Planned Parenthood CEO: Kushner said funding depended on stopping abortions - Polidicks

I rely on PP for my HRT can't wait to get fucked

Wherever there is a lot of people, there will be a few stupid people, like that landmine guy.

I honestly don't even know what your argument is. Your first point is just you saying you don't like it, while falsely conflating the issues of abortion and sex education, as if they were the same thing (They aren't. You can be for both, against both, for one and against the other, etc. One doesn't directly follow from the other.). Your second point seems to suggest that there is science or "statistics" with which a person can prove what rights fetus' ought to have, a patently false claim. And I don't understand your fourth point. Clearly people care about it if they're willing to fight about it for literally decades. You seem to mean that they don't care about it in the way that you care about it.

Alright, the fetus has the right to life, but not to parasitize a human whom doesnt want it or cant care for it. Fetuses are no more a moral agent than sperm and eggs.

Also, to address this point: the women took steps that led the fetus to be dependent on her. Let's say, for example, that I am climbing down a mountain, and you are holding the rope that is keeping me from falling to my death, but half-way through my climb you decide that you don't really want to hold that rope anymore. In this case, your right to bodily autonomy doesn't mean that letting go of the rope wouldn't be murder because you previously freely acted in such a way as to make my life depend on you holding the rope. In the same way, the woman has lost some of her bodily autonomy because she is the one who brought the fetus into the position of depending on her.

No...she didn't? Her organs did... there is no conscious choice needed for fetuses to start growing

Which is exactly what I was saying in this thread. This was way more work than it really had to be.

The funny thing about abortion is that a lot of the 'government should ban' argument comes from a biblical point of view, which is a book that doesn't even truly give a shit about abortion, coming from a group that doesn't want the government to screw with peoples lives. it's an argument substantiated on nothing, based around the opposite of what the supporting group supposedly wants.

Yes, her organs spontaneously started growing a fetus. That's how reproduction works.

Yep, you consent to sex and sometimes shit goes wrong and indeed a fetus will start growing against the knowledge or will of the woman.

It's kind of a "they bible told you not to, so you have to live with the consequences of your actions" thing rather than an actual caring about the kid thing from what I've seen.

i for one am sick of those who would prevent hypothetical babies from existing. im contacting my senator right now about putting an end to the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

In a perfect world nobody cares if a woman gets one, they can get them without being judged, without being forced to do things in unsafe ways, et-al.

Sgman is actually an alien trying to understand how humans work, spread the word

If you are unable to recognize the reality of the education that the right wing has promoted for decades for what it is, I don't really care. It is what it is. Sex education in the US has been shown to be lacking as it focuses on abstinence or other directives that have proven to be ineffective and lead to higher rates of pregnancy. That lack of education continues later into life making poor decisions across a longer time period. This can lead to abortion. How you don't see that relation, I am really unsure. It's not one that I'm imagining. Sex education, and sexual health are closely tied to abortion as it proper use of birth control allievates the needs for abortions. I feel like this was actually explained almost point for point in my sex ed classes. I really don't understand your claim that it's patently false that we can use statistics and science to determine useful metrics for when to allow for abortions. We can, and should. Otherwise we're making a blind decision on moral convictions which will affect everyone. And as we've seen historically, the perspective that wants to ban abortion, generally historically hasn't allowed for or pushed for sex education, or sexual health options(contraception and the like) and has even made access to those more difficult. You may not like that, you may not agree with that, but that is actually the world we both live in. No, I get that you care about it in a way that is not the same as I care about it. You, and the side you are arguing on the behalf of is a side of repression and societal control and it is one that seeks to control everyone. You think I'm operating out of the same boat, surely. But I'm not, because I am not pushing a view point to behave a certain way. I am for letting people live their lives and do their own things without a theologically driven ideology in a position of government that lords over everyone.

doesn't matter. They don't want abortions, contraceptives, spermacides, social services, or sexual education. Its getting their cake and eating it too except people die, kids live in poverty, and the world is worse off for it all but it doesn't matter because rich conservative donors can sleep better at night knowing their way is the just and right way.

Why are you trying to make this a political, right/left wing discussion? I sure know I'm not. I would much rather discuss the issues themselves, hence why I keep trying to separate out the concepts of abortion and sex education. I'm not here to defend the "republicans" or the "right wing." I'm here to defend my positions that I am presenting. You want to go after those darn "right wing" people, then go ahead, just don't address it to me. Science and statistics can't define personhood. It can't define rights. Etc. It can't define any of the relevant questions. At most, it can help us decide where personhood starts AFTER we've already defined it. The issue of abortion isn't one of scientific questioning. It's a moral and philosophical question at root. The only side I'm arguing on behalf of is my own, and I seek to "control" people, as it relate to abortion, in the same way that I want to control thieves, as it relates to theft. Your whole focus on "control" is totally dishonest. You have no problem with controlling things you see as wrong, none whatsoever. You just happen to not see abortion as wrong. Are you fine with allowing discriminatory hiring practices? No, well I guess you just want to "control" people. Are you fine with allowing extremely unsafe working conditions? No, well I guess you just want to "control" people. Etc. Etc. Etc. Stop strawming this as an issue of "control" vs freedom. It isn't. This is an issue of disagreeing about the status of a fetus, and how we apply personhood, and therefore rights, to it.

idk about you but abortion tends to be a political thing considering the GOP leaders are pushing so hard to remove it or cripple it as much as possible. You don't want abortion? fine, Supply the populace that has these unwanted children food/shelter/clothing/money. Teaching safe sex does help lower the abortion and unwanted pregnancy rate, but repubs don't want that either. But so far it seems like you just want the fetus to come out, then its not an issue anymore. You're not the one who has to carry it for months and potentially forced to not work towards the end of it, and you're not the one who has to provide for it's needs while barely scraping by for yourself. Religious ideology shouldn't even come into practice in law period, Its the reason why we dont have something as draconian as some middle eastern and African countries.

