Of relevance to this thread:

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/there-is-no-pro-life-case-for-planned-parenthood/?smid=fb-share&_r=1

Because clearly the ONLY way people can have access to condoms is if they mutilate children in the same building.

#logic

No, but Planned Parenthood and similar cheap/free clinics of the like are the only places where many people can get an STD test done.

I get that Planned Parenthood has their issues and something ought to be done about this bullshit, but we just spent bajillions bailing out industry and banks that committed crimes and failed at their jobs in ways I still struggle to comprehend. Why so quick to completely defund PP? Say what you want but it's hypocritical to support too-big-to-fail industry, genocidal yet "developed" nations around the world, and wars and inquisitions against people who want nothing more than to decide their own fates for a change all while trying to gut PP. If you're gonna pick your morals, stick to them. If you don't like mutilated babies and are willing to fight like we do over it, why not fight much more prominent issues of the same horrendous nature with the same fervor?

For what it's worth, that isn't directed at any one individual. ^

Don't presume. I am against the bailouts. I am against supporting half of the countries we do (probably more than half). I am mostly against our vigilantism as a country.

And more prominent? We are talking about the death of 50 MILLION babies in America since Roe v Wade. Nothing is more prominent than that. Frankly I don't understand why more on the left realize this. Abortion is not only slaughter, but it is racist and sexist slaughter. Minorities have many more abortions, abortion mills are set up to take advantage of the minority communities, more females are aborted than males. Hell, Planned Parenthood was founded upon ethnic cleansing, targeting the disabled and blacks. Ever read some of Margaret Sanger's, the founder of PP, quotes? Ethnic cleansing and genocide galore.

They are not babies, they are fetuses. Please stop trying to distort the dialogue with emotionally charged and inaccurate wording.

I don't see what possible motive this global conspiracy to enable women to choose their future has. Abortions aren't sexist unless the people having them are, and even then, it's not exactly an accurate statement. Abortions aren't racist because, well, that should be sort of obvious, I suppose? It is a thing of personal choice. In fact, abortions are significantly less available in black communities, which makes the absence of abortions the racist part.

Sorry, I won't spare your conscience or your feelings by clinicalizing infanticide. Don't have time for a full response now, but will later. Perhaps tonight.

Potential children/babies are not children/babies. If they were, maybe they would have a somewhat advanced nervous system.

How do you feel about sex education promoting birth control (condoms and pill-based) starting from the early teens, birth control pills being part of medical insurance and increased availability of other forms of birth control?

"Potential children/babies are not children/babies. If they were, maybe they would have a somewhat advanced nervous system."
Ah, so it's the NERVOUS SYSTEM that makes a person a person. Who knew?! And if the response is "that's not what I said," then what did you say (or rather, what did you mean to say), exactly?

"How do you feel about sex education promoting birth control (condoms and pill-based) starting from the early teens..."
I'm not sure it should be PROMOTING them (I think that IF, big IF, it's going to be promoting anything, it should be promoting abstinence), but pointing out that they exist and what they're for is, for me at least, fine and probably sensible.

"birth control pills being part of medical insurance and increased availability of other forms of birth control?"
I don't see any problem with insurance companies covering birth control. I'm also not sure that a wave of increased birth control availability is necessary, but then again I wouldn't exactly get up and tell pill manufacturers to stop or even cut back what their doing.

What do you think makes a person a person? Technically, genetic code, sure, but sperm has (part of my) genetic code and I will gleefully abort that on a semi-regular basis, and I suspect most people are with me on that. Everywhere I go, I leave behind my genetic information, without it being a person. Life is a complex matter, and it obviously begins somewhere between conception and birth, given that babies are alive when they come out, and neither sperm nor ovum are alive. I have chosen to put it at the development of a partly sophisticated nervous system, because that is the part of humanity I care most about anyway.

Promoting abstinence not only won't work, it has already failed to work. It was already a stupid idea. "Hey kids, don't have sex." "Yes, we will totally not have sex, even if we get drunk and horny." People tend to make poor decisions at that age, and some of those decisions lead to worse decisions.

Maybe you should get around to telling the politicians that you support birth control though. Since they don't seem to get the idea very well. More or less every pro-life activist I've seen has been staunchly opposed to the idea of women regulating their reproductive health.

