The House will vote, perhaps today, on Rep. Mike Pence’s amendment to the Continuing Resolution which would zero out taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood last year received $363 million in money yanked out of the wallets of Americans, many if not most of them pro-life, and used it to abort 324,000 babies, over a third of them African-American.
Democrats are apparently outraged that this genocidal attack on the African-American community is being threatened, and were in full throat last night in debate.
One Democrat, Rep. Gwen Moore of the democratically-challenged state of Wisconsin, argued that abortion is better for an unborn baby than a life “eating Ramen noodles” or “mayonnaise sandwiches.”
This is revealing in stunning fashion. Here’s a politician who has the unbridled arrogance to believe that she has the moral right to decide whether someone else’s life is worth living. She has arrogated to herself the right to determine whether another human being lives or dies based on her own dietary value system. She apparently believes that anyone who eats Ramen noodles – count most graduate students in this category – does not have a life worth living. Wow.
Perhaps if the baby were asked if she would prefer death over Ramen noodles, she just might say no, I’d like to live, thank you very much, and actually Ramen noodles aren’t all that bad. But if Gwen Moore gets her way, that baby will never get that choice.
www.themoralliberal.com/2011/02/18/dem- … -the-womb/
I recall liking mayonnaise sandwiches, cold egg sandwiches for lunch, and "mock" pies made from oatmeal, and have an enduring love of massive pots of beans.
That's my answer pretty much......... and that I hope Planned Parenthood is permanently ripped of the their Federal Funding, which comes from every American with a variety of personal beliefs which should not be compromised by an abortion organization that lives on the federal dime's gravy.
Also, that Rep, who has had an abortion, kept referring to the 'right' of PP for this and that, they have the 'right' to any damn thing legally permissable, but they do not have the 'right' to federal funding. Reminded me of hearing people say I 'deserve' this and 'deserve' that, which makes my nose wrinkle equally in disgust.
Sure, and let's do away with churches and religious group getting tax breaks while we are at it.
Cool beans, KFC! But I'm afraid you may be in the minority from your party of choice!
My little brother used to eat "nothing" sandwiches. His choice. There was plenty of peanut butter and baloney around.
Not all of us can eat steak and champagne like our politicians every day...
I ate mayonnaise sandwiches when I was a kid because they were easy to make and I enjoyed the taste and sometimes both parents were working.
I am glad to be alive. I am grateful that I had something to eat.
This politician is so far out of touch with reality and morality its pathetic.
Who elected this scumbag?
It does reflect the patrician attitude that permeates Washington D.C.
Phoenix, you have it right...you are thinking a bit more clearly, to just be thankful to be alive, and thankful to have the right to eat mayonnaise sandwiches when you did (many still do!)
Add to that, the funding of parents like yours who worked so hard to pay for the killing of unborn human life, that can't have a chance to even have the choice to die, OR have ramen noodles or sandwiches like that?
I am grossed out by all of this, and I have Ramen once a week at least. I add cayenne pepper to it, and love it! Guess I am one of the lucky ones, grateful to be alive and eating Ramen noodles!
AnnCee, I completely agree with what I understood you to write.
I am sickened that American's are forced, by their tax dollars to help fund taking of unborn human life. Its not freedom to be forced to do that.
Its sickening, immoral and I will add even evil, to suggest its better to have your life taken from you, before you can even fight for it, than to HAVE a chance at life and eat ramen noodles, etc. This is an example of a sickening and declining moral code. I think sometimes people aren't even "thinking" about their own words, and how they are offending those murdered, and those still alive that don't have much to eat. How totally horrifying, and how great that you share what you did here to open up some eyes.
Its interesting how many here avoided the points you made, and used it again to attack a whole group of people they simply disagree with. It sheds more light on what they are all about.
Its offensive on so many levels, what that Democratic Representative said, and its amazing that some can continue to support that kind of nearly inhumane way of living and thinking. Its a dark cloud on our history.
I appreciate your sentiments, ocean. We already know who will win this argument. Life triumphs, light triumphs, goodness triumphs.
Is abortion good?
Can someone convince me it is good?
Is it good? No, Abortions are not good. However, rights is precisely what you're talking about and the argument for the elimination of abortion fails, because of individual rights. As my hub on Rights vs Morals explains.
Then they should be aware from elementary school that they will have to bear the financial as well of course as the moral choice of screwing around without thought of birth control. Start teaching THAT resonsibility in the public schools, and you might just find a generation of young people with a renewed respect for their humanity as well as the humanity of their physical acts of procreation.
Probably, but unfortunately, there is too much religious tripe in the mix. Do you have a solution for the elimination of that first?
Religious tripe in our public schools?? Just what country are you posting from??
Religious tripe = Where rights come from? What part are you missing?
From where does one derive rights?
I think the first, most important fundamental right for every human is the right to life. Without that, you definitely have no rights. I don't think those rights begin and end at certain stages of our lives. I think they are inherent from the beginning.
The lives in question here, are left out when you begin to speak about human rights. If you are pro rights, you would be speaking up for the defenseless, innocent humans being killed. That would be more in line with morals and rights.
And, that's where you're wrong, unless you bring religion into the mix.
Again, are you bringing in religion?
Actually, wrong. And, my hub explains why.
No one cares about your hub. Can you make a point here or now?
I thought that promoting your hub was not allowed at the forum. ?
Oh, you're still here!
I'm still waiting for you to provide us with video proof that Gwen Moore argues "that abortion is better for an unborn baby than a life 'eating Ramen noodles' or 'mayonnaise sandwiches.'"
You are welcome, AnnCee, I am just sharing what makes common sense to me. You are right, goodness, light, and Life triumphs, and it is not over yet.
No, abortion is not good, as a way to deal with a problem. People have come to rely on it as a back up for an unplanned pregnancy. Since when is something that inconveniences us, and that is unplanned, grounds for taking unborn, innocent human life? There is no way it is good. Its actually evil, to use it for the reasons many elect to do so. I think taking responsibility for one's sexual choices is a much better route to go. I also think adding on the guilt to oneself of taking human life, or supporting of that, is an unneeded stress to add to your life. Giving life is great, taking it for personal and selfish reasons, is not. As if the life of another human isn't worth considering?
Lies, deception and and more is at play here.
Not to mention too much religious tripe to go along with it.
I think religion can actually be left out of the debate of whether or not its ok to take the life of an innocent unborn human person or not. You don't need religion to know that is wrong on a core, base, human level.
Why do many "non religionists" or atheists seem to not be able to stop talking about religion? Its not a put down, just an honest to goodness question based on observation?
No abortion is not good, but it is legal - every woman has a right to an abortion within limits. I don't advocate it, but I also realize it is not my place or anyone else's place to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body - that was the Supreme Court's argument.
I don't think gun ownership (handgun) is a particularly good thing. Most police would agree with me. The idea that damn near any moron can buy a handgun in the US really amazes the hell out of me. But it's a Second Amendment Right and I am not working real hard at overturning it.
Ann, have you actually watched the video of Gwen Moore's remarks? If you have, then would you please provide us with a link and the exact point on the video where she argues "that abortion is better for an unborn baby than a life 'eating Ramen noodles' or 'mayonnaise sandwiches'" because I just watched a video of her remarks and I didn't hear it.
Is there no limit to the insensitivity and stupidity that comes outta the mouths of the Dems in power??!
Granted you are an expert on the subjects of insensitivity and stupidity, but it was pointed out repeatedly that what the title of the OP claims was NEVER said.
Yes it was, just not in those exact words.
Did you watch the video?
The woman, first of all, conveniently avoided the first premise of this whole argument------that there is a way for black women (I refer to that because SHE based her entire argument on "black women") to avoid pregnancy just like there's a way for white women or any woman to avoid unwanted pregnancy, a way that doesn't require killing the baby in the womb. Reckin everbody knows whut that is.....
And if I were the daughter of that woman that she referred to, I'd be giving the "Mom" what-for for making my birth sound like an inconvenience!
And she stood there and whined about how people look at black mothers on food stamps with disdain.....well, that's not the whole story. I know white friends of mine who went to apply for food stamps for their kids, and they got turned down while black women who drove up in fancy cars and fancy clothes received help! Seems to me that black women like that speaker so conveniently forget that poverty is NOT just a "black" problem. Aren't whites human enough for her consideration? Aren't even black children human beings enough for her to speak out against killing the unborn?
Whatever! I get so tired of blacks just taking up for blacks.