Serious question: do you know that there's a shortage of babies up for adoption in the US? It's really hard and expensive for parents to adopt. The kids that get stuck in the foster system are those who are kept by parents who can't/don't provide a stable family, not unwanted babies. On the idea of religious ideology: the ideas of personhood and rights are ones of moral and philosophical thinking. We all come to the table with our axiomatic beliefs on these topics that provide a foundation from which we think about them. What makes atheistic axioms more legitimate than religious axioms? Again, like I said before, I'm not here to defend the Republican agenda. I'm here to defend the ideas that I have presented.

Babies shouldn't have to be fucking made to support an adoption system in the first place. Theres plenty of kids who are older than toddlers who have near zero chance being adopted that should be adopted instead. What kind of logic is this nonsense? Women should be forced through a pregnancy and risk their health and economical status because babies can get adopted? Also its fine to use morals when deciding law, but scientifically a fetus has no idea it even exsists or the circumstance of it's existence till way later after its born, and Atheistic based laws tend to be grounded in more fairness and less zeal than religious ones. If you want to back the whole religious morals and such, why not force shira law on the US too, they believe that's how the world should work in their book too. Justice and laws that enforce the justice should be blind and use scientifically backed sources to create them to prevent bias.

I don't know what the first sentence is about. No one is saying babies should be made to support an adoption system. You said that if I'm going to be against abortion, then I ought to be for providing support for those kids. I am. Parents who can't support their children, or have unwanted children, ought to put them up for adoption, of which we have plenty of parents willing to support. The support system is already in place. The problem isn't that there are too many unwanted children. It's that there are too many kids born to parents who can't/don't care about supporting them, but who still keep them. These kids then grow up in a horrible environment and are difficult to get adopted later in life. I hate it when kids are forced to grow up in those situations, but I would rather encourage moms to put them up for adoption instead of encouraging them to get an abortion. You also don't seem to have a clear position when it comes to how to make law. You make these three claims: 1) It's fine to use morals when deciding law. You mean atheistic morals, specifically, but only atheistic morals you agree with. Your view seems to be, "My morals can be used to decide law." 2) Scientifically, a fetus doesn't know it exists until way after it's born. ... therefore, what? Do you agree with Peter Singer that we ought to be able to kill babies before they develop the necessary mental abilities? This is what I mean about science being inadequate for these types of questions. We must morally and philosophically decide what it means to be a person before any application of science can be useful. 3) Atheistic laws are more fair. Really? Were those of the atheistic USSR more fair? How about those of atheistic communist China? You're applying your brand of atheism and morals as if they are the only that matter.

I just saw a pot come alive and call the kettle black!

What? He said atheistic morals are more fair and have less zeal. So I pointed to atheistic morals that were incredibly unfair and had a lot of zeal. That's a direct response to his point. My contention was in people going after the entire Republican platform, and applying it to me, as if I had been arguing for it. I would say, "I'm against abortion for X, Y, and Z reasons," and their response would be, "Well the right wing also supports A, B, and C policies that are bad."

If you're complaining about making abortion a left/right thing I don't think you should bring up fucking communism.

imagine being so ass backwards that you think completely unbiased laws can be compared to communistic laws because they can have atheistic backing, ay lmao dude. first off I was saying that theres more to the equasion than just the child, the mother has to bear and birth the baby, as well as front the cost of having it (because ay lmao no free healthcare). Second, if abortion was outlawed you'd see a massive jump in unwanted children considering every abortion is an unwanted child. Unless you provide them with free help for being forced to carry the baby, your entire point is moot because the mother now has to support a child she doesn't want and cant remove because you only care till it pops out. Pregnancies are very expensive and can fuck you up mentally/physically. These kids you're talking down to in the adoption system are the real victims and people who need the most help, babies wouldn't be an issue to begin with it women had the option to end it in the first place (unless the rare circumstance when they change their mind afterwards). Moving on, eugenics is now a far right and religious zeal issue than it is an athiest one atm (plus that cherry picking from fucking 1920-40 is pretty nice) The point of atheist law is so its nonbiased and follows basic right and freedoms for all parties no matter their race/religious affiliation. That also means said parties cannot force their beliefs onto others like you're trying now with abortion. Then you move to another asinine cherry pick of saying I believe a clump of mass that cannot function at all and has zero mental capacity is = to a living breathing baby. Nice one, I strongly believe in baby mashing too, you got me. You use morals with scientific backing. A fully developed human vs a clump of cells, which should have their rights. I mean at that rate i can say me jerking off to a toilet is killing thousands of would be children, same with banging a someone in the arse. Then the last is just hilarious, Im not even going to bother to explain how asinine it is to say communist laws are fair at all.

Maybe from your perspective, you aren't making a political claim.

Besides, this is a political matter considering the GOP is using religious grounds on why it should be outlawed, even going as far as shutting down the entirety of PP for it.

Your equating of "atheistic laws" with "unbiased laws" is hilariously naïve. I honestly don't even know how to address it. If you believe that, then we live in totally different universes, and there's really no point in continuing the conversation.

You act like there is no zeal at all on religiously backed laws *cought* religious freedom bill *cough*. just ignore that entirety of discussion, people know talking to you like talk talking to a wall made of straw.

Secular laws are, ideally, based solely on real problems and that have real practical results. Religious laws are based on...a book of stories with typically only assertions literally only inevident fables. You cant honestly believe that religious laws are less biased than secular laws, right?