We're not just talking about Latin America, but anywhere in the world: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?_r=1&ref=world No, very few pro-choicers oppose PP, and even many moderate Republicans support it. Conservatives punishing Planned Parenthood because they perceive it as committing a wrong (providing abortions) is the very definition of vengeance.
I didn't rationalize anything, I raised an obvious question and said it was beside the point. One that you also seem to be missing. Maybe the evidence you speak of is solid, maybe it isn't, I don't know, I haven't researched it. But I suspect many pro-lifers would challenge it. Why can't they just be sincerely disagreeing with you and your evidence? I'm not sure what you expect me to produce as far as evidence. I know a number of them personally. And virtually every Libertarian I've ever heard or spoken to is pro-choice, yet opposes taxpayer money being used to fund PP in any capacity. Lots of people disagree with using taxpayer funds to provide for someone else's healthcare. Do you really think they're all acting purely on vengeance?
And? What does that have to do with today? It was founded by a racist who wanted and believed in eugenics. She wanted forced sterilization or to send people to be segregated from the general population. Funny you did not debate on my Sanger thread Grannie most you pro-aborts ran from that one. LOL
Recently Mitt Romney said, " "Planned Parenthood, we're gonna get rid of that," in an effort to appeal to the conservative base. "Getting rid of Planned Parenthood" goes far beyond an objection to funding health care.
You're still missing the point here. You're suggesting that if someone doesn't agree with your position and the studies you cite, then therefore they must be insincere, or acting out of vengeance. You're just wrong here. There's a large portion of the Tea Partyers, the entire Libertarian Party, and many fiscally conservative/socially liberal Republican voters who are pro-choice but oppose PP. Spending us into insolvency through all of these publicly funded programs has become much more important than the social issues. Why do you call it punishing? This is what I'm not understanding. Of course they want to end PP because they disagree with it's mission, but you're not willing to say it that way. As I mentioned earlier, everything from you has to be an ad hominem attack.
Let's be fair here, Cady, and put it in context. Here is the actual quote: The test is pretty simple. Is the program so critical, its worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And on that basis, of course you get rid of Obamacare; thats the easy one. Planned Parenthood, were going to get rid of that. The subsidy for Amtrak, Id eliminate that. The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities. So be honest, is he trying to appeal to the socially conservative base or the Tea Partyers? And is he acting in "vengeance" against Amtrak as well? The NEA?
Both are anti-abortion. Did he say he would "get rid of" those? Are you seriously trying to claim that Republicans' purpose for defunding Planned Parenthood is entirely based on reducing federal spending? Polls show that over 60% of Americans support the funding of PP. Who does that leave in the 30% who don't support it? "Of course they want to end PP because they disagree with its mission." How is "ending it" NOT punishment? I don't understand why you call it an ad hominem attack.
Junkieturtle said, They have to do with your body. The law says a seat belt must be touching your body if you want to drive a car. Or you will be ticketed. Can you sell a body part if you want too? Do you think it should be legal to sell fetal body parts? " You see, for a democracy to work right, it can't always be one side saying "my way or the highway" buddy. It means giving something up you believe in, or part of it, so that other stuff you believe in can happen. You don't understand compromise and it's necessity in a nation full of hugely varied people? I find that hard to believe. Personally, I believe there ought to be limits, but if it came down to a black or white issue like you want it to be, I'd side with unlimited abortion over no abortion." So should we allow a "little rape"? How about being lenient not he husbands who are married who force sex on their wives? How about "a little child abuse"? How about "a little stealing"? How about " little" racism ? A "little" child pornography? What do you think should be limited? How many times a woman can kill? LOL You can make excuses until the cows come home but if an officer comes into your home and you have illegal drugs .your in trouble. I know this for a fact as I know someone it happened to. And do not call me dense ok skippy. And so does alcohol but that is not illegal to do around kids. IF ALCOHOL IS LEGAL THEN DRUGS SHOULD BE TOO DONT YOU AGREE? WHAT IS WRONG WITH DRUGS? BELONGS TO THE MOTHERS BODY. Ok let me give you some biological facts. The fetus is not part of the woman. It is a distinct and separate human life. Louise Brown the worlds first test tube baby .was not a part of her mother. She was only placed there after she was conceived in a Petri dish and her life began. Fetuses do not