And....people in general are forgetting that there is help for pregnant women BESIDES Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood would've been an okay company if it hadn't decided to become an abortion clinic. They could've made legitimate contraception available and stopped short of baby killing.
There's also an element that keeps getting left out of this debate. MEN should be held responsible for the outcome of having sex too. Not only that, but they should be able to have a say in the wonderful things about having a child also. But women's lib has tied the hands of men for years now.
I guess this boils down to "where" or "how" rights are to come into play.
Some say rights are "god" given. And, then the "religious" argument ensues.
However, Rights are equally applied to all people who are born. Thus, no rights are to be applied to unborn. Giving or applying rights to an unborn negates the individual already granted rights for being born. Which, cannot happen.
If the argument goes on to those who want to complain about "how" government spends taxpayer's tax revenue, then I want the government to give back to the taxpayer all the money they have spent on wars, which I don't want my tax dollars spent on.
Well I don't think it's enough said.
I happen to believe man has a soul and a maker.
I remember overhearing a conversation when I was a child between my mom and my aunt. A friend of theirs had had a miscarriage. Maybe it was sadness in their voices that affected me, but I had no trouble seeing that child who was never born as a human being in a different place who would never come here.
Many people see life in a spiritual way. Our view is discounted entirely from the argument. And yet it is demanded of us that we pay our money to be distributed to a group like Planned Parenthood which offers "counseling" and "health care" as a way to bring abortion business through the doors.
Interesting how you dismissed everything I said.
You can believe what you want, until your beliefs interfere in someone's life. A "soul"? and a "maker". A soul is only a descriptive word used to describe someone's actions. As for a maker? Yes, I was made by my mother and my father. Beyond that, it's religious tripe.
Your imagination is irrelevant to reality.
Yes, and many fail to understand or even realize that Love is the only spirituality required in life. No others is necessary.
Yes, it is because it's based on the irrationality and mystic world of religion.
And, like I said in my first post which you dismissed, if you want your cake and eat it too, then I want every plumb nickel spent on the WARS, returned to the citizens.
Don't you realize that your beliefs interfere with someone's life as well?? Will you ever realize that?? And if you want every nickel spent on wars that clearly you do not 'believe' in, then perhaps you as well would like a plain ticket to Cairo or Iran or Iraq, or Germany or Japan in the 20th century.......... that might be more economical for our federal budget to those unhappy living in the great country of the USA.
My beliefs are not even on display, so it might be nice if you knew that before you brought it up. Next time, ask me if what I am saying is a belief? Which it is not.
My beliefs are not your concern. But, thank you for being concerned.
!!! Now that is truly ROFL funny, and you are quite welcome to my concern.
I'm glad you found something funny. You must be one of those types of people who believes that everything someone has to say, is either a belief or an opinion? I'm not sure. But, I'm sure you'll be glad to clarify.
I also do hope you realize that not everyone spreads their beliefs or even opinions for that matter, but do speak about facts and a thing called truth.(which I am sure you'll probably tell me that each person has their own truth, which actually isn't the case, but I'm sure it's coming.)
You are acting as if Gwen Moore herself is performing abortions and that every poor pregnant woman is getting one.
That is not true.
The main business of PP is education and birth CONTROL.
The better they are able to do their work, the fewer abortions that will have to be performed.
The choice to have an abortion is not the government's. It's the individual pregnant woman's.
Federal funds are already not allowed to be spent for abortions.
So what is it you people want? To deny poor women sex education and birth control? Do you not see the consequences of that?
MORE abortions. MORE back-alley abortions. MORE dead women.
And you have the nerve to call yourselves "pro-life."
Planned Parenthood is a business. It exists to make money. Money is fungible therefore all government money to Planned Parenthood is abortion funding.
Do not poor people already qualify for Medicade? Do not all children now get subjected to almost pornographic sex education from a young age all the way thru high school in our public schools? Do not all young people have access to a condom? Have access to a brain as well as a libido?
If the business of PP is only education and birth control, then make it an official federal arm of the government. Not sure what the pimps and whores would use for free or cut rate Sex health care and abortions though.
Today, Planned Parenthood is responsible for more than a quarter of all abortions performed annually in the United States.
While Planned Parenthood tries to minimize the centrality of abortion to its mission, the 2007–08 report clearly shows that the promotion and performance of abortion remains at the core of Planned Parenthood’s business and mission.
Abortion as Only 3% of PPFA Services?
An increasingly common PPFA response is to say that abortion represents only 3% of all the services they provided in 2007.
Technically, one can say this if every packet of pills, every test, every exam a client receives is counted as a separate service.
But looked at in a more normal way, trying to see what percentage of Planned Parenthood’s customers receive abortions, we get a figure closer to 10.1%. Even that doesn’t capture the full impact.
Abortion is quite often bundled with a number of those other services (the abortion patient often receives and pays for a number of connected services, such as Rh testing, ultrasound, STD testing, the HPV vaccine, a take-home pack of contraceptives).
Thus, abortion and abortion-related services account for a much, much bigger piece of the pie than 3% or even 10%.
Consider PPFA’s $374.7 million clinic income for the fiscal year ending June 2008.
Though we know from its own web site that there are Planned Parenthood clinics that advertise and perform later, much more expensive abortions, if we were conservative and treated every one of PPFA’s 305,310 abortions as a standard first-trimester suction abortion, at the going rate for such abortions in 2005, Planned Parenthood’s income from abortion in 2007 would have been at least $126 million.
This alone would represent more than a third of PPFA’s clinic income for the fiscal year.
Bundled services attached to those abortions add to those revenues. And every later abortion PPFA clinics perform means hundreds of dollars more in its coffers. That explains why Planned Parenthood fights so hard for this “insignificant” part of their business.
No matter what, its immoral to take unborn human life, those humans did nothing wrong. Its wrong to force people to pay for that, that are against it, its incredibly immoral.
I am more pro freedom, pro life, not pro choice to kill humans at different stages of their life. If they were left alone, many would grow up to be no different from anyone else here on this board right now. Its a messed up world that kills those humans, just because of what some people may or may not do because of some poor choices they made.
Its no excuse to take their lives. No defense, no one speaks up for them, and now they are speaking ill of them as if they could have lived and just been poor. THAT is horrifying.
Actually, your argument has been refuted by my hub on Rights VS Morals.
Goes to show you lack any understanding on your own role in this world. What a damn shame.
Perhaps your grandiose opinion of yourself means something to someone somewhere?
Not quite. But, since you seem to think I think that highly of myself, would be something else you wrong about. But, don't let that stop you from attempting to insult.
Just my opinions and "observations" of you.
Well, then I would say your opinions are skewed, just like your observations.
That doesn't really make sense, sorry. Because he doesn't consider your hub to be authoritative, he has no understanding of his role in this world? It doesn't make sense.
Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand.
You never made a point. The added put down there, doesn't help you to make it. It was an invitation for you to make your point. That was all. You could make the points here, in this forum.
Cagsil, to disagree with me, means that you likely have a strong opinion of when a person becomes a human, and thus deserves the rights afforded a human.
I think that a human life should be left alone, given at least the chance to live. These human lives can't run away, or scream for help, but have their lives taken. They didn't do anything wrong, and didn't ask to be conceived. If you don't understand that, I have no reason to even read a hub that would try to suggest otherwise.
Humans are not perfect, therefore no perfect society can exist. So stop pushing the highest morality standard.
See, your not talking about a human life- you're talking about a human organism. This I would agree with, however, rights of the individual play a factor, which is what everyone is overlooking.
True, but it's not a life, until technically, it is viable on it's own.
Correct, but they also cannot have a choice in being born.
Well, I hope this post clear up your concern. If not, then I suggest you read it anyways to get a clearer understanding. And, please leave your religious view at the door.
I agree humans are not perfect, but they need not be perfect to be able to protect the life of innocent unborn humans. If I am called "pushing the highest morality standard" to suggest people stop defending the killing of this human life (its not dead), that doesn't make sense really. Its just pushing a core base standard of morality. Its not being crazy religious or anything, its just human to defend what I am defending. Perfection isn't necessary, and I know its not what we are.
You can't just apply terms like they are fact, like "its just a human organism, vs a human life" and hope that makes all of this a 'tidy thing". Its incredibly untidy. You are really sharing your own personal views above, which I can totally appreciate, but know that we all have our own personal views just like you do. I think there is life all around us, and you don't have to kill something that isn't alive. LIfe needs to be stopped, growing life, beating heart etc. That is why I think the way I do.