"What do you think makes a person a person?"
A soul and spirit.

"Technically, genetic code, sure, but sperm has (part of my) genetic code and I will gleefully abort that on a semi-regular basis, and I suspect most people are with me on that."
To say "hey, they all contain unique DNA, so we can feel free to treat them the same cavalier fashion" is a misunderstanding of the "unique DNA is a sign that this is a separate being from its mother and father" argument and assigns far more to the argument than the argument itself makes. And even so, are you really unable to distinguish between a stream of sperm or a hair on your head from an embryo?

"I have chosen to put it at the development of a partly sophisticated nervous system, because that is the part of humanity I care most about anyway."
Fair enough. Personal opinion does explain the position.

"Maybe you should get around to telling the politicians that you support birth control though. Since they don't seem to get the idea very well."
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that there was a move afoot to ban the pill, condoms, diaphragms, tubal ligation, vasectomies, etc.

"More or less every pro-life activist I've seen has been staunchly opposed to the idea of women regulating their reproductive health."
I think you need to get out more. Or maybe I just don't know what "opposed to the idea of women regulating their reproductive health" means.

So according to Phil a foetus it is in the abortion clinic, while a 22 week old premature is a baby in the incubator. What sort of perversion of language is that?

I wonder where he gets his information on the prevalence or otherwise of PP clinics in minority communities, I have a feeling that it is from a discredited survey from a PP funded affiliate institute.

On women's rights how does Phil feel about sex selective abortion aka gendercide?

I am not talking about PP clinics, I am talking about access to quality abortive healthcare. I'm not in the least convinced that you read that part of the discussion.

Anyone who chooses to have an abortion based on a non-debilitating trait is a nasty piece of work. Abortion is for when you can't or feel you shouldn't have a child and are pregnant.

I'll get to the other stuff later. You've both at least partly misunderstood my points, though only fulhamish appears to be doing it on purpose.

KC, you as an individual may be, but the party leading the charge against Planned Parenthood, rightly or wrongly (automatically wrongly when Donald Trump speaks) supports all of those things. That is the point I am trying to make. Why do they continue to get away with that?

"And more prominent? We are talking about the death of 50 MILLION babies in America since Roe v Wade." - KC

So how many happened before Roe v Wade? They don't have records because it was illegal, so why keep records of crimes. Back then the rich could afford doctors that could do a safe illegal abortion or go where it was legal. The poor took their chances with back alley doctors or self aborting with coat hangers. Don't pretend there weren't abortions before it became legal, it just became safer for the mothers.

Making abortions illegal will just go back to the old way where the rich can get them and the poor take their chances.

Consider it another way, would you let the government force you to give up a kidney or part of your liver? Would you be willing to undergo a risky operation because the government decided that someone else's life needed to be saved? What if the person saved was a mass murder that the government wanted kept alive so he or she could stand trial?

Anti-abortionists are saying that mothers should be forced to carry children to birth when it could hurt the mothers. No exceptions where the mother could die because her existing life is worth less than a potential baby that might not live. No exception for rape where after suffering through that she has to preserve the reminder of that horrible incident. No exception for children that have genetic defects that will mean the children will suffer for life. ---- Also the mother will bear the financial costs since even Obama Care doesn't pay for all of it. So why are the mother's rights and health worth less?

@Bo, fair enough, but I am not a party, nor are my opinions. My stance has been made.

@Randomizer,

That is the shittiest argument possible. It really fails to make any point. "Oh, it will happen anyway, might as well make it legal!" The same argument can be made for heroin, meth, cocaine, et. al. If you are for those, fantastic, you're a moron. If not, you're a hypocrite cherry-picking arguments and too lazy to think.

Should mothers be "forced" to carry children to birth? Yes. Is the convenience of 9 months worth a child's life? No. Give birth, adopt the child out. There are plenty of clinics that provide free screenings and birthing training. Financial help *should* be given to any disadvantaged people, especially when giving birth.

You ask why are the mother's rights and health worth less than a human being's life. Is the mother that selfish? Are you? I know pregnancy sucks. Not really fun at all. Especially when you don't want the kid. But 99% of the time, it was your choice. Now because you made a mistake does not mean you get to kill someone.