share organs they have their own DNA fingerprints. Who do you think you are? Grow up I mean really .. Morals are not something you would ever consider .so that makes everything acceptable for you. That is moral relativism. Right and wrong do not matter. What a way to live how do you do it? How do you teach your children right from wrong if you can't identify it yourself? Most pro-aborts don't have the guts to stand up .they are content to look away and blame. No it isn't. The man should be let off the hook. Where the mans rights? You make it all about the woman. Your reversing sexism. If its all about the woman's body .then baby, its totally in her ballpark and she should have to take responsibility for the entire thing .from conception to birth and after should the man not want to be involved. No court should force a man to do what he does not want to do. I did not mean it literally but figuratively. But now that you mention it what difference does it make a stranger is a stranger .and the fact is there are people that would take your child to get an abortion. I can't imagine any responsible parent wanting this to happen .only one who basically does not care who would rather someone else doing the dirty work in this case the abortion. And for your information I would certainly not take any daughter of yours to kill her child, especially behind your back. I am a mother and part of being a mother is being responsible to my child. And if my child wanted an abortion she would find someone else to take her I would NOT BE A PART OF IT. Driving someone to get an abortion aiding in anyway is being a part of the whole process .I would never do it. I know abortion very well I killed my own child in the late seventies. Did not bother me for years and then it hit. I suffered depression suicidal thoughts most women suffer in silence and are to afraid, to embarrassed to admit they had one. I have worked in this field for over ten years counseling post abortive women. I am very active politically and protest regularly at PP clinics. No its based on the right to life of the unborn something you do not recognize. And for me that is an immoral position. And this goes both ways ..your position does not affect me. We are here on this debate site sharing opinions thats it. No you don't you do not recognize all human life. I don't hate you I just think your position is immoral. And from what I have seen and experienced with people with the same views it colors their entire worldview on different issues. This is a joke a complete joke. Its laughable because our laws will hold someone liable for killing the unborn. What happened to Scott Peterson? LOL You don't have any idea what your talking about and it shows. You champion the right of abortion. And the abortionists goal is to kill the human life in the womb. If it was apart of the mother ..the mother would also die. LOL Is there something wrong with abortion? If there is then why do you condone it? And if there is nothing wrong with it as the case you have presented here then wear the label proudly. You are a piece of cake to read and I could care less what you think about my posts. Yes I do. You have very clearly shared your position on abortion so that much I know. I could care less about anything else about you. I find your position immoral. No its a sad day for the unborn not me. If you don't know and have no researched this then it ends here. Your ignorance is not worth continuing this. Science is clear that the life in the womb is human .that is a fact. " Which is why I question your morality.
Of course I believe it is her choice, but sometimes on controversial issues(and especially with emotional ones like this is) you have to find some middle ground. That's how politics works, and business, and even social relationships. Instead of having nothing or everything, which only pleases one side, you meet in the middle. I know you understand compromise, and it's necessity. All of your examples, again, depend on external sources. Having the drugs, finding the drugs, making the drugs, putting other people's lives in potential danger. People CAN drink with their kids present at bars or sporting events, but if they drive that car after drinking, that's a no-no, because that puts other people's lives in danger. And also, just because it's illegal now, doesn't mean it should be, or I could easily make the argument that abortion is right because it's legal right now. No, it does, you just won't admit it because you don't like my position. I am also for morals, but you're putting forth the argument that just because one of my morals conflicts with yours, that I have none. That's a fallacy. Morals are also relative, not absolute as you'd like them to be. They may be absolute to you, but not to the next person or the next person after that. Yes, I AM a moral relativist, because I'm not so arrogant to think that the morals I have should apply to every single other person in the entire world, thus depriving them of their choice to choose for themselves. And, life is not black and white, and any attempts to judge it in such a way is to deliberately ignore the near limitless spectrum of emotion and opinion in the world. Only someone arrogant enough