religious debate, so I will leave my answer to the above, but there is more I could say on the subject.

 

I think you are right in the above post though...you won't change my mind, and I won't change yours. But...what I do know, is that I have a great job, and if I don't go do something...well, then, I won't have a great job...so, I'm signing off for a while...will check in later!

I think these types of hypotheticals help to focus and clarify the debate. I'd argue that the question of whether an absolutely unviable fetus could/should be aborted really gets to the crux of the matter. Maybe that's just a result of being subjected to the Socratic method for so long.

 

I don't think religion belongs in the debate. It's a scientific/opinion issue. Your religion will undoubtedly influence your opinion but I am uncomfortable with people who are willing to force their religious values on to others.

 

(Regarding the distracting from work part, I agree! That's why I've tried to stay out of the P and R forum! I get too involved and my work suffers.)

[strigori]

and just because it's legal, we should fund it???

 

I'm fine with no federal funding of abortions. No problem.

 

 

 

I'm reminded of an old quote about Republicans believing that life begins at conception and ends at birth. (i.e. Society has an obligation to make sure that all fetuses are carried to term . . . but after they are born we should ignore them.)

Very true. The people who want to cut funding to PP also are the same ones who want to make huge cuts in education, the various helthcare for kids programs, WiC and so on. Which if they are claiming they feel moral obligations due to their religion, then perhaps they should adhere to the parts that call for helping the poor.

[knapplc]

and just because it's legal, we should fund it???

 

I'm fine with no federal funding of abortions. No problem.

 

 

 

I'm reminded of an old quote about Republicans believing that life begins at conception and ends at birth. (i.e. Society has an obligation to make sure that all fetuses are carried to term . . . but after they are born we should ignore them.)

Very true. The people who want to cut funding to PP also are the same ones who want to make huge cuts in education, the various helthcare for kids programs, WiC and so on. Which if they are claiming they feel moral obligations due to their religion, then perhaps they should adhere to the parts that call for helping the poor.

 

You can't group everyone together like that in one large bucket. I don't want my tax dollars going to PP, but I think we need to dramatically increase education funding. I strongly support healthcare for impoverished people (especially kids) and I support WIC.

 

Further, the people I know who give most to charities are religious. My church gives food, clothing and counseling to the poor. I volunteer at the local soup kitchen at least once a year. Although I don't describe myself as religious anymore, the majority of my charitable actions happened when I did, and that's when I developed my sense of obligation to those in need.

 

There are some strong opinions on both sides of this debate, but lumping everyone you disagree with into one group of fail isn't the way to argue your point.

[carlfense]

and just because it's legal, we should fund it???

 

I'm fine with no federal funding of abortions. No problem.

 

 

 

I'm reminded of an old quote about Republicans believing that life begins at conception and ends at birth. (i.e. Society has an obligation to make sure that all fetuses are carried to term . . . but after they are born we should ignore them.)

Very true. The people who want to cut funding to PP also are the same ones who want to make huge cuts in education, the various helthcare for kids programs, WiC and so on. Which if they are claiming they feel moral obligations due to their religion, then perhaps they should adhere to the parts that call for helping the poor.

 

You can't group everyone together like that in one large bucket. I don't want my tax dollars going to PP, but I think we need to dramatically increase education funding. I strongly support healthcare for impoverished people (especially kids) and I support WIC.

 

Further, the people I know who give most to charities are religious. My church gives food, clothing and counseling to the poor. I volunteer at the local soup kitchen at least once a year. Although I don't describe myself as religious anymore, the majority of my charitable actions happened when I did, and that's when I developed my sense of obligation to those in need.

 

There are some strong opinions on both sides of this debate, but lumping everyone you disagree with into one group of fail isn't the way to argue your point.

I agree knapplc. I included the quote mostly because I find it funny . . . but also because it seems accurate in the most general terms. It's definitely not applicable to everyone who leans right.

[krill]

I hope all the small c conservatives stand up and reject the latest idiocy coming out of our legislature; LB 22 a bill to bar private insurers from providing coverage for abortions. Amazingly an amendment to exclude cases of rape and incest was struck down today. How does forcing people to pay for separate abortion coverage on their insurance solves anything? Like this planned parenthood business it's another attempt to limit access.

[huskerjack23]

Helping people make cost-effective decisions should be an essential priority, especially with something as important as child rearing. If you are pro-life, make sure that the life lives as well it possibly can. Planned Parenthood helps provide that service.

 

By murdering it? Let's be realistic here.

Apparently you read my post as pro-abortion when I was trying to express a point of the importance of child REARING as an essential service, not abortion as the service.

 

Planned Parenthood does other things to insure that parents and their prospective reproduction choices are as educated as possible. This is, I find, the essential part of Planned Parenthood.

 

Also, if you wanted to be realistic about budget deficits and drains on entitlemnent programs, abortion is a great option. (Modest Proposal style satire)

[mmmtodd]

my mom straight up told me that I wouldnt be here if she knew where to find/could afford an abortion clinic at the time. ( i can hear the g.d.'s ) good thing they didnt have google back then on the farm. she was 17. before you think, oh poor mmmtodd or the like, hear that she is glad she couldnt/didnt/whatever, and it was a very plain conversation overall. just honesty.

 

my aunt used to work for planned parenthood, doing marketing. (she is an expert grant writer, she has done the same for girl scouts of america, the arbor day tree farm, and now currently the Omaha Center for Literacy...she is also far from "religious") i volunteered with her one summer. i handed out condoms and brochures on safe sex. omaha people might remember sweet 98.5...embarrassed to admit one of them was at sweetstock, 'got' to meet blessid union of souls...ugh. did a radio remote with them too, right on dodge street. the whole gist was to get people to be tested for std's.

 

hrm.