"Don't pretend there weren't abortions before it became legal, it just became safer for the mothers."
This sounds suspiciously like that we've managed to make it less likely that doctors will commit accidental manslaughter in addition to methodical murder when they commit abortion. That is progress of a sort, I suppose.

"Anti-abortionists are saying that mothers should be forced to carry children to birth when it could hurt the mothers."
It's worth pointing out that failure to abort COULD HURT the mother and choosing to abort ALWAYS KILLS the baby. That's point #1.

"No exceptions where the mother could die because her existing life is worth less than a potential baby that might not live."
I think a majority of Republican candidates and even pro-life folks in general -- including the official teachings of the Catholic Church, which are about as solidly anti-abortion as they comes -- are willing to countenance abortion when there is a genuine threat to the mother's life. There are, of course, exceptional exceptions, but they're just that -- exceptions.

"No exception for rape where after suffering through that she has to preserve the reminder of that horrible incident."
I'm not sure that striking back at a rapist by killing his child is the most humane way to respond to rape. Women who have been raped need support, love, care, and good strong friends and helpers to come alongside them -- whether or not they've become pregnant. If carrying the child is a horrific burden, then let's bring people in to help her carry it. Let's not just kill the child in the (sometimes vain) hope that it will cause the burden and horror to go away.

"No exception for children that have genetic defects that will mean the children will suffer for life."
This is really a terrible argument. If you think abortion should be justifiable on this ground, then why is it not justifiable to terminate the lives of such children (or adults) ex utero? Or perhaps it is justifiable? I don't know.

"Also the mother will bear the financial costs since even Obama Care doesn't pay for all of it."
If a rapist impregnates the woman he rapes, he should be financially on the hook for everything. If the child is conceived out of consensual sex, then it's irrelevant whether the conception was desired or planned. Once you make a baby, you're responsible for it. Even and especially if it's hard to be so.

"So why are the mother's rights and health worth less?"
On a scale of the right to have good health and the right to not be murdered, I would generally think the right to not be murdered is a bit more fundamental.

"No exception for rape where after suffering through that she has to preserve the reminder of that horrible incident."

You do realize that pulling the rape card is a HUGE weak man argument? Less than 2 percent of all abortions are the result of rape or incest.

@KC - My point is making abortion illegal or restricted is going to make it less safe for mothers than the legal argument being used in Texas and other southern states that restricting locations will make it better. Your argument about drugs is one where they harm people and you can get rid of the source. I'm not for drugs, but I know that going back to making abortion illegal isn't going to reduce the number. You want to stop them, then go after the source by educating people so they don't get pregnant.

Most of the posters here are males, so I gave an example of how if you let the government decide to force women to go through a medical procedure than they can do the same to men and women. Right now there is a shortage of donor organs for transplants. Why can't the government force all of us to provide them to save lives?

"Should mothers be "forced" to carry children to birth? Yes. Is the convenience of 9 months worth a child's life? "

It's not convenient to go through 9 months if you don't want the child. You risk the mother's health if she doesn't get proper care. The child's health if she doesn't follow instructions and get care. Right now financial help isn't being given and until recently the law didn't even protect pregnant women from being fired for being pregnant.

As for adoption, there is already a surplus of children up for adoption that can't find homes. Just dump more unwanted children into the system to get abused and neglected. Come to Arizona where school funding is being cut to raise money for prisons.

Are you seriously saying the number of abortions wouldn't fall if it was made illegal? Bull. Heck, if you just charge for abortions at the same level as other medical procedures, the number would go down. I agree about education, but making them illegal is an important step too.

This is not about bodily autonomy. Or rather it is, but why is are the rights of the mother put so much higher than the rights of the child?

So once again, weighing the *risk* of sickness and remotely possible death to the mother over the certain dismemberment of the child.

Well, if we killed the kids currently in foster care, that would open up new spots. If no one wants them, why not? I say we pull a Jonathan Swift, ala "A Modest Proposal." Should help everyone out!

@ Randomizer, thanks for bringing this up. I forgot about it.

"Consider it another way, would you let the government force you to give up a kidney or part of your liver? Would you be willing to undergo a risky operation because the government decided that someone else's life needed to be saved?"
This is a really bad analogy. The only way it can bear even a semblance of relevance is if the government is first forcing the woman to become pregnant (presumably by in vitro methods) and then telling her she must carry the child. The government saying "you must give up an organ for a person that we've appointed you to give up the organ to" is a non sequitur if it's meant to be equivalent to the government saying "you must carry this child that you've conceived through the full period of gestation."