All that while leaving religious views at the door.
I would be defending you at your preemie stage too. No need to hate me for my thoughts here. Not even sure exactly what you are disagreeing with me about.
If it isnt life , they wouldnt have to kill it, now would they?
I invested in Global Crossing and MCI a few years ago. Many people lost their retirement on stocks like that a few years ago.
I would bet some of them and their children ate ramen noodles for awhile. I know I did. And still do.
You can't "unplan children" when you hit a bump in the rode.
So when someone suggests planned parenthood is better than ramen noodles, only the unreasonable cant figure it out.
I find the whole thing macabre to the point of being ghoulish.
The weighing of human life against ramen noodles? If you cant feed your kids shrimp cocktail you should go to planned parenthood?
Apparently back in 2004 Ms Moore's kid slashed the tires of 100 opposing party campaign vans...She's is a model parent.
"No matter what, its immoral to take unborn human life,"
But once they're out and in the world, they're on their own.
Sounds to me like PP is performing a needed service!!
The demand is definitely there.
Supply is not unlimited.
Without PP, where are these women going to get any of those services -- bundled or not?
Can you really blame doctors for not wanting to put their own lives at risk?
No hypocrisy at all in so-called "pro-lifers" hunting down and shooting medical professionals who perform perfectly legal medical procedures! Oh no.
What is it about seven abortion workers killed by crazies.
Forty six million babies killed since 1973 by perfectly sane people.
Killing forty six million babies is your idea of a necessary service.
And, where to you think that society as a whole would be right now, if it wasn't done? Just curious?
Well, we just will never know will we, and that is the saddest part, those lives and their contributions to this world are gone forever.
You think about what I said, and get back to me, Ghandi.
You know, if you actually took the time to think about, maybe, just maybe you would see a worse society than it is right now. DUH!
Secondly, your argument is futile. Even from a morality stand point, because of individual rights. Which apparently you fail to understand.
Individual rights.......hmmmmm, thinking of a 3 month old child struggling to breath upon abortion...as I said, you get back to me, Ghandi.......individual rights, what a bastardized concept when it comes to abortion.
No point there. There isn't any good reason to take the life of all those millions. We would deal with whatever came from that. Its not a justification, and we ought to be careful. Maybe that isn't what you were suggesting though. I hope not.
No it's not as you are thinking. I just want someone to pay attention. I'm not advocating abortion is good, please understand that. As I have already said in this thread, which apparently everyone has overlooked.
I'm advocating the rights of the individual.
Except for all those other millions of individuals.... ok. I get it. You are for the individual if they attain a certain stage of life. I am just saying that I am not willing to draw that line. I advocate the rights of all individuals, not just some, including the fathers of the individuals. I am for their rights too. They ought to have some though.
They are not individuals until viable on their own. It's my term- it's science.
Viability is what matters.
And until you do, the argument continues.
Unfortunately, until the father is able to give birth to a child, the father's rights are always going to be limited, because of the mother's rights.
But, limited, as I stated above.
Babies, even once born need protection and nurturing and nourishment. They really can't survive on their own. They don't turn into a human life because of their location from one moment to the next from pre birth to post birth location. Same DNA, same person, same human. I am suggesting we be careful when WE assign life, and suggesting we aren't all in agreement of when that is. Yet the world acts as if its just understood.
I think that human life is precious no matter the location or stage of that life.
You're missing the point. They breath on their own, which is what makes them viable.
Breathing on their own is the only requirement for viability.
You're using a screwed up understanding of viability.
It should be understood, but has a lot of other influences distorting the actual facts.
I understand where you are coming from, but society cannot ever be perfect and what you're asking for isn't achievable. Can you see that?
No, I don't think I am missing the point, and I am pressing the real points here. I hear where you are coming from. It takes a lot more than breathing to be the defining factor of when a human should be allowed to be chosen to be killed or not.
Its as if you are suggesting, that its breathing on ones own is a determining factor, forgive me and tell me if i am wrong there. IF that is true, then more problems come into play, like can't anyone come into a neonatal ward and unplug breathing machines etc if they wanted to, say the government or such?
What it comes down to is being "wanted" or not. IF that is the problem, then its still wrong to take that life based on its "wantedness" or not. There are plenty that want a baby. TONS of Nuns around the world take in babies (I am not catholic btw) to their orphanages, and many would be parents are on waiting lists. My point is, its just not a good reason for justifying the taking of life, especially when the REAL reasons of the "why" are looked at.
I haven't seen any good reasons. The best I have seen is the life of the mother is at risk. If its sure death for the mother, then some STILL struggle with taking the life of the baby, but maybe they should not. Those that do struggle ask themselves, why should I not allow the life of another, when I have had the pleasure of living a fair amount of time and they get no time to live?
Not sure exactly either, what you think I am "asking for", based on your last point. My main thing I am asking for, is that I be allowed to vote for whether or not my own money be used for taxes to fund the taking of human life. I think we all should back the bill of rights. Right to life is is listed as #1. Not all get it.
Actually, you're also not using realism in your statements either.
You lack the understanding of Law. But, I figured as much. Anything outside of human laws is religious tripe.
But, you need to know your place. It's not your decision and that decision rests in the woman's hands. "WHY?" is what you are missing in any argument you have.
You have seen any reason for yourself. Don't speak for other people.
And I am willing that millions of woman who have aborted a child asked themselves, specifically, why should I bring a child into this world, when people like you are not going to let them live their life, if they don't. It goes along with the religious tripe.
I understand you want to protect "right to life", but is it based on religious tripe where rights are granted to because a god or because the child is born? The "right to life" argument is so skewed by religious tripe it's almost blatant ignorance.
You seem really obsessed with religion in these threads, and even when it has nothing to do with it. You have me wrong, and you are continuing to get a lot wrong, the more upset you seem to get. That is fine but I can't keep quiet about it.
I am not just speaking up for the unborn humans here, I am speaking up on behalf of the women too, their mothers. So much grief goes on with many of them, lasting psychological problems and guilt, because they know what they have done. Many fathers, and grandparents are in anguish too. I feel badly to all of them, but especially for the innocent unborn that didn't do anything wrong, or ask to be conceived.
You want it to be based on religious tripe, but I haven't used anything religious, and have been appealing to the morality in people, no matter what their personal convictions. Cagsil, the "people like you" comments, are just insulting and inflammatory, because of the insults and put downs contained within, and the assumptions you are making. Please don't do that. If you thinking defending innocent unborn human life is wrong that is fine. You can leave out all the rest. I get your message loud and clear. I say that, because of what you say above, and that you keep taking opposition against my view for the unborn. Thanks for sharing your views all the same. I am just in disagreement.
"I think we all should back the bill of rights. Right to life is is listed as #1. "
BZZZT! Wrong! Thank you for playing. The right to life is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Gosh, it really burns me when people try to pretend the Constitution says things it bloody well doesn't say.
Though not expressed in the Constitution the right to life, liberty and happiness are in the Declaration of Independence as well as life, liberty and property in the Virginia Declaration. It is natural law theory on which the two Declarations are predicated and the Constitution seeks to protect. Ergo, though unstated, life, liberty and happiness are key to understanding the Constitution.
It is ironic that we are discussing abortion when it and the right to privacy, upon which it hinges, exist no where in the Constitution or either Declaration.
Sigh, forgive my wrong document citation, but you know the rights of which I am speaking. I am just saying that I am in agreement with that sentiment! The right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness is a very well known phrase. My point, is that you can't have any rights, if you don't first have the right to life.
The right to life is being denied. That many disagree with me that that is wrong, is so sad to observe here. It actually saddens me and sickens me. That people are actually getting upset in this discussion and resorting to put downs is even more unfortunate, and just another reason I think and believe the way I do.
The Basic human rights, should be afforded to all humans regardless of their stage of life, or location. If you want to all continue to disagree with me, that is fine. I will never understand that though, and never side with people like that. I just can't do it, and wouldn't want to.
"The right to life is being denied."
If abortion ends life, so do wars. So do executions. If we cut government funding of abortion on the grounds that ending a life is wrong, then we must also cut funding for wars and ban capital punishment on the same grounds. Or is human life only sacred when it's inside a womb?
But okay, let's decide that a fetus gets legal personhood from the moment of conception.
Riddle me this:
We know that certain things endanger the life and health of the fetus.
