House votes to defund Planned Parenthood

[muzicman0]

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

[carlfense]

I don't get how people don't think even 2-3 cells is a human life. By what criteria are you making this decision???? By ALL scientific definitions, this would not only be considered life, but human life. The only thing I can figure is that it is convenient and helps people justify their actions and or beliefs to ignore the facts.

 

mm0

 

Meh. There are at least 500 policy issues that are more important to me than abortions. In fact, I think the whole debate is largely a result of politicians not wanting to tackle real issues.

 

You can argue that 2 cells is a person. Fine. That's your opinion. It's not fact. In my opinion, 2 cells is not a person.

[bennychico11]

I don't get how people don't think even 2-3 cells is a human life. By what criteria are you making this decision???? By ALL scientific definitions, this would not only be considered life, but human life. The only thing I can figure is that it is convenient and helps people justify their actions and or beliefs to ignore the facts.

 

mm0

 

the scientific debate on when life begins, continues though.

30-50% of fertilized eggs are lost before or during implantation into the uterus. Often so early that it goes on unnoticed by the female. That's one reason why I don't think life begins until implantation. Life can't thrive unless implanted. In fact 50 billion to 70 billion cells die every day in an average human being.

Then you've got the gastrulation phase which occurs around 16 days after fertilization. That's when the father's genetic code is fully implanted.

 

And each pro-lifer's opinon varies too. Some consider any form of contraception life-killing. Others see the morning after pill as an abortion tool.

[muzicman0]

I don't get how people don't think even 2-3 cells is a human life. By what criteria are you making this decision???? By ALL scientific definitions, this would not only be considered life, but human life. The only thing I can figure is that it is convenient and helps people justify their actions and or beliefs to ignore the facts.

 

mm0

 

Meh. There are at least 500 policy issues that are more important to me than abortions. In fact, I think the whole debate is largely a result of politicians not wanting to tackle real issues.

 

You can argue that 2 cells is a person. Fine. That's your opinion. It's not fact. In my opinion, 2 cells is not a person.

I didn't say it was a person, I said it was a human life. And it is fact. look up the definition of life. look up the definition of human.

[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.)

[carlfense]

I don't get how people don't think even 2-3 cells is a human life. By what criteria are you making this decision???? By ALL scientific definitions, this would not only be considered life, but human life. The only thing I can figure is that it is convenient and helps people justify their actions and or beliefs to ignore the facts.

 

mm0

 

Meh. There are at least 500 policy issues that are more important to me than abortions. In fact, I think the whole debate is largely a result of politicians not wanting to tackle real issues.

 

You can argue that 2 cells is a person. Fine. That's your opinion. It's not fact. In my opinion, 2 cells is not a person.

I didn't say it was a person, I said it was a human life. And it is fact. look up the definition of life. look up the definition of human.

Ah! So you admit there is a difference. Now we're getting somewhere . . . not sure you will like where it leads.

[bennychico11]

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

 

We don't fund abortions. Again, the money can't go towards it.

 

That money goes towards other medical care. If you don't think we should be funding HIV testing, cancer screening, contraception, sexual education, etc...then make a case for that.

But if you don't think we should fund Planned Parenthood because they do abortions. And you specially create a bill because you you think federal funds help PP free up other funds for abortions...then that's a bill of attainder. You've specifically targeted a group trying to defund them for an action that you think is criminal...when it's not.

[muzicman0]

and so, it seems that you admit, that 2-3 cells is human life. and I'm not sure you will like where that leads. If you believe that it is human life, then if you support abortion, you support murdering human life. period. whether you want to argue the difference between a human life and a person (in my mind a subtle difference), is irrelevant.

[muzicman0]

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

 

We don't fund abortions. Again, the money can't go towards it.

 

That money goes towards other medical care. If you don't think we should be funding HIV testing, cancer screening, contraception, sexual education, etc...then make a case for that.

But if you don't think we should fund Planned Parenthood because they do abortions. And you specially create a bill because you you think federal funds help PP free up other funds for abortions...then that's a bill of attainder. You've specifically targeted a group trying to defund them for an action that you think is criminal...when it's not.

That's a weak argument. Let's look at this. I have an organization the does two things. X and Y. I have only so much income that I can really only do one...X or Y. The government won't fund X, but they will fund Y...so all I do is move my money around so I can fund both. In other words, if the government gives money to an organization that does abortions, they are funding abortions. It's just accounting at that point.

[carlfense]

and so, it seems that you admit, that 2-3 cells is human life. and I'm not sure you will like where that leads. If you believe that it is human life, then if you support abortion, you support murdering human life. period. whether you want to argue the difference between a human life and a person (in my mind a subtle difference), is irrelevant.

 

If you mean human in that it could eventually be a person, I would agree. It's like saying "Ah! you agree that that sand, water, and cement is the Coliseum!" It's potentially a human, but is not a human yet.

