Planned Parenthood

I don't think "reverence" is the right term. It's not worship of the document, but rather agreement that the laws outlaid within it should be followed. The fact that they aren't is not a flaw with the laws, but with people not properly enforcing them and bringing the criminals breaking those laws (the ones ultimately at fault) to justice accordingly.

There's no particular "reverence" for the laws against Murder for example. But most people agree that Murder should at least be a crime, and while there are differences in the degree of punishment, they still want that law enforced.

Even so, that law unfortunately gets broken on a regular basis.

Here's the thing, do laws have an expiration date if they don't specify one?

You seem to believe that the change in technology means that laws become irrelevant, but that's rarely the case with governmental law*. And, where it is, that is where the process of amendments comes in. It's been changed a number of times, from changing voting procedures and restrictions especially. The problem with current government's breaking of it is that they don't bother to go through that process.

If a government is not held to obey it's own laws and punished properly when it breaks them. Why then would anyone expect the masses to obey the laws, save through force of tyranny? Then, it is no longer the People that rule the government, and Government will serve itself above all, even toward it's own collapse.

While I certainly agree with the last part of this particular quote, I don't agree that there are no longer any solid reasons to care about states rights. Or, for that matter, other rights protected by the Constitution, such as due process, rights to property, rights to free speech, rights to self defense, rights to equal enforcement of law, etc.

Now, these, may or may not be outdated, but if anyone wants to change them, it should be through the proper legal process.


*(It can be the case with copyright and certain civil laws. As it may not properly cover certain uses of data/information/etc. On a related note, a man was recently sued for copyright violation for posting a state's laws: http://www.engadget.com/2015/07/26/georgia-sues-over-state-law-posts/ )

 

@Ohmin nailed it!! Well played sir.

 

IAMGIRL, sometimes your posts show up as blank to me. I'm not sure why, I assume you're posting a link/picture or something and some aspect of my current set up is blocking it or something, should be fine if you post a link. I'm curious what it is... assuming you aren't just making blank posts now and then for the heck of it of course

 

http://i.imgur.com/drUS4sT.jpg

 

I am pro-knowledge, pro-liberty, pro-life, pro-freedom, pro-pursuit of happiness, anti-lie, anti-waste, and anti-immoral.

The "argument" posted by @IMAGIRL from Sister Joan Chittister is bizarre at best. Which person in this thread has advocated that every single pregnancy MUST avoid unnatural termination? Who has declared birth 'em but don't feed 'em or house 'em?? I love education!! But, tragically, what most students in America receive is indoctrination by the centralized government to further support said centralized power. A small percentage do escape the net, thank goodness. Just not enough to turn the tide of ignorance, despair, suffering, decay, violence, and regression.

Voluntarily helping those that cannot do it alone is noble, but being forced to pay for an ever increasing percentage of the populous that WILL NOT is immoral and guarantees even more suffering for all of us in some not-too-distant future. Stealing is wrong. Failure can teach. But willful failure is plain dumb. Politicians personally get rich off these schemes, so I get why they are motivated to lie. I hope I never get used to wondering why so many in the general public are blinded to reason and math and science and truth.

Finally, and this is critical, sending ever more tax dollars down the rabbit hole guarantees MORE failure. Advocating for more taxes is the same as praising thieves.

 

Two things. I've avoided posting here as I'm not entirely sure of my thoughts on this subject. So this doesn't reflect my thoughts, so much as I found it relative to this topic, and posted it here. Secondly, Taxes -_- ....

 

I only donate to efficient charities that positively impact the world. But I am forced to send a HUGE chunk of my blood, sweat, and tears to--in comparison to the aforementioned charities--a horribly, wildly, inexplicably wasteful government. I wish I could give more to responsible charities, but the OGRE in the room will literally destroy me if I don't continue the massive transfer of wealth each and every day/month/year. Maybe if taxes were cut in half, I might not be so irate.

 

No it´s not.
A fetus is the result of sex and while sex can be fantastic, awesome and joyful it is a far cry from a miracle*.
I´ll grant that I have seen men where I would consider it a miracle (or the result of a monetary transaction) if they ever got laid, but a pregnancy is not.

Giving birth to my daughter was bar none, the most fantastic experience in my life and I cant imagine a reality where I would have aborted her. But that is MY choice. The reality for other women should not be dictated by my experience.

If a women feel she is not ready or willing to give birth to a fetus in her body, it should be her call, not the call of people with religious or other motives. She has to live with the consequences of an unwanted child and the child will suffer from it.

Our body-our choice seems to be the only reasonable answer when it comes to abortion!

*Miracle: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

 

That's speculation though. The child might suffer, or it might live a decent life. There's no real way to know how it goes. Or, put another way, every child, wanted or unwanted, will at some point suffer, but that does not mean that such suffering would mean they'd truly and justifiably wish they'd never been born.