Therefore, engaging in those activities ought to be child endangerment, if not child abuse, right? Are you willing to charge a pregnant woman with child abuse if she takes part in a champagne toast? If not, why not? Isn't that a child inside her? And isn't that child getting some of that champagne? And isn't it illegal to supply alcohol to a minor?
that post was alarming... what in the world???? Performing a needed service?
How many food drives do you participate in every year? Got any stats on how much food you and your family collect and distribute from those drives and/or stats collectively from the others involved?
Have you ever seen planned parenthood there offering anything better that ramen noodles in all that time?
Jeez, I guess those what, was it one, or two, freaks who have done this that are 'terrorists' kind of like the Muslims who kill their wives and daughters who don't toe the line....never thought about that. Hmmm, what shall we do in America when instead of an abortion it is a hard core Muslim outcome.......I really think we need to work on that abstinence or condom, or darn, how about that old rhythm method of birth control, or is the mathematics of timing one's menstrual cycle too much for American girls today? ........wish I were joking.
I do think a girl should have a place to go to have a safe abortion if that is 'her' decided choice, her choice alone to live with, but PP has gone to far, they practically solicit promiscuity. As long as abortions get easier and easier to have done, more and more babies will be conceived only to be then killed from a casual attitude toward life, and it is life that is killed.
Its libelous to imply that "pro-lifers " = abortion doctor killers.
In fact many pro lifers have offered large awards for the arrest of anyone that has committed crimes of this nature.
Please keep the rhetoric "real"
Yes, let's keep the rhetoric "real." The entire OP is not a "real" representation of Gwen Moore's remarks.
I heard all of Gwennies remarks, and this OP is more than adequate to address Gwen Moore's imbecilic litany of the 'rights' of PP.
Really? You think so? Then I'm sure you would be happy to post a link to the video and direct us to the specific point where she argues that abortion is better for an unborn baby than a life eating Ramen noodles or mayonnaise sandwiches.
Or, you could post a transcript. Whichever.
If Gwen Moore did not in fact say on the Floor @ 9:05pm EST: abortion is better for an unborn baby than a life “eating Ramen noodles” or “mayonnaise sandwiches.”
Then she has legal recourse and you have a point. If not...you don't.
I'm assuming that if she did, there will be a video of it. I just watched the video of her remarks and I didn't hear it.
Of course, maybe I have some kind of hearing problem....
But, I'm sure Ann will set me straight soon.
what its like to be without planned parenthood. You have to add water to ramen noodles and they have to eat mayannaise sandwiches.
Does planned parenthood offer food services?
From what I understand, they do not offer food services. So that isn't what is being alluded to there. If I am wrong, someone please correct me here, as I may be wrong, things may have changed.
I guess a person would have to be a complete moron to not understand what she was implying.
If the obvious implication that many are taking it to mean, is in error, it should be easy to correct by people stating what WAS meant by the statement. You can't just say something like that, and then act like you didn't say it, and that others are just twisting words.
If so many are convinced it could not have been referring to what it seems to be, then they could also share how they understood the comment. Its incredibly callous not just to those aborted, but to those world over that are poor and struggling for simple food and water even.
You're right. How unsporting to hunt down and shoot abortionists when you could just have your prey walk through the front door to be slaughtered in the name of "choice." But religions tend to produce odd sacraments.
The people I know that are prolife, don't defend the killers of doctors either. I personally believe they will answer to God, and know they DO hurt many women you don't hear about on the News, the ones that really believed the lie that it is just a mass of cells, etc. The mothers that write letters of apology to their dead babies, that they named and never "get over"...how many of those have you heard about? Any? It is fair to do some research on the ongoing pain it gives to the mothers that take the lives of their unborn babies. Its not a tidy situation, and a poor form of birth control. Most prolifers have issues with it being THE main form of bith control. If they choose to sleep around, and get pregnant, the LEAST they can do is give live to that baby, and not kill it for just being "put out" for nine months.
Since when it being "put out" and having your life be a little upset, good enough reason to murder innocent human life? THAT is often what is happening! Its not a good reason. What reasons do YOU think justify the taking of an unborn human person's life? Just curious.
I totally get the personification of fetuses to justify your argument of "baby killing."
But really, how many fetuses actually walk on their own?
That is a bit of an overstatement.
Just trying to comply with the request to keep the rhetoric in check!
Maybe it would be more moral to not take their lives until they could at least run away as little toddlers from a firing squad? Maybe say two or three years old, then they could run and scream for help at least? They are no more or less human, no different DNA, no different than you or I from the people we are now, than then. The VERY same people.
I am not suggesting the above, I am suggesting we stop trying to make them INHUMAN for the purposes of murdering them. You don't have to be able to "run" to be human, and have a life worth living. Ask many that can't run, or can't even walk. They will take their life over death.
I have a grandiose opinion of me. And then I think me is trash can stuff too.
Give it up, Cags.
There is only one authority, and that is the Bible.
If you didn't write the Bible, you have no authority.
Sorry. Don't shoot the messenger
Hey Mighty Mom, give up isn't in my vocabulary.
You don't need to believe in God or the Bible to know taking of innocent life is wrong.
Many atheists also think its wrong to take innocent human life. I am pretty sure of that...... Right?
Human Life and Human Organism- there is a difference.
Life means viable on it's own.
Organism means exactly that, an organism.
I think an unborn human person is just that. Its ok that we disagree, it won't be the first time.
You can call it an organism, if that makes you feel better. I know it makes many feel better. Its the same person though. We all know this. To all that stick up for the life of the human, at whatever the stage of life, I am proud to stand with YOU!
You're right it's not the first time, but you're failing to understand science if that's what you think though. I'm going to make that clear.
It's not what I call it- it's what science makes the distinction of Life.
Same page is the problem...no one on the same page.
It comes out as a person, yes. This much is known as fact.
Agreed, Life should be protected, but make the proper distinction first, so everyone can be on the same page and moving forward to a good solution can be made. Otherwise, it's just the same arguments.
I am not being unscientific to say that its human life, and that the location and stage makes a human life any less human or not. You are joining forces it seems with those that use semantics as a good excuse to take the life of innocents.
I simply disagree with that. You don't get to say that that life should be protected, except when......... (flll in the blank). The reasons that are beign given are stage of life, and location of that life. I disagree with that reasoning is all. Not just with you, but with all that hold that. In the mean time, we aren't "erring on the side of caution" when in doubt. We are goign ahead and taking the innocent life. (not me, but my hard earned tax dollars are beign used for it, ugh!)
And you have no bigger picture view. But thank you for the discussion.
What is the bigger picture view that I don't have?
How long would a day old baby live without constant attention? Is it viable? It cannot eat or move or communicate in any meaningful way. My dog is more capable than a one day old.
http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-sin … nfanticide
Oh please. I was born premature. Weighing in at 5 pounds and was incubated for 2 weeks. So please.
You should be all the more in line with those you are seeming to disagree with. You are helping to make the points of those you are opposed to. You are one lucky fellow! Imagine if you had been been conceived by a mother that was young and stressed out and in the office of PP for advice? Imagine that even if your father and his parents wanted you, but your mom fell for the lies fed to her? Does that help bring the points home at all? You are lucky!
Disagree with? I am NOT, I REPEAT NOT advocating abortion. What part are you missing? Damn.
Really, boy is your view skewed.
Really, how is that I am lucky, please explain?
I was conceived by a mother that was young and stressed out. My mother almost died shortly after she had me. If she had been in the office of PP to get advice? I wouldn't know the difference. So your statement is meaningless.
Lies? I think you're stretching there, but I would suggest you read a little bit about my life, before you assume anything- my hub- A Lost Soul- My Missing Father, should clearly point out to you, my life.
Lucky? Hmmm.... You must be joking. I have to deal with people like you. How am I lucky?
If you aren't advocating abortion, I applaud you. You sound like you have been taking the side of pro "choice" all this time. How is my view skewed exactly? You are lucky, because you got to live! I don't like that you suggest that the dead don't have to worry because they cant contemplate their "deadness", so to speak. That misses my point. I would have been there defending you, see!? Let me explain... Just because a dead person can't miss being alive, it doesn't mean that the fact that their life was taken from them isn't something that is wrong. So I disagree, that my statement is meaningly.
