In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Abortion is murder based on someone's age so it definitely is a moral issue. Planned Parenthood should definitely be defunded.
It IS a moral issue. And THAT is exactly WHY PP should NOT be defunded! No federal funding goes towards abortions, so that is also a moot point (before it even gets brought up!). As for me personally- it isn't a choice that I would make in my personal life. For those women that must chose it, and those that donate the Stem cell tissue, those are lives not given in vain at least. Many lives have been given for far less/failures of humanity- which we often support and celebrate (i.e.- military service).
I wouldn't call it a moot point. Supporting a organization that kills babies even if
please please please please please don't strawman the issue of abortion. Fetuses aren't babies. A baby is already born. No one is supporting organizations that kill *fourth* trimester pregnancies, if you get my drift. This is not about post-birth killings.
Did you read my whole post? Many people view fetuses as human. That is the view that many people have. Thus it is an important moral issue that should be discussed. fetus = baby in terms of the value of life.
Abortion is murder based on someone's age so it definitely is a moral issue. Planned Parenthood should definitely be defunded.
It IS a moral issue. And THAT is exactly WHY PP should NOT be defunded! No federal funding goes towards abortions, so that is also a moot point (before it even gets brought up!). As for me personally- it isn't a choice that I would make in my personal life. For those women that must chose it, and those that donate the Stem cell tissue, those are lives not given in vain at least. Many lives have been given for far less/failures of humanity- which we often support and celebrate (i.e.- military service).
I wouldn't call it a moot point. Supporting a organization that kills babies even if it is not directly used for abortion is still a valid issue. Personally, I wouldn't trust such an organization. The military service analogy falls short in the respect that they chose to serve where the baby does not chose.
Many people still view fetuses as human, thus it becomes a tremendous moral issue with the murder of millions of lives taken place. Moral issues typically transcend governmental laws in importance.
I find that it's a very demagogic argument when you use the words "kill babies", but even if I were to accept that, let's not forget that a vast majority of their resources go toward actually helping women with their health and delivering babies. PP actually probably saves more lives than it removes by practicing abortions in some cases.
But it goes beyond that to my senses. Like I said before, the disproportionate need for abortions comes from multiple sources. One being the lack of sex ed. The abstinence classes and all that have been famously horrible at preventing teenage pregnancies. Also the lack of support to young mothers makes the prospect of having a baby pretty horrible when you're young and single. There are all these factors which line up and make having a baby horrible in the US if you're not in great financial situation, so instead of banning abortions and "deleting" all the benefits PP has to offer, you should take a step back and look at the problem with a larger perspective. Why do people get abortions, how do we make abortions a less appealing exit? Help young pregnant women instead of mocking them and they'll want to keep their child. Help the young mother after she gives birth so she can raise the little fucker instead of just tossing her out of the system like a piece of shit.
This is what happens now. We forced you to have a baby you didn't have the financial means to support, and now with a kick in the back you're going to fare for yourself in the Colosseum. Fight to the fucking death and don't be surprised when your kid turns out to have issues, and when you can't afford to put him through college, and when he has developmental issues because he can't eat enough, and he can't concentrate in school because he's hungry.
And at the end of the day the republican argument is that people are responsible for themselves. Fucking ironic, from my perspective, considering she stopped being responsible for herself when the government decided to prevent her from making the logical choice given her circumstances (which, again, were compounded into an unworkable mess by government inaction).
I've written more or less the information contained in this post in many places and it always astounds me that no one ever responds with anything even remotely reasonable to this. The plea of poor young mothers is swept under the rug as a small irrelevant problem, when it's actually fucking huge. If you're so intent on forcing mistake pregnancies to lead to births and babies, why are you unwilling to deal with those direct consequences? Let's say we've made abortions illegal, then we're putting children in the world. Simple as that. Now we take care of them and give them a fighting chance. A fighting chance is what I have because I'm middle class as fuck but Chad born of single mom Rita, he's fucking boned if he even makes it past his first year with whatever shit healthcare his broke ass mom can afford.
An internal Department of Justice memo leaked this week reveals that in the days leading up to last year's historic passage of a federal medical marijuana protections measure, the DOJ passed around "informal talking points" to members of Congress that were "intended to discourage passage" of the statute due to concerns about overreach -- concerns that would later turn out to be incorrect.
In May 2014, the House passed an appropriations amendment, introduced by Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and Sam Farr (D-Calif.), that blocked the DOJ from using funds to target state-legal medical marijuana operations. These historic protections for medical marijuana patients and providers were eventually signed into law by President Barack Obama as part of a larger federal budget bill.
This week saw the leak of a February 2015 memo revealing that before last year's House vote, the DOJ was concerned that the proposed amendment could effectively "limit or possibly eliminate the Department’s ability to enforce federal law in recreational marijuana cases as well."
Within a year of the amendment passing, though, the DOJ would decide that it actually wasn't that concerned after all. The department admits in its own memo that it no longer interprets the Rohrabacher-Farr statute as "placing any limitations on our ability to investigate and prosecute crimes involving recreational marijuana."
The memo, leaked by Tom Angell, a marijuana legalization advocate and writer for Marijuana.com, was slammed by marijuana policy reformers, who claim the DOJ "misled" or even lied to members of Congress in its talking points as a way of trying to smother the historic legislation.
Abortion is murder based on someone's age so it definitely is a moral issue. Planned Parenthood should definitely be defunded.