 

So you do agree that a fetus is not a person? I'd argue that sometime between conception and birth it is a "person," or a "human life," if you prefer. I cannot agree that 2 cells is a human life or person.

 

Would you be morally opposed to aborting a fetus that is proven to suffer from anencephaly? Would you make the mother carry the brainless fetus to term . . . knowing that there is a 0% chance that it will survive birth? It's an extreme example but far from unheard of. If you argue that every time 2 cells join in the womb it is a human life worthy of protection I think you must argue that the mother must birth the brainless child regardless of this knowledge.

 

That's why I try to have a less rigid definition.

[muzicman0]

and so, it seems that you admit, that 2-3 cells is human life. and I'm not sure you will like where that leads. If you believe that it is human life, then if you support abortion, you support murdering human life. period. whether you want to argue the difference between a human life and a person (in my mind a subtle difference), is irrelevant.

 

If you mean human in that it could eventually be a person, I would agree. It's like saying "Ah! you agree that that sand, water, and cement is the Coliseum!" It's potentially a human, but is not a human yet.

 

So you do agree that a fetus is not a person? I'd argue that sometime between conception and birth it is a "person," or a "human life," if you prefer. I cannot agree that 2 cells is a human life or person.

 

Would you be morally opposed to aborting a fetus that is proven to suffer from anencephaly? Would you make the mother carry the brainless fetus to term . . . knowing that there is a 0% chance that it will survive birth? It's an extreme example but far from unheard of. If you argue that every time 2 cells join in the womb it is a human life worthy of protection I think you must argue that the mother must birth the brainless child regardless of this knowledge.

 

That's why I try to have a less rigid definition.

And I have heard countless stories (ok, countless is probably an exageration), of parents getting bad news, and it turning out to be false. Including me. We were told that our second child could have all kinds of problems, including downs syndrome. Well, she is healthy, and she has no health issues.

 

And again, the difference (in my mind) between human life and person, is irrelevant. But, I think we look at the definition of person differently. In my mind, a person has a name, favorite color, etc. a human life is just that. So, a person is more of a concept, where human life is the physical being.

[carlfense]

and so, it seems that you admit, that 2-3 cells is human life. and I'm not sure you will like where that leads. If you believe that it is human life, then if you support abortion, you support murdering human life. period. whether you want to argue the difference between a human life and a person (in my mind a subtle difference), is irrelevant.

 

If you mean human in that it could eventually be a person, I would agree. It's like saying "Ah! you agree that that sand, water, and cement is the Coliseum!" It's potentially a human, but is not a human yet.

 

So you do agree that a fetus is not a person? I'd argue that sometime between conception and birth it is a "person," or a "human life," if you prefer. I cannot agree that 2 cells is a human life or person.

 

Would you be morally opposed to aborting a fetus that is proven to suffer from anencephaly? Would you make the mother carry the brainless fetus to term . . . knowing that there is a 0% chance that it will survive birth? It's an extreme example but far from unheard of. If you argue that every time 2 cells join in the womb it is a human life worthy of protection I think you must argue that the mother must birth the brainless child regardless of this knowledge.

 

That's why I try to have a less rigid definition.

And I have heard countless stories (ok, countless is probably an exageration), of parents getting bad news, and it turning out to be false. Including me. We were told that our second child could have all kinds of problems, including downs syndrome. Well, she is healthy, and she has no health issues.

 

And again, the difference (in my mind) between human life and person, is irrelevant. But, I think we look at the definition of person differently. In my mind, a person has a name, favorite color, etc. a human life is just that. So, a person is more of a concept, where human life is the physical being.

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?

[knapplc]

Wow! You guys have been busy! That's a lot of posts in the last 30 minutes.

 

 

 

If nothing else, this thread illustrates the reason why abortion is such a difficult topic. Is it a life? When is it life? When is it murder, when is it not, what money goes where, yadda yadda yadda.

 

It's a tough issue. Opinions vary, and I'm just glad I'm not the ultimate decision-maker.

[bennychico11]

Wow! You guys have been busy! That's a lot of posts in the last 30 minutes.

 

 

avoiding work in my case

 

[carlfense]

Wow! You guys have been busy! That's a lot of posts in the last 30 minutes.

 

 

 

If nothing else, this thread illustrates the reason why abortion is such a difficult topic. Is it a life? When is it life? When is it murder, when is it not, what money goes where, yadda yadda yadda.

 

It's a tough issue. Opinions vary, and I'm just glad I'm not the ultimate decision-maker.

 

I think that's what it ultimately comes down to. It's an opinion issue. I don't think anyone should be forced to get an abortion or to pay for an abortion . . . but I also don't think people should be prohibited from them. This issue, perhaps more so than all others, is interesting to discuss but you will never really change someone's mind . . . no matter how compelling you think your argument is.

 

Anyways. I hope that abortions are safe, available, and rare.