[Thork]

Addressing PizaaPlanet ... I can reason it any way I like. Not everything is logical, I'm not a Vulcan. I don't like the idea of having ginger children, but if I met a gorgeous strawberry blonde woman with a nasty streak of ginger relatives, it wouldn't stop me trying to start a family with such a person.
I just don't like the idea of deliberately ending someone's life. I think it is so unfair and usually unnecessary. Yes, the mother's quality of life is diminished, but she still has a life. I don't think one person should be able to choose to end the life of someone else because it is inconvenient to them and because they happened to be here on earth first. It still sounds like the motive for murder to me. And yes, there are exceptions pro-lifers will always throw up like rape and deformity and incest etc, and you do need mechanisms to deal with those adverse cases ... but I think it is too easy for women to do under normal unplanned circumstances. Statistics show most births are unplanned. Before contraception, the natural birth rate in the UK was 2.4 children. You need 2.1 to maintain a population. The birth rate in the UK is now 1.4. It is the real reason we have immigrants ... to prop up the pension Ponzi scheme. It shows when you let people choose how many children they want, they choose the wrong number. It is beyond our collective cognitive powers to make the right choice ... people are supposed to be born unplanned, it is the way nature designed us.

And this isn't a legal issue to me. It is a moral one. You should be able to choose, but you should have a bloody good reason and it should be based on the future of the child, not on your own ambitions to be a pop star or because you don't want stretch marks. A woman's view on how to deal with this is the type of thing I use to judge character. If a woman has had 2 abortions ... I'm usually not interested in her. Why would I want to be with a woman who may choose to kill off my children? Its about morality, not legality. I'm probably just a bit old fashioned, but I think the sanctity of human life is important.

[Pete Svarrior]

And this isn't a legal issue to me. It is a moral one. You should be able to choose, but you should have a bloody good reason and it should be based on the future of the child, not on your own ambitions to be a pop star or because you don't want stretch marks. A woman's view on how to deal with this is the type of thing I use to judge character. If a woman has had 2 abortions ... I'm usually not interested in her. Why would I want to be with a woman who may choose to kill off my children? Its about morality, not legality. I'm probably just a bit old fashioned, but I think the sanctity of human life is important.

That's fine. I can respect that. You're well within the rights to make your own decisions. However, you shouldn't be able to force your morality unto others. So long as your objection is purely moral and not backed up by intention of pushing for legal changes, I have no beef with you.

[jroa]

When someone haggles over the price of a fetus, then states that they need more money because they want to buy a Lamborghini, then I would say they are trying to profit off the say of the human body, would you not say the same?  Or, maybe you have your blinders on again?

You can't seriously think that the Lamborghini line was anything but a joke.  That's been Exhibit A for how cruel and callous Planned Parenthood clearly are on every right-wing webshite that's beebeetlesn covering this.

Regardless of whether the Lamborghini line was a joke or not, the individual who said it was trying to up the price, which means they were haggling.  They wanted more money, i.e. more profit.  They are profiting over the sale of murdered human bodies, and there is no way for you to deny this, Saddam.  Did they teach you anything at all about law at your criminal justice school?

[Saddam Hussein]

That said, there's also an argument to be made against the government funding of Planned Parenthood. Pretending to be a pro-lifer for a moment: why should my tax dollars support something that I'm morally objected to?

If you're talking about abortion specifically, they don't.

Regardless of whether the Lamborghini line was a joke or not, the individual who said it was trying to up the price, which means they were haggling.  They wanted more money, i.e. more profit. 

That doesn't follow.  They try to offset their expenditures by charging a fee, but that doesn't mean that they're personally profiting from it.  The lady in the video makes that clear, and the link from FactCheck also explains that it would be impossible to profit from the fees that they charge.

[garygreen]

more money, i.e. more profit.

i see that you've never encountered the definitions of "gross" and "net"

[Pete Svarrior]

If you're talking about abortion specifically, they don't

This article explicitly states that some state governments do do that. Seems like the federal government has got its shit together, but some states don't, and neither do you. What did you think you'd accomplish by posting an article that directly dismisses your claim?

[Saddam Hussein]

Yes, that's true.  I suppose we don't really talk about funding from the states simply because there's very little the federal government can do to regulate that kind of thing, and so it's not a particularly useful subject for national politicians to touch on.  The better answer to your question is that the moral (and mostly religious) objections of a minority of people to a legal practice that's important to the overall medical health of the nation is no reason to stand in its way.

[Pete Svarrior]

Yes, that's true.  I suppose we don't really talk about funding from the states simply because there's very little the federal government can do to regulate that kind of thing, and so it's not a particularly useful subject for national politicians to touch on.

Sure, but state governments can. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was led to believe that your political parties operate at both levels.

The better answer to your question is that the moral (and mostly religious) objections of a minority of people to a legal practice that's important to the overall medical health of the nation is no reason to stand in its way.

You insist on calling people you disagree with the minority. In this case, this seems to be unsupported by data. You could play the pedant card and say it's technically the minority right now, but I'd say it's much fairer to say that America is split on the issue 50/50.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/29/pro-choice-americans_n_7471690.html

Again, the very principle of a republic is that its elected representatives remain truthful to the people they're meant to represent. When half of the nation considers a practice to be highly unethical, and yet its being funded by the government, there is a valid cause for concern.

