Democrats Speaker of the House to Resign!

[shocka khan]

That's all you got? Really? A couple insults mixed in with nothing?

Since your comprehension skills and vast liberal cranium are so superior, explain to us again how ebola is going to impact America. I'll LOL as I wait for your reply.

I don't know what I did to trip your trigger, but I'm getting rather tired of the virtual stalking and insults from your ignorant ass. If you didn't have your head up the moderator's asses you would not be allowed to get away with this. This makes about the third thread I've posted in where you've come along behind me and insulted me. Am I really tha important to you that you feel like you need to have a new hobby of following me around from thread to thread and insulting me?

[shocka khan]

Planned Parenthood performs abortions for about one out of every 10 clients. Although I am personally opposed to abortion, I think PP provides a necessary service by providing inexpensive reproductive medical care and birth control for the 90% of women who use them. I think it's cynical for all these "fiscal conservatives" to try to shut down an organization who provide poor women with birth control, and will then refuse to provide services to the onslaught of kids that will result when those birth control services are removed.

Although I don't think abortion is morally correct, I don't think it's my business to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body as long as it's the law of the land. And I especially do not support the fools errand of trying to shut the government down to get PP defunded, as I think you're going to see a bunch of women get peeved and motivated to vote for Hillary should she get the nomination. Don't pick a fight you can't win.

[Dave Stalwart]

Maybe this is a stupid question but why can't we just fund the positive aspects of Planned Parenthood and defund abortion?

Instead of grouping every service they provide into one and funding it all, can't the abortion part become its own thing and get defunded?

Adoption in this country costs an arm and a leg and it really prohibits a lot of good folks who would make great parents from adopting as easily as they would hope. In other words it takes like 20K for a fairly put together person or couple to take a child in desperate need and basically save its life. Meanwhile aborting the child is presented like a very necessary thing that should be paid and as easy as possible.

Maybe if abortion was generating revenue, you would have a deterrent factor and also a potential source of revenue that can be diverted towards adoption funding by the government.

I'm no expert, but this sure feels like common sense to me.

[shocka khan]

Maybe this is a stupid question but why can't we just fund the positive aspects of Planned Parenthood and defund abortion?

Instead of grouping every service they provide into one and funding it all, can't the abortion part become its own thing and get defunded?

Adoption in this country costs an arm and a leg and it really prohibits a lot of good folks who would make great parents from adopting as easily as they would hope. In other words it takes like 20K for a fairly put together person or couple to take a child in desperate need and basically save its life. Meanwhile aborting the child is presented like a very necessary thing that should be paid and as easy as possible.

Maybe if abortion was generating revenue, you would have a deterrent factor and also a potential source of revenue that can be diverted towards adoption funding by the government.

I'm no expert, but this sure feels like common sense to me.

The Hyde amendment already prohibits federal funding of abortions. PP gets no federal money for providing either abortions or abortion services. Let me also take the time here to say that I agree with and support the Hyde amendment.

[MoValley John]

Maybe this is a stupid question but why can't we just fund the positive aspects of Planned Parenthood and defund abortion?

Instead of grouping every service they provide into one and funding it all, can't the abortion part become its own thing and get defunded?

Adoption in this country costs an arm and a leg and it really prohibits a lot of good folks who would make great parents from adopting as easily as they would hope. In other words it takes like 20K for a fairly put together person or couple to take a child in desperate need and basically save its life. Meanwhile aborting the child is presented like a very necessary thing that should be paid and as easy as possible.

Maybe if abortion was generating revenue, you would have a deterrent factor and also a potential source of revenue that can be diverted towards adoption funding by the government.

I'm no expert, but this sure feels like common sense to me.

Because it all becomes an accounting game. If the government gives PP money and stipulates that none of it be used for abortion services, PP simply diverts revenue from other revenue streams to abortion. Planned Parenthood doesn't care how the money is earmarked, so long as they get their money. In the end, if the government gives PP any money, they are funding abortion.

The link I provided earlier shows that both the right and the left lie about the numbers. The math, from both perspectives, is fuzzy. Therefore, if you don't believe the government should be funding abortions, the only means to accomplish that goal is for the government to not fund any of their activities. On the other side of the equation, if you believe that abortion be a viable business for PP, the only way for it to remain affordable, is for government funding.

[wu_shizzle]

Take a look at all the Christians who complain about Muslims who want to institute 'sharia law', all the Christians who seemingly want to force their religious belies on the rest of us by holding government hostage and then have someone read the definition to you about what a hypocrite is, as reading comprehension is not you strong suit.