to think they've got it all figured out, for every situation that could ever possibly occur in anyone's lives, would believe in moral absolutism, in my opinion. It's very sad, and that's why war is ugly. It's why I believe in entitlement programs instead of people living on the streets. I don't want to give them the easy life, just a roof, food, clothing, education, and medicine. I don't care if their house is bare and they are wearing clothes that are for the opposite gender. Just the basics you need to live, because I believe that's the humane thing to do. Seriously, I know you think you've got me figured out based on this one position I have. If you're sure of it, ask me some questions and see if my answers match your predictions Ms. Warwick. Yes, you should be able to, and no, fetal parts should not be able to be sold. That creates a market for them, and that creates a potential for coercion for women and more abortion. I'm not in favor of "more" abortion. I'm in favor of each woman deciding for themselves whether they want one or not. Bad examples as those all involve violating the rights of others without their consent. A fetus has no rights, and shouldn't, because it's not a person. The key word here is "have". If you are in possession of illegal drugs and the officer sees them, yes, you get in trouble. Possession of drugs does not include the drugs you may already have in your system. So the fetus can survive outside the body then, if it's a separate part? Why not just transfer it then, since you believe it is it's own entity? I know who I am. Who are you? And for your information, I was the tallest kid in my grade up until high school. My mother had trouble finding pants for me. Sexism does not apply here because when it comes to pregnancy, the man and the woman are inherently unequal. This isn't a case of one sex getting special treatment in the same set of circumstances. A man cannot become pregnant. It is anatomically impossible without some kind of weird operations and whatnot(and in the event that a man DOES become pregnant, the choice to abort would be his just like it is a woman's now). The only way this is sexist is if you tell a man he can't have an abortion, but a woman can. I'm sorry for the experience you had, and I respect that you use your time to help others, as well as exercise your free speech rights by protesting something you don't agree with. That's right, I don't recognize it. That's the entire crux of the debate. And yes we are here to share opinions. I don't expect anything I say to change your mind, just like I'm sure you have no expectations of changing mine. I come here to learn about other people's opinions and perspectives, and to learn about my own. Maybe there's information I wasn't aware of, or a perspective I haven't been exposed to. Using a law as justification that something is "right" or "wrong" is not a very good idea. The law is not universal, it's just a measure of the relative morality of the people who create it. I will wear my label proudly and I do. I am not afraid to tell anyone that I'm pro-choice. But you can't equate being pro-choice with being pro-abortion, because I can be pro-choice and hate abortion, just like being in favor of war when it's necessary does not make me in favor of killing innocent people during the course of it. I would like to see a world with no abortion, but only if it comes to pass because people have simply chosen not to have them, not because someone was able to change the law(which wouldn't get rid of abortion anyway, nor make a sizable dent in the percentage of women who have them, as evidence over the years has shown). Okay that's fine. I don't find your position to be immoral, just selfish. But if you don't care to actually learn about me, stop telling me you have me all figured out, mmmkay? [/QUOTE]
Not true. 35-40% of Tea Partyers are pro-choice. Yes. Surely you read the quote, no? "Eliminate" would be synonymous with "get rid of". I've claimed no such thing. I'm simply asking you to present a fair argument and place quotes in their proper context. Again, you're not being intellectually honest here. Let's tell the whole story. 43% of all Americans support the cutting off of federal funding to PP. 19% of Democrats and 47% of Independents support defunding it. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institute...titute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1563 Surely there's a lot of pro-choicers in there, you'll agree? Rather than address the arguments that pro-lifers have offered as their reason for wanting to defund PP, you've simply attacked them personally by calling them vengeful, among other things. That is the very definition of an ad hominem. I'm not sure why you can't understand this.
Spare me .. It's like when lifers try and claim "Its not because of Religious reasons" that they are lifers. While this argument is not quite parallel (I have never heard a valid "non religious" argument against abortion) .. there are some valid secular arguments against Planned Parenthood.. It is just that most of the folks against PP do not know what the valid argumetns are so they default to platitudes they have heard to hide their true reasons which are religious.