I'm interested in what you meant by your "overall medical health" claim. Most pro-lifers that I'm familiar with do not propose an outright ban on all abortion, so I'm not quite sure what you're hinting at here.

[garygreen]

that america is nationally split on the issue of abortion funding doesn't preclude some state populations from being heavily tilted toward one side or the other.  the former doesn't really have anything to do with the latter. 

there's nothing concerning about state legislators (presumably) acting in interests of the citizens of their states in this way.

[Tau]

If you're talking about abortion specifically, they don't

This article explicitly states that some state governments do do that. Seems like the federal government has got its shit together, but some states don't, and neither do you. What did you think you'd accomplish by posting an article that directly dismisses your claim?

I think state funding is a different issue from federal funding. The whole point of states is to represent a smaller subset of the population, to better suit their needs and wants. If the population of a state, in general, doesn't mind funding abortion why is it a problem?

[Ghost Spaghetti]

If you're opposed to abortion because it's murder, then why would you allow it in cases of rape or incest? it isn't the 'child's' fault they were conceived in such a shitty way. If abortion is murder, then it's murder full stop. Allowing it in the case of rape is just a means of punishing the woman for having sex that you don't approve of.

Thork, the population of humans is close to 8 billion. I think we can survive a birth-rate of 1.4 for a few years.

[markjo]

Just out of curiosity, why does it seem like everyone assume that Planned Parenthood's sole function is to perform abortions?  From what I understand, abortions are only around 6% of their business.  Most of the rest is women's healthcare, STD testing, contraception and education.

[Tom Bishop]

Just out of curiosity, why does it seem like everyone assume that Planned Parenthood's sole function is to perform abortions?  From what I understand, abortions are only around 6% of their business.  Most of the rest is women's healthcare, STD testing, contraception and education.

Just because they might pass out 20 pamphlets or condoms for every abortion they perform doesn't take away the fact that their primary business is abortion.

[garygreen]

pass out 20 pamphlets or condoms for every abortion

i absolutely love that you think this is what planned parenthood does.

[markjo]

Just out of curiosity, why does it seem like everyone assume that Planned Parenthood's sole function is to perform abortions?  From what I understand, abortions are only around 6% of their business.  Most of the rest is women's healthcare, STD testing, contraception and education.

Just because they might pass out 20 pamphlets or condoms for every abortion they perform doesn't take away the fact that their primary business is abortion.

Since when is 3% of what you do considered your primary business?  BTW, you do realize that Planned Parenthood is forbidden by law to use government funds to perform abortions, don't you?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/04/how-planned-parenthood-actually-uses-its-federal-funding/

[jroa]

BTW, you do realize that Planned Parenthood is forbidden by law to use government funds to perform abortions, don't you?

They are also forbidden by law to sell human bodies for profit, but the law does not seem to stop them from doing that, now does it? 

[Thork]

If you're opposed to abortion because it's murder, then why would you allow it in cases of rape or incest? it isn't the 'child's' fault they were conceived in such a shitty way. If abortion is murder, then it's murder full stop. Allowing it in the case of rape is just a means of punishing the woman for having sex that you don't approve of.

I didn't rule out rape.

Thork, the population of humans is close to 8 billion. I think we can survive a birth-rate of 1.4 for a few years.

That is because you are shit at maths. Only 9% of people on earth are white. We've had a birth rate like that for nearly 60 years. The population halves every two generations at that rate. Other places are not halving their birth rates. So in two generations white people will be around 4%.

[Saddam Hussein]

Oh no, future generations won't have the same racial statistics that we do.  This will certainly be a major problem for them, and we totally need to worry about it on their behalf.

[Thork]

Oh no, future generations won't have the same racial statistics that we do.  This will certainly be a major problem for them, and we totally need to worry about it on their behalf.

You'll still be alive to see it. America will be a very different land when white people aren't the majority any more. You'll be out voted on every election. The nation won't be geared towards you. If you have a look at African countries, those from the Middle East and poor Hispanic countries and how they are all run, you'll have a glimpse at the future of America.

[garygreen]

They are also forbidden by law to sell human bodies for profit, but the law does not seem to stop them from doing that, now does it?

i see that you still haven't looked up the definitions of "gross" and "net."

here's an example: i'm bob, and i sell apples.  it costs me $1 to grow and pick an apple from my orchard.  alice comes to me and says, "hey, i'll buy a bunch of apples from you for $0.75."  i tell alice that that isn't enough money: "i fucking love it when people use fetal tissue for medical research eat apples, though, so i'll be a super cool dude and sell them to you at cost for $1 each, that way i don't lose any money providing you with the aborted fetuses apples we all love so much.  lol maybe i'll buy a labmbo with all my apples cash huh alice???"

this is the part where you come in and for some reason assert that bob is negotiating the price of apples to buy lambos with all his profits because you don't know the difference between gross and net income or apparently how finances work.

Oh no, future generations won't have the same racial statistics that we do.  This will certainly be a major problem for them, and we totally need to worry about it on their behalf.

You'll still be alive to see it. America will be a very different land when white people aren't the majority any more. You'll be out voted on every election. The nation won't be geared towards you. If you have a look at African countries, those from the Middle East and poor Hispanic countries and how they are all run, you'll have a glimpse at the future of America.

wow.  i hate you even more now than i did like 20 seconds ago.  jesus christ.