As for the mother, she has to live with the consequences of it, agreed; but that's true whether birth or abortion is opted for. However, she is not inherently obligated to try and raise the child even if she gives it birth. Beyond the (generally) extended carry period versus abortion, there is no required involvement.

Because...

I'm pretty sure that's less of an argument for Pro-Abortion than it is an argument for further tax funds to be put toward adoption agencies, foster homes, etc.

But these things do exist at present (including some tax funded ones as well as those classified as charities and so on). What makes it more difficult, in some cases, than abortion is that there are a lot of options, and not all options are equal. There is a lot of information, and organizations like Planned Parenthood do not go out of their way to try and organize it and present those options to prospective parents. This is, ostensibly, because they make money off of abortions, both from "customers" and from grants. And allegedly selling baby parts.

It can also go back to the ideologies of it's founder, Margaret Sanger, who espoused eugenics, helped to inspire Hitler's Aryan Supremacy agenda (even exchanging awards), and general racist, etc. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/5/grossu-margaret-sanger-eugenicist/

Obviously, a lot has changed and she's no longer in the picture. However, the bfounding ideology behind Planned Parenthood is eugenics. A policy of supposedly culling the "weak" and "inferior" so as to ensure that only the "good" breeding stock remains. It is a policy not of "pro-Choice" but merely of "pro-Abortion" or "pro-Sterilization."

While much of that may be distanced from by now, it is difficult to fully escape such things. Especially when you can get paid for aborting but not for adoptions, and then you can also get paid for harvesting organs. It is unlikely that they would willingly change their policies and such to have better coverage of adoption options. And again, such information would be important since not all adoption agencies are necessarily good either.


Obviously, this is a very complex issue, and I'm not necessarily saying that adoption is best in all (or even necessarily most) cases and all that. But I do think it's a bad argument, to assume that a live birth of an unwanted child will inherently lead to such suffering that the baby should never have been born to begin with. For the child or for the mother. It doesn't mean it would not lead to such suffering, but assuming it will seem like a strawman or slippery slope.

It's the main problem with the Sister Joan quote from the perspective of looking at logical arguments. It assumes that those who are "pro-birth" aren't also interested in feeding and housing those children. Maybe they don't want to do so through tax funds to provide those things, maybe they do but are more focused on not having (in their view) children be murdered first and then work on the next step of ensuring they are cared for (which, politically, is easier to justify greater funding for adoption programs and the like when there's a much greater demand for it).

Assuming that both parent and child are better off if the child is dead is of course nothing new. And indeed such sentiments have often been pushed upon the masses by religious organizations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice

"You'll be better off without having that child." "Our general prosperity will increase if there are fewer children, both individually and as a society." and so on are in some ways similar to religious sacrifices. "If we do this, the rains will come/stop and we will prosper." "If we do this the gods/demons/spirits will be appeased and our spell will work." and so on. There are some logical trains of thought when it comes to prosperity and children (from multiple sides of the issue), but they are also things based on assumptions

I don't think assumptions make for good logical arguments, though certainly they can make for good emotional arguments (but then, I'm not that much of a fan of such arguments, being based on emotional manipulation as they are).


TL;DR:

When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me

— Oscar Wilde

 

darkjello being as republican as can be lately, palin hype train

 

None of us should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. The damage an pregnancy and birth can do to a body should be something we engage in voluntarily. Please do not disregard this little fact btw: "About 650 women die each year in the United States as a result of pregnancy or delivery complications"**

I´ll leave the discussion with one parting opinion that is heartfelt. Men should never have any say in the legality of an abortion because they can never run the risk of becoming pregnant.

**Source CDC

 

Republicans are worse than Democrats in many regards. I routinely wear a defund the GOP shirt. My anti-Democrat shirt is fun. As is my "Legalize the Constitution" bumper sticker. In other words, I am NOT a Republican.

On your 2nd allegation, I did not vote for McCain because he chose Palin. Now that I have learned more about McCain, I am doubly glad that I abstained from voting. He, along with so many Dem and Repub politicians, is a thief and liar of epic proportions. Palin had a LOT more qualifications to be President than Obama--which is NOT saying very much at all--but I could not vote for her in good conscience. I like much of her rhetoric, but she still does not have the resume.

Any other accusations?

 

The woman is NOT aborting herself. She chooses to unnaturally terminate someone else. She lives with the consequence either way. But not the fetus.

I find life miraculous. In fact, I am often in awe of the world around me. And even more amazed by our little galaxy.

I frequently see statements that make it sound like many/most pregnancies were forced upon adult women. Pregnancy from **** is very rare. The vast majority of pregnancies occur AFTER women voluntarily have sex. If a woman does not want a baby, she should not be having sex. If man doesn't want the obligations of being a father, he should not be having sex.

A man does run the risk of being held financially responsible for a birth, each time he has sex with a lady. A man worth his salt will also be physically and mentally responsible for the well being of his child(ren). r selected types could care less, but many of us are K selected and take the raising of children seriously.