Junkieturtle Do you think you could compromise on the rape issue? Say all those outside marriage .would get lighter sentences than those not married if convicted of rape? There are illegal drugs and legal drugs that is a fact. You get caught with illegal drugs you are in trouble. Come live in Arizona why don't you. We have tough laws both with alcohol and drugs. You do not want a DUI or to get caught with a joint. I find your position repulsive. Morals? Which ones may I ask? I am saying I just bet I could profile what you are all about just based on your abortion position. So if you think child pornography is ok and I don't we are both right? Substitute rape, incest, bank robbery, sharia law, prostitution etc. Is murder sometimes ok? If so in what instance? Is rape ok? In which instances? That is why I would doubt you believe in God. I'm Right? Because God would tell you what you were doing might be wrong and in your eyes there is no such thing as wrong .not if someone thinks its right. Its totally in the eyes of the beholder. Infanticide good and bad. Molestation ..good and bad. Your loop holes allow evil to triumph. And if any country in the world operated by what you say here we would live in utter chaos. Why would war be ugly? I think war is good. So I am right based on your beliefs. LOL Why would you say its ugly? Some people deserve to die don't you think? I do. And because there is no right and wrong .we both are right. HAHA Wait ..your a moral relativist. No right and wrong .my body is mine to do with what I want. So if I want to have abortion after abortion to make money .what right do you have to stop me. This market should be allowed. You are for abortion because why? Its the woman's body. Now you want to deny her her rights. The unborn is not a person like you said so hey who cares. And if abortion is not wrong .then whats the problem and why do you say your not in favor of more of it? LMAO Oh you pro-aborts kill me. Of course no pun intended. You get stopped by the police for an infraction of any kind and they suspect you are under the influence they can drug test you even if they find no drugs on you. So the sperm is a gift and the father should not be held liable even after birth. It is getting special treatment however because the life inside the woman contains half the mans DNA. What is unfair is the courts telling the man that he has to pay financially if he does not want too. Why wouldn't you be proud to be pro-abortion? You yourself said it was nothing and should get no rights? LOL Yea right I get it. Prochoice is pro-abortion .the same thing. You OPPOSE PROTECTION FOR THE HUMAN LIFE IN THE WOMB. Why would you hate abortion? Yea right. Oh cry me a river you would like to see .yea haha. Your world has no rights or wrongs you said so yourself. It is not immoral I don't like killing you do. I could care less who you are. Our world views are like night and day because I believe that there is a right and a wrong. If there is an accident at the corner and a police officers interview Eyewitnesses..and there are ten different stories that does not change the truth .that there was only one right way the accident happened .even if no one got it right. For you it does not matter what the truth is.
Doesn't that mean the overwhelming majority is anti-choice? I read the quote, did you? Romney said to "get rid of" Obamacare and Planned Parenthood. He said he would eliminate the subsidy "for Amtrak...The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities.” Let's tell the current story. Your poll is over a year old. Recent polls are quite different: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm Wrong, I have addressed precisely the arguments that pro-lifers have offered for defunding PP which clearly show their motive is vengeance. Statements by GOP candidates overall do not reflect a concern for decreasing spending as much as they show contempt for Planned Parenthood. Included in many of the statements are unproven allegations by pro-lifers and vicious propaganda. http://www.sba-list.org/suzy-b-blog...efuls-tell-sba-list-defund-planned-parenthood
And, I didn't say it was, did I? And smothering a child born in a botched abortion isn't killing, is it, Cady? Killy a fetus at 7-months, when it is viable outside the mother, isn't killy, is it, Cady? Anything for you convenience is the prime directive, isn't it, Cady?
Not that it happens often, but yes, infanticide--killing a born child--is killing and illegal and is not abortion. Late term abortion after viability is illegal, what is your point?
Sorry, Cady. It happens all the time. It's that "emotional health of the mother" exception. We have abortion on demand for nine months and then even after birth if the doctor is quick in ordering the nurse to kill the baby.
I highly doubt that happens often. In any case, I think even most pro-choice people would agree that killing a baby after it's born is not what they signed up for when they supported abortion. It's certainly not my position.