I sense your frustration, but my guess is that you are struggling because I am actually making fair points that are hard to refute. I am not assuming ANYTHING more about you than what you have shared here. You shared that you were premature, etc. It was NO put down to say you are lucky, for I think everyone on this board right now is lucky in the same way! I think that you are on the wrong side perhaps, because you take a stand on one side of things, but as we dig deeper, are finding you seem to actually agree with me more than you first thought. Then you act like "dealing with me is so awful?" No one is forcing you to answer me, and I am here just defending the idea that innocent human life should be defended. You keep coming up against that, but not necessarily disagreeing. So its hard for me to follow exactly where you stand.
I know it can be frustrating, but sometimes the path to the truth of things is filled with such angst. Its like we don't want what turns out to be true and right be just that. Don't be mad at me for that, be happy someone gives a rat's a** enough to go on about what seems to just make good sense with people like you.
I am pro choice, but apparently not in your way of thinking. If you cannot keep up with the thread, I suggest you bow out.
You consider "Life" sacred in some manner? I got to live because my gave birth, it was her choice, not mine.
The dead are dead, anything else is religious tripe.
That's part of the problem. You cause more problems than solve, yet fail to realize it.
They cannot miss something they never had. DUH!
Actually, you're not, because you're not working with all the facts available, not to mention, you're religious bias is part of the problem.
I only agree with you that abortion is not good. Otherwise, we part company.
Where I stand? Mind your business. Plain and simple.
The path to truth? If you knew what that was, we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with.
Again, we only agree that abortion is not good. Otherwise, we part company.
Ok, you are pro choice, but state again and again that abortion is not good. I will leave it at that. I think life is precious, that is what I said when i first came into this thread.
I am working with all the facts available, and everything that has been tossed my way, and shared my own thoughts and questions regarding those things. What problems have I caused exactly? I am trying to help solve problems for many, and getting to live vs. dying, is a big problem, yet I am told I am causing problems.
So be it, I don't understand a lot of people in this world, but I can try to share what I think, why I think that way, and try to reason with people. I care about people, but I care about all of them. Its good to stand up to injustice if you see it, I firmly believe that. Movies and books are written, across all "religious" views and boundaries, that show its a good thing to stick up for injustices where you see them. It is SO not JUST a religious thing by any means. To suggest it is, if that is what is being suggested, is not looking good for those that are anti religious out there.
Some people just want very badly to be against certain people, and that is so odd to me, and I think deeper things are at play, and are evidences of themselves. It is very much worth considering the bigger things going on here.
I would always support more life for those that haven't gotten to exerperience it beyond a certain point. Babies start habits in the womb, that they continue on the outside, for instance. They are living... the age doesn't matter to me. I think all life is precious. I think you do too.
so you weren't worthy of living? You weren't able to care for yourself. Is something viable if ti is incapable of eating or drinking?
And I looked everywhere. I found modus ponens and modus tollens. I found inductive and deductive. I found argumentum ad nauseum; argumentum ad populum. I even found your favorite argumentum verbosium. I found Al Gore's favorite - ad hoc ergo propter hoc.
But I didn't find the logical argument or logical fallacy of "oh please."
Seems like your understanding of viability needs adjustment.
Do you not read the threads you participate in or just things responded to you? Just curious.
What is viable? Isn't a baby in the womb a unique organism? It moves, it grows, it eats just like the billions of other organisms in the body. Isn't it genetically distinct from its host? Isn't it genetically human? So what does viable mean?
It breathes on it's own.
Yes it is, so what is your point.
Yes it does, but up to a point. If there was not host, then there is no child.
It is a distinctive organism until fully developed, reaching the point of viability.
It will be a human when it's done cooking, is that better.
Asking the same question twice within the same post isn't going to change the answer.
Does it take in oxygen like other organisms in the body? Isn't it alive?
So you are saying that you weren't viable and therefore weren't human until you were released from Infant ICU? Or were you even human than since you still could do nothing to stay alive?
uncorrectedvision: "And I looked everywhere. I found modus ponens and modus tollens. I found inductive and deductive. I found argumentum ad nauseum: argumentum ad populum. I even found your favorite argumentum verbosium. I found Al Gore's favorite - ad hoc ergo propter hoc.
But I didn't find the logical argument or logical fallacy of "oh please.""
Should be set to music and belted on Broadway!
I would prefer it be sung in "Team America World Police II: The Wrath of Areck Barwin"
Cool stuff, never saw that before. Looking forward to a new experience. Thank you.
Looking at part 1. Yipes. Lotsa friendly collateral damage.
It was a joke. I am here amusing myself sometimes in an argument sometimes in a snarky snipe, sometimes in a joke. I do love the absurd. Why else would I subject myself to reading all these goofy liberals drone on about their feelings about the mean old right wing, wah wah wah?
As I watched for a while I began to think maybe you were a twelve year old with a very droll and dry sense of humor on politics and culture.
Yeah this cyber slappy face is a sick hobby. Rather stimulating way to get the news though.
You make excellent points in question form, uncorrectedvision.
His questions weren't relgious in nature. My post wasn't either. His questions were what I was commenting on. He makes good points in question form. Can you answer them? I think truth is good, and if you don't like the questions, maybe ask yourself why that is? If he is wrong, it should be easy to point out.
I didn't see a Bible quote or an appeal to divine authority on here.
I just wonder how many active pro-lifers, who are so concerned about saving lives, are out there lobbying for condom machines in accessible places, promoting sex education in schools and distributing information about how to avoid pregnancy? Why don't they use their resources to set up contraceptive counselling centres for teenagers? Why are they so concerned with the horse only after it's bolted?
Jane, If you look around, many are concerned with that. I would be careful to assume the worst like you do there. I know of many first hand. They tend to push personal responsibility in every way. Avoiding pregnancy is #1, but the outcry to stop the taking of innocent human life should be no less silenced. Many thinking taking life for their own convenience is wrong. I am with those people.
That's a fair point oceansunsets..in the abortion debate it can't be assumed that there is one clear *party line*. I do think that SOME militant pro-lifer's energy would be better spent in prevention than harrassment though.
Fair point, I agree. Militant types can hurt their own cause so often. I think many feel they are fighting for the right for just life for the defenseless. They see nothing getting done on behalf of the innocents. It still would be better for them to try more peaceful ways of helping. Many people are trying to do just that though.
Gwendolyn Moore: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Hous … erid=42548 Moore speaks at 14:01:13
What she said is that she knows what it is like to have unplanned children and have to feed them Ramen noodles and mayonnaise sandwiches to fill their little bellies. She knows what it's like to leave her children with "just anyone" because she couldn't afford a babysitter, subjecting them to potential sexual abuse. She claimed that without PP that is what women and children would have to suffer through.
No, she didn't say that it would be better to be aborted than to live on ramen and mayonnaise sandwiches.
Her argument is that Planned Parenthood makes life better for women and children. I beg to differ.
So you admit to twisting her words. Good to know.
I quoted an article written by somebody else in case you didn't notice. That's what the url link is for.
So you were just uttering someone's twisted interpretation of what was said. Good to know.
What do you think was meant by what was said exactly?
And why are you getting into my post to someone who isn't you? Like taking it out of context. If you want to talk to me, then talk to me.
This entire thread is based on AnnCee taking someone's twisted interpretation, and presenting it. What part do you not understand about that? So, in essence, now you are advocating on passing along misinformation. Oh good, I'll remember that for any further communications.
Don't be so desperate to find something, anything to have against me. That isn't necessary, and I was just asking you a simple question is all. Good grief.... Its that you aren't sharing what you DO think was meant by what was said. People ARE free to ask questions in these forums.... They should be allowed to do so without the chance of being put down for it, and having things twisted against them like you do there. I, for the record do not advocate the passing along of misinformation, and its sad that you are choosing to conduct yourself in the way you do there? Why not just keep things civil, and avoid getting so nasty?
Right. She never used the word abortion. She was not speaking of abortion. She was referring to the services provided to underprivileged women to help them avoid unplanned pregnancies through education and knowledge about proper planning.
A far cry from your original premise, which I'm guessing you probably got straight from Michelle Malkin without bothering to see if it was accurate.
Again, you can correct me if I am wrong.
"No, she didn't say that it would be better to be aborted than to live on ramen and mayonnaise sandwiches.
Her argument is that Planned Parenthood makes life better for women and children. I beg to differ."
But that's not what you said. You said:
"Dem Says Better to Be Dismembered in the Womb Than to Eat Ramen"
So your OP was a big fat lie.
Did you know it was a lie when you posted it (which makes you a liar too)?