If that still does not convince you that a man takes on more risk in his life when he impregnates a lady, then I have a gem for that too. If men cannot vote on abortion, the poor should never be able to vote themselves goodies from the tax payers. The rich should never be allowed to vote on increasing the number/size of loopholes in the tax code. People employed by companies that will make money off a war, should never be allowed to vote for war. People that will gain cash from a big sporting event should never be allowed to vote for it to occur in their area. In other words, nobody should ever be allowed to vote for anything that will benefit them and/or hurt a competitor or neighbor. Now we are cooking with gas.

 

Ok so the human fetus is nothing special. Should woman be allowed to harvest fetus material for money? Like a man getting cash for sperm?

 

Um... WTF?

Seriously, where the Firk do you even get that idea from?

******** with that strawman bullshit.

Pardon my tone, but that sort of crap does get me angry.

Sure, and really none can, anyway. It's not like abortion stops or starts with it's legality. The practicality of legal abortion helps to avoid the many fatalities that can and do still occur from abortion procedures (but occur with far less safety and oversight than abortions carried out where it is illegal). Avoiding un-necessary deaths is one of the things I like about abortions legality (the main thing though being that I don't want the government to say whether or not a woman has the right to be pregnant, when, and for how long).

Agreed, but it should be kept in mind that abortions are not all safe either. Certainly one should agree that operations like Planned Parenthood which, according to the videos, involves potentially changing abortive proceedures in order to more safely harvest organs from the fetus, aren't going to help.

I don't disregard it. But do keep in mind it is a little fact. Unless you're African American (which for some reason has a much higher maternal mortality rate), you're more likely to be poisoned to death in the US than you are to die of delivering a child to it's term. (15-ish per 100k population, vs. 10-ish per 100k births, or 22 per 100k for African Americans, it is not clear to me if the discrepancy is caused by general genetic differences [more vulnerable physical aspects possibly, but I find this unlikely] or by socio-economic disparities [which seems more likely but I don't have the data to state it as the reason right now]) (Also CDC data.)

Of course, the rate of fatalities from abortions in the US is much less (1 in 100k abortions, according to the most reliable data I have), but it's also worth noting that it is proven that having at least one birth carried to term will reduce risk of cancer, so there may be long-term health benefits in some cases.

I am pro-choice, almost entirely because I believe whether or not a woman will take that risk should be their decision.

When I say: "a man should have more say" (provided certain provisions) I don't mean that they should have control over the situation. But rather except within certain situations I do think they should be at least notified, and allowed to attempt to (if they wish) persuade the woman prior to enacting their decision. It would still ultimately be the decision of the woman.

Guess we should overturn the ruling on Roe v Wade then. Can't have men having a say on the legality of it after all.

But seriously, I find such an attitude ignorant and short sighted. Both men and women are involved in creating a pregnancy (although not always directly). Both men and women come into being via pregnancy (although sometimes surrogates are used, including artificial ones, technology is cool!). While men cannot become pregnant (barring I suppose a Legally called "man" who was biologically female) that does not mean there is no involvement, or that they cannot/should not have any word on the legality of pregnancy or abortion.

At some point, an embryo, fetus, baby... whatever, becomes a "human being." The pro-life argument is that a human being has the right to live, and most pro-lifers will argue that a fetus, at least beyond a certain point (in some cases conception, others later), is a "human being" with the right to life. Unless the risk is clear and present, a person does not have the right to end the life of another human being.

Now, while I agree with that basic concept, I don't necessarily agree on all the details (such as when "life" begins). And I think that's true of most other pro-choice people. But the fact remains that men, women, hermaphrodites, and others can and should have a voice in the legality of when, if, and why a human life ends.

The problem, in my view, is of definitions, so the two "sides" which in reality aren't actually opposed to each other, end up yelling past each other instead of having a proper discussion. And some even go so far as to set up ludicrous strawmen like suggesting someone talking about how adoption options aren't as readily explored in Planned Parenthood means they believe that women should be used as "broodmares" to provide children for those that wish to adopt.

Yeah, I'm still pissed about that. Firking hell.

EDIT: Though the auto-censor does amuse me enough to take some of the edge off that, so thanks for that, Poxnora forum mods/creators.

 

what? no

when does that ever happen

 

Gonna say this again, cause obviously folks are missing it, but I don't believe all induced abortions are immoral. IMO, too many occur in the States. And, sadly, they occur much more often amongst blacks than other races. Sanger must be proud. Well, her and all her KKK and Democrat allies. (Fact). I wish induced abortions were even less common, but I am NOT convinced Roe v Wade was incorrect. Competent adults choose how to live/die, but the consequences that follow are out of their control. Our society downplays the negative consequences of abortion, like depression and drug use, which irks me. Abortion will remain legal, so most folks don't need to get too upset with me. U won't ever see me at a PP rally waving a sign and looking angry, because that won't make a positive impact. But interesting discussions online and in RL might slowly move the needle a bit. Good night one and all.