How could it possibly happen "all the time" when only a tiny percentage of abortions occur after viability for any reason? http://www.ppacca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139571
Junkieturtle said, Don't feel like you can answer this one eh? LMAO WEll of course you don't want to touch it there was no way out for you. Yet you talk about cars in this statement ... and prostitution in this one ..sigh. You think you think .hey underaged girls can get abortions and they obviously have sex all the time. Its natural and it happens so what? LOL What do birth defects matter? Or are you with Sanger all children from undesirables need to die? You said there was no right and wrong you are a moral relativist remember. So if a man robbed a bank to feed his starving family .it would not be wrong would it? If you are a moral relativist then both these should be ok. It should not be your right to tell a Muslim that sharia law is wrong. Who gives you or anyone else the right to do this? It does not matter if its religious or not. People of religion have the right to live like they want you do don't you? And your taking the choice away from that which you target in the womb to death ..so don't tell me about taking away choice. You do it. Well heck that was a no brainer. And because of this your entire worldview is obvious. You don't care about morality you are a moral relativist remember. Something could be true for one person but not for another you say but you imply that it is applicable to everyones beliefs but your own. So if your statement hangs logically and is consistent then if something is true for you then I see no reason to think it should apply to me. In this case .abortion should be legal throughout the entire nine months and even you proaborts should not be laws on the woman to restrict her. You can't say that nothing is universally true and then your view is universally true. This type of thinking falsifies itself. Relativism as a worldview is not livable. I will say this about God. If He does not exist everything goes which would explain your thinking. Without God morality is arbitrary. If we had citizens who stood up for what was right and voted out of office the corrupt we would not be in this mess. Or is the whole of humanity corrupt? They get away with what the people allow. And we are a nation of people who do not care and do not really know what is going on. And your opinion of abortion is your own. So how can you say you would deny a woman an abortion if she wanted one at nine months. How can you say abortion is bad? And science has been known to have made mistakes. It also searches for the truth and meaning. And many times it has made mistakes. You are implying abortion is wrong which means you think there is a right. The fact that you do not stand up for the right amazes me. But you forget .to me this issue is the most important. Moral relativism takes away any reason to live or think morally and cultivate character. Thus ..the problem we as a society is having today and why you think killing a living human being is ok. Then you think that you could have stood by as the Jews were being marched into the gas chambers? Could you also stand by knowing your neighbor is beating his kids? wife? Stand by if someone you know is into child pornography? You are a relativist, one who rejects God so no rules no boundaries What is true for you might not be true for me. Sigh. Because you're operating a motor vehicle. When it comes to the pregnancy, the father's responsibility ends after the intercourse that leads to conception. He doesn't bear the physical responsibilities of the pregnancy, nor any health effects that can occur during and after it. Plus, it most certainly not the father who can sometimes die during child birth. So to say he should have an equal say in what's occurring ENTIRELY on the woman's shoulders is just wrong. That's the wrong analogy, because there's nothing moral about whether an accident happened or not. There's nothing moral about the accident being the fault of the person who broke the law, or who actually caused it through their own actions.[/QUOTE]
Most abortions after the cut off date .are done ILLEGALLY. So do you think any statistic would be accurate? There are late term abortion clinics all over the place. Any stat you have or present is wrong. http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/news-old/31151-late-term-abortionist-skirts-laws-in-ohio-town http://www.lifesite.net/news/breaki...eral-shuts-down-two-late-term-abortion-facili http://www.lifenews.com/2011/11/17/late-term-abortion-business-in-california-shuts-down/ http://www.allvoices.com/contribute...wn-for-late-term-abortions-and-a-womans-death
My opinion is that most people support, even if they don't like, Roe vs. Wade. Unfortunately the whackos intimidate the weak pro-abortion people into at least keeping silent on killing viable babies and post-natal abortion. I would agree with you that most pro-abortion people reject these things so maybe they should speak out. I state my support for Roe vs. Wade and I certainly support your right to have birth control--not including abortion as birth control.
Not people who are pro-life and recognize that the life in the womb deserves rights and protection. Our government even believes this after a certain gestational age. So how you can say almost all people support Roe is a stretch. So are the whacks for you the ones who simply oppose abortion and believe Roe should be overturned? Who is a weak abortion person? One who .. If you are pro-abortion and believe women should have the choice to kill .BECAUSE IT IS HER BODY AND ITS A PRIVATE DECISION .then who are you or anyone else to tell her that all of a sudden she loses the rights to her body because your slim sense of morality kicks in and you think that all of a sudden that which was nothing in the womb deserved protection. YOU THEN ENSLAVE HER TO YOUR MORALS. HER BODY DOES NOT BELONG TO HER. I would think that all you pro-aborts would be fighting for late term abortions. Why not? Why do you want to take the woman's rights away? ARe you positive that birth control does not cause abortions? You better look into that one because in the Physicians Desk Reference book many birth control pills are classified as doing so.