Or did you only find out it was a lie when you looked it up because PP and MM and others wouldn't stop bugging you about proving what you said (which means you're not a liar, but an irresponsible spreader of unsubstantiated rumors).
Which is it?
This is typical for Ann Cee. In this case, she acknowledged it, sort of.
Either she intentionally lies or, in the tradition of Lady Love, she cares more about promoting her fantasy about the evil nature of liberals than she cares about accuracy.
The major difference between them is Love Love uses massive amounts of exclamation points (!!!) and AnnCee uses massive amounts of color.
Planned Parenthood is very obviously not "for all children", and not for all women. I beg to differ with that as well. It also has hurt many fathers of the unborn, that wanted their own babies, as well as grandparents that would have given a life to that child. Their lasting heartache is real and I have heard stories firsthand. I volunteered in a clinic myself for a few years during college. Its a good thing to be educated on ALL sides of this debate, to know what is going on. Its not just a procedure that is done and then all is well and people just move on.
To ignore the pain left to the living is to ignore a lot. They are still the lucky ones to ever have gotten to breathe at all. Getting some perspective on all of this is a good thing.
So you admit to twisting her words....
TWISTING? That's pretty generous.
Nowhere did Ms. Moore say the words "better to be dismembered in the womb."
That is inflammatory, and frankly, libelous.
When she says without planned parenthood, they might have to eat mayonnaise sandwiches?
Does planned parenthood have a steak and egg program?
You dont think she is talking about abortion?
If they use planned parenthood what kind of food does planned parenthood offer?
Mighty Mom, your post makes me want to ask you some questions. Just curious. Do you think its inflammatory to be actually dismembered in the womb, to be alive, then dead due to dismemberment? Can you imagine that life wishing to only be allowed the chance to live, and live with libel and inflammatory words? But they cannot...
I think its a bit inflammatory to dismember human life no matter what stage or location they are in their life.
Where, I want to know, is this concern for all human life when we're talking about programs to help them once they are born?
The very same people who hoot and holler that fetuses are babies with the same rights as the rest of us take a 180 degree opposite view of quality of life issues.
Ok, so I'm a single mother. I have that baby instead of terminating the pregnancy.
Now you condemn me for needing government support because I never finished high school and the only jobs I can get pay less than I would have to pay for child care.
You turn your back on me and my baby when it comes to healthcare. Oh no, that's not a right. It's a privilege. It's only for people who can afford it.
I continue to have more babies.
My life is bleak and so are theirs.
To escape, I turn to anything handy -- men, drugs, booze.
My self-esteem, such as it ever was, erodes.
The men don't stay, but before they go, they beat me and my children.
I don't like it, but I don't know any other way to live.
Eventually I end up doing time and my kids get taken away from me. I spend the next several years in and out of jail and rehab, trying to get clean, trying to get my kids back.
If I'm lucky, I have relatives who take the kids.
Otherwise, they end up in the foster care system.
THIS is a very real scenario. I see it played out every day.
Kinda makes ramen noodles and mayonnaise sandwiches sound not so bad, doesn't it?
So tell me, you people. What are you doing now, what are you prepared to do, to value the lives of the babies that get born into this kind of life?????
You give a lot of worst case scenarios there, which is a slanted view and not that common, but let me answer question #1. I would be so happy you chose LIFE for your innocent child! THAT is commendable! So what, if some people along the way aren't helpful, even condemming? You can always find that everywhere in life.
ALL the other worst case scenarios STILL don't defend the taking of an innocent human life. You give all the worst case scenarios, then assume the woman will only make the worst decision, then another, then another.
You can miss the most important point of all, the child got LIFE instead of DEATH! That is good! Your last point, that ramen noodles and mayo sandwiches not look so bad, is a point that the original author was making!
I DO see people trying to make a difference, weekly in the lives of people like that. My own family does. My 17 year old is again tomorrow morning. My husband and my 12 year old do too, just not weekly. Its monthly instead. You sincerely seem to not know the answer to that question, but I am happy to share that MANY people, (mostly people that believe in God, ironically but it makes sense) I know of that DO, DO just that. Many DO what you are suggesting, but they can't IF they are not allowed to live in the first place.
"Where, I want to know, is this concern for all human life when we're talking about programs to help them once they are born?"
They get rationalized away either by "fiscal responsibility" or "you made your bed now lie in it."
I have lived in several states in the US, and in every one, there are programs run often by volunteers doing just that. If people need help they don't just have the option of getting help from the government, but many people's personal beliefs cause them to also want to help. They do, very often on a tangible level, ongoing. Many that can't volunteer, give finanicially to such causes. Doing some simple searches on the net, and in your community will land you results. Don't take my word for it.
Do you think personal responsibility is irrational?
No, I think doing all kinds of stuff to protect fetuses while doing one's best not to help moms and their babies is irrational.
Theres a DHS in every town and a Church on every corner helping moms and their kids all across the Nation. Your statement is false.
Ocean here DOES walk the WALK the WALK. I have personally supplied free bread to a whole town out of work.
I DID NOT SEE PLANNED PARENTHOOD THERE.
Because Planned Parenthood aint in the business of giving out even lowly ramen noodles.
WE all know what business they are in.
?? Apparently, you give the poor zero merit, zero brain power, zero self control, zero personal responsibility to actually prevent pregnancies. The easier it is to abort, the more casual this act of killing the unborn, the more personal responsibility will decline.
We all know many merely work the system and birth babies and stay single and make a pretty good living on the public dole, including tax payer funded health care! for quite a very long time now.
If a young woman does not want any more babies until she can afford them, or has maxed out on how many welfare will pay for, she should use a condom or the pill( or her brain), both are readily available, and these folks are well qualified for medicade, and certainly do not need PP to accomplish birth control, or for that matter to practice personal responsibility.
"We all know many merely work the system and birth babies and stay single and make a pretty good living on the public dole, including tax payer funded health care! for quite a very long time now."
No, we all don't know. Would you mind enlightening us? I'd like to hear how many do this, backed up with statistics from a reputable source, of course.
In addition, would you mind answering a question? Are you opposed to all government-funded education? Because, if I read you correctly, a woman (I noticed you said nothing about men) should take personal responsibility for her own knowledge and not rely on a government-funded agency to impart that knowledge to her. So, do you also believe that government-funded programs to assist small businesses should be discontinued? I mean, why should we pay to provide knowledge to a prospective business owner when, according to your argument, they should be able to figure it out all by themselves?
And what about government-funded programs to teach women how to spot the early signs of breast cancer, or government-funded information provided to men on how to cope with erectile dysfunction? I mean, surely this information does not need to be provided to responsible people. They must take personal responsibility for their own health and obtain this knowledge without any help from a nonprofit agency receiving government funds, right? Or, how about government-funded programs to education young female college students on the dangers of date rape?
Can I count on you to staunchly fight against ANY federal funding for ANY program that includes education as its primary mission? Or, do you only oppose government-funded education for women who choose to have sex?
The smug answer is "food for thought" but I can tell by the mood no one (maybe Cags)will find that funny.
Maybe she was referring to family planning. Maybe if a woman already has 1 or 2 kids she can handle that, but she needs information and birth control to keep from being overwhelmed with the responsibility of 5 or 6 or 7 kids -- quite likely without a father providing financial or emotional support.
Ha! I knew YOU would laugh, Cags!
Like it is impossible to sneeze without closing your eyes, it is likewise impossible to laugh and be self-righteous at the same time.
Anyone else noticed that?
No, I do not think it is inflammatory to be dismembered. That's a malapropism. The two words simply don't go together.
My point was that the OP used inflammatory language, attributing it to Gwendolyn Moore. The OP implies that Ms. Moore literally said it is better to be dismembered in the womb than to eat ramen and mayonnaise sandwiches.
She did not say that.
Meanwhile, no one,including you, has bothered to answer my questions about what are you doing to protect the lives of babies who do get born? How are you valuing their quality of life?
Are the policies and legislation you support consistent with your pre-life views of human rights? Or are you a typical rightie hypocrite?
Well, the point was missed. I can ask it this way, do you think its wrong to dismember a person, at any stage of life, and especially an innocent, depending on where they are located?
I did answer your questions actually, and have spent a lot of time in this thread on behalf of innocents being killed daily. I just think that is wrong. The reasons being given just don't give justification, but I knew they wouldn't. EVEN if people weren't adding to the quality of their lives though, it STILL wouldn't justify the taking of their lives when they do take their lives. You are walking on some scary ground there, to suggest what you are though. I am very much in disagreement with you in regards to what you think about human life. Then add your put downs in question form, like you are taking a strong tone or attitude against me, and why is that? Why not just respond to my points, and answer my questions? I think I know why, we all likely do.