Abortion is not merely a religious conviction issue, it goes to the core of protecting Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

There are many Agnostics and Atheists who are pro-life because they live by the principal of Non-Aggression.

[wufan]

Abortion is not merely a religious conviction issue, it goes to the core of protecting Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Here's something interesting to think about: Does the US have jurisdiction on Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness for those living outside the US, or only for those within the US? I think most would agree that the responsibility is within our boarders. What about those within our boarders that are illegal aliens? Should illegal alien children be US citizens? And finally, does the Bill of Rights apply to those who aren't citizens including unborn children?

[MoValley John]

Abortion is not merely a religious conviction issue, it goes to the core of protecting Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

There are many Agnostics and Atheists who are pro-life because they live by the principal of Non-Aggression.

This is true. I know pro life atheists, they're out there. The debate is about rights and should stay there. It is all about whether the rights of the mother trumps the right to life of the baby.

[MoValley John]

I also know a pro life nurse who started her career as a pro choice, abortion nurse. Her conversion came about because she saw and participated in abortions. She quit when the doctor accidentally delivered a live baby and killed it as it cried on the table. True story.

[MoValley John]

http://www.prolifehumanists.org/

[Aargh]

Now that I've read some of the ideas in this thread and considered a variety of opinions, I've changed my mind. Planned Parenthood had a legitimate function at one time, but now it is a duplicated government function.

At one time PP functioned to provide contraceptive education and services to an uneducated and uninsured section of the population. I pretty strongly supported that. I don't want welfare babies and PP used to function in a way to aim at the demographic that was producing them.

The argument that Medicaid and Obamacare can substantially cover the functions provided by PP is sound. I was still thinking in terms of uninsured needing a source for contraceptives. Eliminating PP will leave some falling through the cracks, but that always happens with gov't programs.

It's time to cut off funding for PP. Holding the government hostage to either defund or fund PP is asinine. Phasing PP out instead of cutting it off completyely might be politically possible. The blame game when this plays out will be ugly.

[shocka khan]

Here's something interesting to think about: Does the US have jurisdiction on Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness for those living outside the US, or only for those within the US? I think most would agree that the responsibility is within our boarders. What about those within our boarders that are illegal aliens? Should illegal alien children be US citizens? And finally, does the Bill of Rights apply to those who aren't citizens including unborn children?

I think the concept of birthright citizenship should absolutely be discussed. Although I'm sympathetic of most illegal aliens who have children in this country, I can also point to El Chapo's three kids who have citizenship because they were born here, as well as the whole cottage industry in California catering to Chinese nationals coming into this country so that their children can have dual citizenship.

[wufan]

I think the concept of birthright citizenship should absolutely be discussed. Although I'm sympathetic of most illegal aliens who have children in this country, I can also point to El Chapo's three kids who have citizenship because they were born here, as well as the whole cottage industry in California catering to Chinese nationals coming into this country so that their children can have dual citizenship.

I am all for people here legally having a baby in the US and that baby being a citizen. I actually asked the questions however because I'm curious if others believe that unborn fetuses are protected under the Bill of Rights. It's a strange question that if you follow logically causes me some angst.

[MoValley John]

I am all for people here legally having a baby in the US and that baby being a citizen. I actually asked the questions however because I'm curious if others believe that unborn fetuses are protected under the Bill of Rights. It's a strange question that if you follow logically causes me some angst.

The illogical reasoning behind abortion is why there has to be so much patchwork in laws regarding a fetus. Laws are put in place essentially to fix what Roe V Wade broke. The longer and more mainstream abortion becomes, the more laws will need to be cobbled and the definition of rights be explored and changed.

If a woman with child was murdered, prosecutors couldn't charge the perpetrator with a second murder because, based on abortion laws, the fetus wasn't human life. So lawmakers wing up murder laws based on the mother's "intent" to carry the fetus to term. So now a fetus has rights, but only if declared by the mother. The whole abortion issue is weaved together with laws and policies simply because the legal killing of human life is counter to natural law, and furthermore, the constitution that declares life an unalienable right.

[shocka khan]

I am all for people here legally having a baby in the US and that baby being a citizen. I actually asked the questions however because I'm curious if others believe that unborn fetuses are protected under the Bill of Rights. It's a strange question that if you follow logically causes me some angst.

Here's an interesting discussion of the subject:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/p/fetus_rights.htm

Most countries do not recognize fetal rights. However, there is a treaty ratified in 1969 by 20 or so Latin American countries that recognizes fetal rights, but does not say that abortions should be illegal (but they are in many Latin American countries).