I was going to recommend people join webdiplomacy but then I remembered this thread and the people who truly believe in it and the fact that it won't start out as muted when they load the page like it will for me and it makes it very hard

Just tell them to avoid the forums (or at least be selective) if they aren't interested in politics and religion.

"I was going to recommend people join webdiplomacy but then I remembered this thread and the people who truly believe in it and the fact that it won't start out as muted when they load the page like it will for me and it makes it very hard"

I don't think I've ever met a Diplomacy player who was so sensitive that he/she couldn't handle even being exposed to other people discussing sensitive, substantive things (and I've met quite a few). There may be some, of course. In any event, I suggest you tell your friends about the mute feature if this concerns you, and then they can immediately mute anything they find offensive.

If people like KC cared about the rights of a child they would just let the fetus die before it ever had a chance to breathe. Considering it would be an unwanted child it would either have a terrible life with probably a mother that was not ready for it, or one where it would be stuck waiting to be adopted. There's already so many kids that need to be adopted that are not able to get that, why do you think adding more to the mix is going to fix anything?

Honestly instead of ruining at least two lives (that of the child and the mother), just let women have autonomy over their own body and choices. It IS about bodily autonomy because when the fetus is removed it is not an individual, but simply a part that is connected to the pregnant woman. It is not living, but only growing and surviving because of her body. The fetus only begins to live once it is free from the pregnant woman's body and can breathe on its own (then becoming a baby). Until then, it is attached to women and thus is part of their body. What she wants to do with her body is entirely her choice. I know personally that if something happened to me today and I was forced to go through a pregnancy my life would be entirely ruined, and so would the life of the child who was never wanted. We don't need more unwanted children on this planet ffs.

Shit, abortion debates are ridiculous and I usually choose not to engage in them but I nearly gagged reading KCs posts.

Valis could probably give a very detailed primer on the ins, outs, pros and cons of the mute feature :)

As someone torn on the abortion question but all aboard expanding access to contraceptives, it bothers me that it seems that the two can't be separated. I have misgivings about abortion that make it hard to support Planned Parenthood, even though I know they provide several non-abortion services that are critical for responsibly avoiding unwanted pregnancies.

It also bothers me that it seems like progressives take advantage of Planned Parenthood providing both services to browbeat people in debates for not supporting Planned Parenthood. There never seems to be any allowance for the nuance in supporting expanded access to contraception but opposing, or at least not supporting, expanded abortion access; if you have misgivings about the abortion aspect, then you want to stop women from getting contraception. The striking regularity of this bait-and-switch makes it seem rather intentional.

"If people like KC cared about the rights of a child they would just let the fetus die before it ever had a chance to breathe."

I find it rather curious to argue that genuine concern for the rights of a subset of people would mandate support for killing off those people.

Just commit seppuku the moment you have an unwanted child tbh

There are various aspects of this debate I find confusing, the most being the "What she wants to do with her body is entirely her choice" argument. It strikes me that it doesn't apply to other areas of life, so why this? If I want to inject heroin, the my body my choice argument doesn't seem to apply. If I want to shoot myself, again the State says no. If I were solely responsible for a newborn child, and I choose to ignore it and it dies, my choice is frowned upon really quite strongly.

The abortion debate is little more than a debate over timing. No one agrees killing newborns is allowable, and no not one agrees we must save every potential life that is a human egg. Nature carries out far more early stage abortions after conception than it allows to grow into babies, so if is God's plan that everything after conception is sacred He really screwed up the manufacturing process.

It is clear to me that if the woman does not want an abortion she should never be forced to have one. It seems equally clear that the woman's interests should trump that of very early stage unborns, and that the interests of the unborn child should trump the desires of the mother in very late stages. The only choice is when best to draw the line, and that must be the will of the people.

I would like to say that the father is shockingly neglected in all this. I firmly believe that a reasonable effort must be made to find and include the father before any abortion is carried out. Because of the mechanics of biology the mother's will should take precedent, but if, say, the mother wishes to have an abortion because she feels unable to care for a child but the father is willing to take sole responsibility after birth, that conversation is well worth having.