You don't know the policies and legilation I support. I haven't even talked about my views on God, barely breathed a hint on that. Religion and politics need not come into play to talk about whether its right or not to take the life of an innocent unborn human being. That has been my ongoing point, period. Those that keep opposing that can feel free to, but not sure why you would do that.
If everyone would demand that AnnCee produce proof to back up her accusations, most of her threads would be nipped in the bud.
She has a history of twisting the words found in articles, in order to satisfy her desire to paint any democrat in an unfavorable light.
How many times can someone like AnnCee be taken seriously, when she is continually caught in the act of deception, at which point she comes up with a lame excuse for the misinformation she has spread!
It's time AnnCee put up or shut up! Quote the links word for word, without embellishing with your twisted views! There are enough problems in this world. We can do without manufacturing more!
You all have got some strange values.
Aren't you slashing all the social programs?
Yet you want to bring more unwanted lives into this world?
One might wonder just WHY you want more poor and unwanted ones .....is there some nefarious reason? Because I can't see where it is ANY of your business AT ALL what any woman does with her uterus.
And say---they are "yanking" money out of your wallets to throw babies out of their homes in Palestine, gas them with white phosphorous and imprison them....what do you say about that? let me guess: USA USA USA
If Pence really is against abortion, he should yank the American funding for his buddy Delay's friend in Marianis Island. His factory forces women to abort...much as you would like to force them to carry.
Force Force Force Force....that is the Republican mantra.
Dictate, and then run. Gvt intervention, with no gvt help after they do as you command.
Freedom?? hello...where did you go???
"Have you noticed most people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to f--k?"
"The more I see Beck the more I support abortion."
I have posted this at the site where I found this story.
I apologize for posting a bogus article. I had to go to the CSpan site finally to find a working video of the session, and should have done that prior to posting.
However, I think it did spur a very interesting discussion.
I commend you, and I agree that it did spur discussion, which is not a bad thing.
It wasn't interesting, it was disgusting.
And typical of you people who have no respect for women.
This thread is absurd.
People are arguing that Planned Parenthood is not doing a service to women because they don't serve food!
People are arguing that poor mothers should serve their kids beans and rice instead of ramen and mayonnaise sandwiches.
People are arguing that there are ample non-government, volunteer services to help poor mothers and all they need to do is go down to the corner and be "helped."
Thanks, all of you, for sharing your morally superior views on how these women should live their lives and raise their kids.
Ever occur to you that at least some of these women would have a better chance at a better, non-dependent life, if they didn't bring a brood of kids they can't afford (in any sense of the word) into the world?
When a poor mother is struggling, what realistically happens to her kids? They do NOT get help from the private sector. They DO get taken away by CPS -- an abusive, expensive GOVERNMENT program.
How can you possibly, possibly think this is good, for either the children or the mother?????
Thank you, PP, for pointing out that I am ranting.
Proof once again, of the emotionality and utter futiity of this debate.
If I had my way we would reframe the "sides" of this argument.
One one side we would have "Pro-Birth"
(which is really what they are advocating).
On the other side we would have "Pro-Life"
(which is really what we are advocating -- a positive LIFE for all).
But since "Pro-Life" is already imprinted in our minds,
perhaps we should call ourselves "Pro-People" or "Pro-Community" or something that captures the widespread benefits to the woman and the community at large....
You are proving my point, kflippin.
Your argument is all about personal responsibility.
If a woman is unable to exercise self-control, she deserves to get pregnant. Pregnancy is her punishment for not keeping her damned legs together.
That attitude is really quite cavalier about the realities of bearing and raising kids.
If someone is incapable of self control shouldn't they have that circumstance removed from their control? We do it all the time with people who continually demonstrate a lack of self control. So because someone is incapable of exercising a modicum of self control her unborn baby is punished by death. Wouldn't it be far more prudent to sterilize those who can't exercise any control?
Incredible. Okay, let's go with it. Let's take away cars from people who can't stop themselves from driving 10 miles over the speed limit. Let's require that all of our citizens carry computer chips so we can monitor those who are incapable of self-control: alcohol abusers can't buy alcohol, overweight people can't buy Twinkies, and compulsive gamblers can't use the ATM within 50 miles of a casino. Oh, and let's not stop there. Men who have fathered children but don't pay child support should not be allowed to procreate. Forced sterilization sounds good to me!
YEAH! This is the country of individual rights! YEAH! Go USA!
You're right. It is so much better to slaughter millions of unborn children every year. I am so swayed by your impeccable reasoning that I completely reject any notion that life begins at conception and that the willful ending of that life is reprehensible. You Win!
You believe that life begins at conception. I get that. Not everyone agrees with you. Do you get that? Abortion is a legal procedure.
Not really a matter of belief but rather a matter of biology. It is a legal procedure, however, lots of legal things, past and present, are foolish things. The "its legal" doesn't guarantee that action to be right, moral or good.
I'm not going to get into a debate with you about when life begins. It is a fact that, in our society, abortion is legal, and a fetus does not have the legal rights of citizens.
I understand why you're trying to change the subject from your suggestion that women who can't control themselves should be sterilized. You must be embarrassed.
How that could be anymore embarrassing than even having to debate the sanctity of a child's life is.....beyond me.
Allowing a woman the final and only say in whether or not to terminate a pregnancy caused by her actions and the father's actions is....unconscienable!
I find the notion absurd but then I find the notion that a right to live is construed as a right reserved to citizens. Places non-citizens in a terrible spot. Besides I would recommend micro-chipping for all liberals. It is in the best interest of humanity to know where you are all the time.
this guy has apparently never been to Shoya Ramen in Takasaki. that place was ecstasy.
Oomori Miso Ramen, futuu no katasa, chyotto usukute, with extra chyashyu.
Oh man... glorious.
PP -- Lawdy, lawdy! Who's on a lucid, righteous rant now?
Well reasoned and very well stated! You go, PP!!
Evan -- I think you are attempting to add some levity, but this is one thread where levity will get you nowhere. Maybe you should stick with anarchy instead .
I didn't realize we would solve the abortion issue on these forum pages...
Yeah, it felt really good, too. I'm tired of the incredible statements made here with nothing to back them up.
Have we ever once solved any social issue on these forum pages?
If the pigs are flying, I have yet to see them
It's good to talk it out. Review the facts. Review the perspectives. On an issue like this people are standing on opposite sides of a chasm. We simply do not share a common perspective and perhaps never will.
But it is very good to discuss these issues and this discussion even seemed quite fresh to me anyway.
What kind of utopian fantasy world do you inhabit, Brenda?
Have you ever had to try to enforce child support payments from an ex who is years behind?
Have you ever had your husband walk out on you and four toddler kids?
Or perhaps you know what it's like to have the fathers of your kids (the plural is intentional) doing time and thus unable to participate in the joys of parenthood?
The blatant sexism against women astounds me. Absolutely astounds me.
The animosity is what astounds me.
Every situation should be handled on its own merit.
The liberal movement has created a scenario where men, many times, don't even get informed that the woman is pregnant.
Another thing that astounds me, dear, is that you and a few others around here keep clinging to the habit of personally insulting people instead of having an honest debate.
That's a tactic of the Left. It's why they've succeeded already in shutting down so many conservative voices. But I think you're aware of that....
Fair enough, Brenda.
Let's have an honest debate about this claim.
Please provide some examples to back up your argument.
We'd have to agree on the fact that a fetus is a child before we could discuss this in-depth. And you're not even on that first page yet....
If you want to have this argument- then it would be nice to figure out what argument are you really having?
Medical science says that life begins at fertilization. It's the basic beginning of life. Thus, a human organism is created. The destruction of a human organism is considered evil or bad, according to the highest morality standard. This level of morality according to many is the standard at which should be commonplace in a civilized society.
Who believes this is how it should be? Doesn't understand their own position. They claim to be fighting for "right to life", but fail to realize that under "right to life" is the right of choice, right to choose, right to decide how they live their life.
It is their right to do so, and it isn't anyone's right to get in their way of doing so. In case you haven't been paying attention lately, my posts have been increasing, due to many different topics. And, when the common person fails to understand their own rights, then their view about life becomes skewed. The view is skewed, because for the self-absorbed, self-centered religious debate. Where a god's will is to be done. However, these same people fail to recognize other people's rights, and begin to oppress them.