[strigori]

and just because it's legal, we should fund it???

 

I'm fine with no federal funding of abortions. No problem.

 

 

 

I'm reminded of an old quote about Republicans believing that life begins at conception and ends at birth. (i.e. Society has an obligation to make sure that all fetuses are carried to term . . . but after they are born we should ignore them.)

Very true. The people who want to cut funding to PP also are the same ones who want to make huge cuts in education, the various helthcare for kids programs, WiC and so on. Which if they are claiming they feel moral obligations due to their religion, then perhaps they should adhere to the parts that call for helping the poor.

 

You can't group everyone together like that in one large bucket. I don't want my tax dollars going to PP, but I think we need to dramatically increase education funding. I strongly support healthcare for impoverished people (especially kids) and I support WIC.

 

Further, the people I know who give most to charities are religious. My church gives food, clothing and counseling to the poor. I volunteer at the local soup kitchen at least once a year. Although I don't describe myself as religious anymore, the majority of my charitable actions happened when I did, and that's when I developed my sense of obligation to those in need.

 

There are some strong opinions on both sides of this debate, but lumping everyone you disagree with into one group of fail isn't the way to argue your point.

 

I'm grouping the politicians together more than just people. And I can't think of any elected Republicans off hand who support the programs I mentioned. Most seem to toe the party line which is to cut funding from those programs, like the proposed budget that spurred this discussion included. And unfortunately, a great many voters make their selection more on the one issue of abortion, and forget about all the other programs I mentioned. So it essentially becomes an issue of 'silence is acceptance' Your views of actually supporting WiC and helthcare are definitely not the 'party line' for republicans.

[mmmtodd]

[knapplc]

I'm grouping the politicians together more than just people. And I can't think of any elected Republicans off hand who support the programs I mentioned. Most seem to toe the party line which is to cut funding from those programs, like the proposed budget that spurred this discussion included. And unfortunately, a great many voters make their selection more on the one issue of abortion, and forget about all the other programs I mentioned. So it essentially becomes an issue of 'silence is acceptance' Your views of actually supporting WiC and helthcare are definitely not the 'party line' for republicans.

 

OK, I gotcha. And for the record, I'm not Republican. Registered Independent for over a decade.

[carlfense]

my mom straight up told me that I wouldnt be here if she knew where to find/could afford an abortion clinic at the time. ( i can hear the g.d.'s ) good thing they didnt have google back then on the farm. she was 17. before you think, oh poor mmmtodd or the like, hear that she is glad she couldnt/didnt/whatever, and it was a very plain conversation overall. just honesty.

 

my aunt used to work for planned parenthood, doing marketing. (she is an expert grant writer, she has done the same for girl scouts of america, the arbor day tree farm, and now currently the Omaha Center for Literacy...she is also far from "religious") i volunteered with her one summer. i handed out condoms and brochures on safe sex. omaha people might remember sweet 98.5...embarrassed to admit one of them was at sweetstock, 'got' to meet blessid union of souls...ugh. did a radio remote with them too, right on dodge street. the whole gist was to get people to be tested for std's.

 

hrm.

 

Sweetstock! Good lord that takes me back . . . terrible music and good times. Let's say that my musical tastes have changed a bit.

 

 

 

Glad that you helped promote safe sex.

[74Hunter]

I know that I may be asking too much, but maybe people who can't afford birth control or a child shouldn't be having sex?

 

Shocking revelation, I know, and probably not too popular, but it is what it is. I understand the importance and the "good" of PP and similar clinics, but I have a hard time believing that our tax money should fund them.

Agreed, but the reality of the situation says that they will be having sex regardless.

 

Also, regarding the bold, I'd much rather our tax dollars be subsidizing condoms than subsidizing children. One is certainly cheaper than the other.

Helping people make cost-effective decisions should be an essential priority, especially with something as important as child rearing. If you are pro-life, make sure that the life lives as well it possibly can. Planned Parenthood helps provide that service.

I guess that this goes back to what is the responsibility of the government, and what should be personal responsibility. The reality is, people are going to have sex when they shouldn't, I understand. When will stupid/irresponsible people take responsibilty for their actions?

 

Why should my tax dollars be used to fund something that I may or may not support, especially when my tax money is going to the largest supplier of abortions? The other issue is how deeply involved to we want government to be in "health care" especially when it is indisputable that our government has been proven to be inefficient and the very least, if not down right corrupt and fiscally reckless? Edit: And, there is only so much tax money to go around, contrary to popular belief, the people are not a bottomless pit.

 

I don't argue that PP does mostly good, but I also am of the opinion that they are a front for and push the pro-abortion agenda.

Edited March 2, 2011 by 74Hunter

[carlfense]

I guess that this goes back to what is the responsibility of the government, and what should be personal responsibility. The reality is, people are going to have sex when they shouldn't, I understand. When will stupid/irresponsible people take responsibilty for their actions?

 

Why should my tax dollars be used to fund something that I may or may not support, especially when my tax money is going to the largest supplier of abortions? The other issue is how deeply involved to we want government to be in "health care" especially when it is indisputable that our government has been proven to be inefficient and the very least, if not down right corrupt and fiscally reckless? Edit: And, there is only so much tax money to go around, contrary to popular belief, the people are not a bottomless pit.

 

I don't argue that PP does mostly good, but I also am of the opinion that they are a front for and push the pro-abortion agenda.

Good points.

 

Regarding the bold, actually some of the strongest evidence about government involvement in health care goes directly against what you are claiming. The VA hospital system, once widely maligned, is now one of the most cost efficient and has consistently excellent reviews by it's users.

 

(Here is a good overview.)

[knapplc]

That wasn't always the case for the VA, though. They've cleaned up their act in recent years, but there were years and years of government mismanagement there as well. It's a mixed bag.