It IS a moral issue. And THAT is exactly WHY PP should NOT be defunded! No federal funding goes towards abortions, so that is also a moot point (before it even gets brought up!). As for me personally- it isn't a choice that I would make in my personal life. For those women that must chose it, and those that donate the Stem cell tissue, those are lives not given in vain at least. Many lives have been given for far less/failures of humanity- which we often support and celebrate (i.e.- military service).
I wouldn't call it a moot point. Supporting a organization that kills babies even if
please please please please please don't strawman the issue of abortion. Fetuses aren't babies. A baby is already born. No one is supporting organizations that kill *fourth* trimester pregnancies, if you get my drift. This is not about post-birth killings.
Did you read my whole post? Many people view fetuses as human. That is the view that many people have. Thus it is an important moral issue that should be discussed. fetus = baby in terms of the value of life.
Where is the line between where there is human life and where there isn't? I would posit that most people's opinion on the matter isn't really relevant since most people don't know enough on the specifics of biology to be able to say. Even if everyone agrees on the point at which we consider 'something' a life, to say there are no instances in which an abortion should be left open as an option or that we should just gut PP is absurd.
On August 07 2015 12:58 cLutZ wrote: If you don't think funding to PP is funding for abortions your are stupid, or a liar. It's fine to defend said funding, but you need to defend it with intellectual honesty.
It's against the law even! Ever heard of the Hyde amendment? WTF being stupid???
No you are, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of money. Let's say that have $100 pre government money to perform all their services and $125. There is no way to ensure that part of the initial $100 was not redirected to abortions because the extra was earmarked for other things.
So. Stupid, or a liar?
Edit, by the way, this outlook is supreme Court precedent with regards to first amendment establishment clause questions.
I have full faith in the right wing attack groups and have no doubt there would be a video about it on facebook by now. Though with the $900+ m Zuckerberg just donated, maybe they could privatize. I'd rather they stayed federally financed and regulated though!
Abortion is murder based on someone's age so it definitely is a moral issue. Planned Parenthood should definitely be defunded.
It IS a moral issue. And THAT is exactly WHY PP should NOT be defunded! No federal funding goes towards abortions, so that is also a moot point (before it even gets brought up!). As for me personally- it isn't a choice that I would make in my personal life. For those women that must chose it, and those that donate the Stem cell tissue, those are lives not given in vain at least. Many lives have been given for far less/failures of humanity- which we often support and celebrate (i.e.- military service).
I wouldn't call it a moot point. Supporting a organization that kills babies even if
please please please please please don't strawman the issue of abortion. Fetuses aren't babies. A baby is already born. No one is supporting organizations that kill *fourth* trimester pregnancies, if you get my drift. This is not about post-birth killings.
Did you read my whole post? Many people view fetuses as human. That is the view that many people have. Thus it is an important moral issue that should be discussed. fetus = baby in terms of the value of life.
Many people (7-8% of the world) believe all living things have the souls of humans.
But I don't really see how the opinion of "many people" should be enforced on everyone else.
It's s a technical point that doesn't politically resonate, but factually true. If abortion was a religion a significant portion of the funding would be a 1st amendment violation. IMO rl those portions are currently Hyde Amendment violations, and if taxpayers had standing it would be quite clear.
The solution to this is vouchers, in both problems.
What's especially remarkable is that Trump was one of the less extreme/more reasonable candidates up there tonight.
What are you doing to yourselves, GOP?
EDIT: And why on earth is no one ceding on abortion? A pro-choice candidate could easily win the Republican primary this year. The tea party is the smallest its been in 8 years and there's a huge chunk of moderate conservatives that are either pro-choice or simply don't value abortion as an issue. Speak to them and say there's far more important things to discuss right now. Stop playing to the religious right, you dummies.
I hate posting about abortion but I'm drunk because of the debate so oh well. The way I look at it is you have two separate "harms" to weigh. On one side you have the life of the fetus (note - not calling it human life), and on the other you have the right of a woman to choose not to go through a risky and extremely disruptive medical condition. I think the latter outweighs the former, pretty clearly. All life is not equal, and the life of a fetus is not as significant as the life of a "person." I'll concede that I don't know what the line is between a fetus and a "person," but it's certainly not at conception, and probably not for many weeks thereafter.
This isn't to say that I think aborting a fetus is objectively a good thing, just that it is the best alternative compared to forcing a woman to carry on with an unwanted pregnancy.
Also, in regard to PP, I'm confused about how people can think that government funds are used to pay for abortions. Less than half of the funding PP receives comes from the government, and PP spends far less than half of its budget on performing abortions. It's pretty easy for them to spend 100% of the money they receive from governments on non-abortion services. I suppose I must be stupid because I'm not lying : )
Maybe you think that they just shift money around, so that non-government funds are used for abortions that would otherwise have been used for other things? Still, that's a pretty lose definition for "funding" abortions.
On August 07 2015 13:50 Jibba wrote: What's especially remarkable is that Trump was one of the less extreme/more reasonable candidates up there tonight.
What are you doing to yourselves, GOP?
Right? The GOP is all rhetoric and they put themselves up against one of the best rhetoricians in the country.
On August 07 2015 13:52 Mercy13 wrote: Maybe you think that they just shift money around, so that non-government funds are used for abortions that would otherwise have been used for other things? Still, that's a pretty lose definition for "funding" abortions.
Its the Supreme Court's definition for "funding" religions.
On August 07 2015 13:52 Mercy13 wrote: Maybe you think that they just shift money around, so that non-government funds are used for abortions that would otherwise have been used for other things? Still, that's a pretty lose definition for "funding" abortions.
Its the Supreme Court's definition for "funding" religions.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gEB8QZr.jpg)
