Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound

[MostlyHarmless]

If you think the only result of the .gov declaring that life starts at conception and will be protected then is that the abortion clinics will be shut down, you are missing a huge part of the picture.

I'd rep you for this one, but I just did for something else.


Jan

[1861]

btw - Were they actual slaves or were they just listed in the census as slaves because they had been at one time?

So what was your point there? That because some Northern states had slavery at one time, the Southern states didn't secede because of it?

Emancipation Proclamation in PA - official date is 1780

It is worth noting that the proclamation didn't instantly end actual slavery in the Commonwealth. Many slaves found themselves indentured servants until age 28. And truth be told, the reasons for the dwindling of slavery in the North had more to do with economics and the Revolutionary War then the altruism of the citizenry.

Having said that, though, the Commonwealth was influential in the Abolitionist movement, as was Massachusetts.

Slavery didn't end officially in the Confederate states until the Emancipation Proclamation - and blacks were effectively in servitude until the war ended. After Redemption the former slaves were further repressed through sharecroppering and Jim Crow laws.

Slavery officially ended in Southern states in 1863 by Lincoln's proclamation . It officially ended in all the country with passage of the 13 th amendment in 1865 . There were many reasons for secession , one of which was argument over expansion of slavery . The straw that broke the camels back was the election of Abraham Lincoln who made no attempt to pretend he would be bound by the constitution . Kind of like what we have elected now .

[Atomic Dog]

I didn't read all the replies, but most people are going to the "abortion is murder" route.


For me, life starts at birth. While hands and feet, heartbeats and such can happen at an early stage the fetus is incapable or surviving outside the womb, therefore it cannot be considered fully alive. Birth is a good end point, and it is truly the only measurement we really have. If a baby is born and alive, killing it is murder. If the fetus is inside the womb and not developed it is not alife and therefore is a medical procedure just like anything else. It might not be pretty, it might be emotional, but it's certainly not murder.

[JavaProgrammer]

For me, life starts at conception. While hands and feet, heartbeats and such can happen at an early stage the fetus is incapable or surviving outside the womb, therefore it cannot be considered fully alive. Birth is a good end point, and it is truly the only measurement we really have. If a baby is born and alive, killing it is murder. If the fetus is inside the womb and not developed it is not alife and therefore is a medical procedure just like anything else. It might not be pretty, it might be emotional, but it's certainly not murder.

I'm confused. How can you believe that life starts at conception and believe that a fetus is not alive?

[kunsunoke]

Vouches from the government to go to any school that has anything but a secular slant, by definition, use one taxpayer's dollars to fund the religious views of another (and potentially violate the religious views of the first taxpayer).

In participating in an education voucher program, Joe and Sue Parent are getting back the money that they busted their ass to earn, by definition (and only a portion of it at that). Your claim that this is somehow your money is therefore inappropriate and incorrect.

That was what adymond meant in stating that your premise was off.

(SNIP)

Uhh, for taxpayers without children they are most definitely not a rebate. Gaping hole in that logic.

But then again the tax dollars were never originally yours to begin with.

Once again--the gaping hole in the logic is that not everyone who pays taxes (and certainly not everyone who pays school taxes) has children. It's not a rebate.

Sorry, but it is a rebate, and it is not YOUR money.

Contrast this with a socialized healthcare system that forces taxpayers to foot the bill whether they like it or not. Your money, my money, everyone's money. Those of us who failed to vote for Captain Blunderful don't have a choice.

I don't necessarily want my tax dollars going to educate someone else's children with religious views I don't agree with--in fact, I find the values taught at many schools morally repugnant.

Since it isn't your money being used, you may have to suffer some offense if Joe and Sue Parent choose to send their kids to Catholic school with vouchers. Life can sometimes be offensive. And in the end you're not constitutionally protected from having to confront religious elements in society.

The problem that the anti-choice crowd has is generally (not always) that it's intellectually inconsistent in it's views on abortion versus almost everything else.

On that subject - the Progressive movement never fails to offer up inconsistency on this issue. It states constantly that abortionists should be free to kill unborn children at any time during pregnancy but parents of born children should not be free to choose the schools their kids attend.

And of course parents should never have any say in whether their pre-adult children have abortions. That decision can only be made by fact-deprived and emotional adolescents - with some help from a friendly Planned Parenthood counselor who has absolutely no interest (financial or otherwise) in promoting the practice at all...

In other words "at your convenience but if you do have them, you have to keep them ignorant and in entitlement slavery."

So parental rights are only valid if you choose to abort.

That's a good recipe for a whole generation of Democrat voters.

By design, I'm sure.

[Atomic Dog]

I'm confused. How can you believe that life starts at conception and believe that a fetus is not alive?

Sorry, typo.

[Carnes]

I'm confused. How can you believe that life starts at conception and believe that a fetus is not alive?

Whether or not it is considered a life, or alive is not the most relevant concern in the debate. A tree is alive, a mosquito is a life, a virus is alive... etc. The relevant concern is when is it appropriate for the government to protect a life.

I think there are some really compelling arguments for having the government protect the rights of a fetus during the third trimester. I am willing to debate .gov extending it's protections in the second trimester, but not before that for the reasons I indicated in my last post in this thread.

[Dave in PA]

Aren't you glad YOUR parents decided against abortion?

PuhLeeze! Suck it up and admit to your mistakes. Sex is great, but there are consequences. MY consequence will be graduating college this December. My wife and I were both 17 when he was born. He was the ring bearer at our wedding.

I agree with one widespread sentiment: The decision to murder your own child is a deeply personal decision that folks not related really shouldn't meddle with.

I also agree that a full understanding of the procedure should be required prior to commencement of said procedure.

[MostlyHarmless]

Aren't you glad YOUR parents decided against abortion?

Sometimes I get the feeling the world would have been better off otherwise, but I think I know what you're trying to say

PuhLeeze! Suck it up and admit to your mistakes. Sex is great, but there are consequences. MY consequence will be graduating college this December. My wife and I were both 17 when he was born. He was the ring bearer at our wedding.

Exactly! Consenting to sex = consent to parenthood in my book. I am sick and tired of abusing abortion as the buyers remorse version of birth control.

I agree with one widespread sentiment: The decision to murder your own child is a deeply personal decision that folks not related really shouldn't meddle with.

I disagree with this one. It first implies that abortion is murder, which is not a settled and agreed upon opinion. Further that statement claims that murdering your own child is any different from murdering a stranger or your neighbor. Which I don't think is that widespread of a sentiment. At least it didn't spread to me.

I also agree that a full understanding of the procedure should be required prior to commencement of said procedure.

That again I can agree to. Forcing everyone involved to see such graphic video of an abortion "at the stage it is to be performed", prior to making that decision, would reduce the numbers (and produce a significant amount of vomit).

The problem, Carnes pointed out, remains though. In order for government to have a legitimate reason to step in and take legislative action against abortion, government first would have to change the definition at which point we are talking about a human life worth protecting. And at precisely that moment, government not only has the duty to go against abortions, but also investigate and/or prosecute the deaths caused by negligence or other causes. The point of possible negligent homicide charges following a miscarriage are something I'd be very worried about.


Jan

[Philbert]

Well citizenship is what I was debating. It went way off track to what it is now. My personal views don't really matter here, it was someone saying that a fetus has constitutional protections and me pointing out that they don't.

They don't have constitutional protections that are reserved for citizens. But some constitutional protections (including some in the 14th amendment) extend to all persons. If a fetus at some stage of development is a person, then it has a right to life.