It's ridiculous. You want a specific moral standard, fine, it can be done, however, it will take three things to do it- (a)You keep your religious beliefs out of other people's life, (b) Increase access to proper care, guidance and education, and (c) Do it without infringing upon the rights of other people.
Therefore, the highest moral standard you want, you cannot have it, because individual rights retain power. You can argue all you want about semantics. The argument- it's a baby, fetus, child- are futile, because you lack to understand, each word describes a stage in the birthing process. It begins as an organism, develops into a fetus, then a baby, and produces a child. Only ignorance(lack of understanding science) would not know this.
The procedure offered by the medical establishment is a legal service, only because of individual rights. To outlaw it, oppresses individual rights of women. There can never be a perfect society with the highest moral standard- Humans are flawed people, accept it and move on.
"The argument- it's a baby, fetus, child- are futile, because you lack to understand, each word describes a stage in the birthing process. It begins as an organism, develops into a fetus, then a baby, and produces a child."
Actually, first, it's a pair of gametes. When they merge, they become a zygote. The zygote develops into a fetus, etc.
"There can never be a perfect society with the highest moral standard- Humans are flawed people, accept it and move on."
We'd have to agree on the fact that a fetus is a child before we could discuss this in-depth."
No. You'd have to agree with me before I'd be willing to discuss this with you.
Brenda, my first "child" as you put it was a miscarriage (natural) at 4 weeks. It was sad because it was something that was "wanted." My wife and I weren't required to file a death certificate or call a funeral home - no one in the US ever has been required to do so even when abortion was illegal. You are old enough I'm sure to remember when women didn't even "announce" their pregnancies until after 3 months because miscarriages happened all the time - they still do. The point is none of these "natural deaths" at the same stage(s) are considered a death of a viable human being in our culture - they just "aren't" and if you are true with yourself, you realize that's the case. I won't argue the spirituality of this because that is an indefensible argument - on both sides - but culturally here and across the world there is a stage when ALL OF US consider it a human being and a stage where we don't. That sounds bad, but if that weren't the case we would treat every miscarriage as a death, every "bad habit" a woman indulges in during every stage of pregnancy as potential "child abuse."
We as a society/culture have "chosen" an arbitrary time when we believe it is a "baby" and when we don't - this was long before Roe v Wade. And I am not "pro-abortion," as some like to call it, but neither am in a position to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their body; in my mind that violates a basic human right - I can't tell a "Christian Scientist" as an adult to seek treatment even if it will save his life.
Actually.....I know several people who've had funeral services (if not official ones, at least private ones) for a miscarried child! And they even gave the children names.
So your assumption that people don't consider them viable human beings is....a false assumption in general.
I won't argue about the Christian viewpoint either. I'll just say that Christians believe the spirit is immortal, whether it be a miscarried child or a full-grown adult who dies.
Well Geeee, than that would make the living breathing woman a child too huh? And she came first.
I only asked to discuss your claim that women's lib has tied the hands of men for years now.
Do you mean solely with respect to women's choice to have an abortion?
If we cut Planned Parenthood, the money saved could sustain the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for 3 hours and 51 minutes.
$75 million for 800 clinics for a year?
Or four hours' worth of war?
Jeff, I would suppose you fancy yourself a bit of a Constitutional scholar. The power to make war is in the Constitution is the power to buy condoms, the ring, the pill or the brain sucker in the there?
Jeff, you said it all in 37 words. This clearly isn't about the money, but then again, is it ever truly about money? History wouldn't support the argument.
$75 million -- shoot, the Pentagon could sponsor 10 NASCAR racecars for that amount of savings -- with $5 million to spare!
How about teaming up with Red Bull and sponsoring an air race? Nascar is covered. $75 million I wonder if that would sponsor an F-1 team? How cool would that be? Make the Europeans mad and defund Planned Parenthood - sounds like a win/win.
Are you really arguing that birth control is unconstitutional?
Is it Constitutional for the federal government to provide birth control?
I am arguing, if you can follow, that funding Plan Parenthood is unconstitutional.
Is it Constitutional for the government to provide food?
Housing? Health care? Retirement money? Disability money?
Roads? Bridges? .... shall I continue, or do you understand that the government actually provides a lot of goods and services to citizens that were not s-p-e-c-i-f-i-c-a-l-l-y noted in the original document.
If the legislative powers that be put laws into effect to provide these things... then who am I, or who are you, to say they are not Constitutional? Or do you have special knowledge?
WOW, because Congress has gotten by with it makes it constitutional and right. Just sign me up for the gulag, comrade.
How do you feel about funding for the arts? That appears to be "constitutional." Well then again, I don't claim to be a part-time Supreme Court Justice. Not saying you do, but it is VERY curious that in the last 14 months everyone and his brother has taken up constitutional law as a "hobby."
I don't know it just puzzles me -
Interesting, isn't it? I call them the "pretend constitutionalists." It would be interesting to trace backward to find who originally started this faux outrage over supposed violations of the constitution. Maybe a history student will research and write about it some day.
The Constitution is written in plain language, it is short and was intended to be read and understood by everyday Americans(including German readers) at the time of its publication. I for one find it refreshing that Americans have rediscovered this vital document. There was a time when government was everyone's business and not just the hand out part.
As for the Arts - there is no provision in the Constitution for transferring money from one tax payer to another just because his chosen field of endeavor is worthless to the economic market place. Let artists and the patrons of the arts do what they did at the time of Leonardo - fund and care for each other -personally, individually.
And since we are the constitutionality of, well, everything these days, how did you feel about basically "suspending" the right of habeus corpus under Bush's "The Patriot Act.?" Now that's an interesting one - clearly spelled out as an immutable right in the Constitution but with the stroke of a Republican pen, suddently no longer.
This isn't related to this forum question, but I was just wondering how you felt about that?
You mean the same Patriot Act the Obama administration has continued and has even sought to expand? Didn't the court address all the issues regarding the Patriot Act. Surely the ACLU has challenged it.
I give neither side a pass on the Patriot Act. And I as well as many other liberals have criticized Obama for it.
But you touch on an even deeper notion here. It looks as if you are inadvertantly saying, at least with the Patriot Act, that the issues of constitutionality can be addressed "after the fact" by the courts. And yeah.. Amen brother - that's how it's supposed to work! But again on the Healthcare Issue this same standard doesn't apply ? Why not?
Obamacare has been found unconstitutional by a court. The drilling moratorium in the Gulf was declared unconstitutional but that declaration was also ignored. If the executive chooses to ignore the judiciary it finally comes down to the legislative to do something about it. Would you support impeaching a president who openly flouts the lawful decisions of the court?
Your thought process is not as straightforward as it may seem from inside your head.
Skipping from PP being unconstitutional to pissing off the Europeans by sponsoring an F-1 team in conjunction with Red Bull... okay then!
Knock yourself out, bro.
Give yourself a standing ovation while you're at it.
Can I cut my fingernails?
Write a letter?
Go out to eat?
Buy curtains for my house?
Take a bath?
Look out the window?
My butt itches...can I scratch it?? Is it in the Constitution?
I like Ramen noodles, especially the chicken flavored. My kids get cranky if they don't get Ramen a few times a week.
It started when Obama was elected..just like the faux tea-party outrage...cause, where was it when they ballooned the deficit for Limbaugh?
Oh yeah....they ASKED for it!
by Asa Schneidermann20 months ago
Before, it was all kind of fuzzy. We knew that abortions took place in Planned Parenthood facilities and fought against it, but other activities were unclear. Now, we have clear, undeniable evidence of the evil - and I...
by American View3 years ago
The President of the United States Asks God to Bless an Abortion FactoryOBAMA: Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere. It's not going anywhere today. It's not going anywhere tomorrow. ...
by myvoternation5 years ago
Let's debate this issue!
by emdi6 years ago
I am interested to know the general public opinion about planned parenthood. It is a hot topic as the government shut down is very much connected to this topic. Just one more thing to add: I found out that planned...
by Onusonus2 months ago
A poll for the ladys out there.Planned Parenthood claims that only 3% of their services are for abortion. The rest is for cancer screening and other unrelated health services.So how many of you women out there actually...
by yeagerinvestments4 years ago
Why has there been such a lack of media coverage in this murder trial? This doctor murdered babies after they had been born by making an incision in the back of the neck and cutting the spinal cord between the 1st and...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.