Is Planned Hamburger more important than the entire good of America?

[chuckjames]

Regarding the argument that the moment of birth is an arbitrary distinction as it pertains to the endowment of rights, proponents of that argument would need to resolve the discrepancy between that stance and the Constitution.  Is it fair to only espouse the Constitution when it fits your agenda? The framers of the 14th Amendment certainly felt that birth was the earliest point at which a person should be afforded the rights and protections of a citizen.  They felt it necessary to begin the first section of what would become the most important part of the Constitution with the assertion that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, before the moment of birth, I don't see how anyone can assert that the rights of the mother are equal or subordinate to the rights of the unborn.

"the 14th amendment isn't part of the original constitution" -ksuw (probably)

No i think he goes with the "3/5th" clause of the original constitution to show the constitution isnt always right. But we shall see!!!!

[Mrs. Gooch]

"the 14th amendment isn't part of the original constitution" -ksuw (probably)

The other day my boss was talking about how Ted Cruz just wants to follow the constitution (by denying gay marriage, I guess) and my co-worker pointed out that civil rights are in the constitution, and my boss actually said "Yeah, in an amendment".

[star seed 7]

 

[Spracne]

"the 14th amendment isn't part of the original constitution" -ksuw (probably)

The other day my boss was talking about how Ted Cruz just wants to follow the constitution (by denying gay marriage, I guess) and my co-worker pointed out that civil rights are in the constitution, and my boss actually said "Yeah, in an amendment".

Interestingly, the framers of the 14th Amendment would have considered marriage a "social right," as opposed to a "civil right." In the 19th century there was a distinction between civil, social and political rights (I presume as a rationalization for maintaining some semblance of a caste system), and at the time the 14th Amendment was understood only to guarantee civil rights.  Social rights included the right to freely associate, and interracial coupling would be an example (and presumably gays). The right to vote was considered a political right, and the evidence of this distinction is manifest in the 15th Amendment, which prohibits the denial of voting rights based on race. Had this distinction not been widely accepted, the 15th Amendment would have been unnecessary. So in a sense, Cruz could be said to be following the Constitution from an originalist interpretation.  Of course, subsequent constitutional doctrine has obliterated the distinction and brought all those rights under the "civil" umbrella.  Nevertheless, if you could fill a court with a bunch of Scalias, then suddenly Cruz's argument is persuasive.

[renocat]

But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger?  If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it.  How is a right being denied?  Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this.  Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding.   May be Bill the Thrill.

[star seed 7]

Abortions aren't funded by the government, neocons seem to be having trouble with that little fact

(but they should be funded by the government)

[Spracne]

But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger?  If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it.  How is a right being denied?  Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this.  Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding.   May be Bill the Thrill.

If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment.  Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding.  Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.

[Rage Against the McKee]

But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger?  If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it.  How is a right being denied?  Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this.  Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding.   May be Bill the Thrill.

If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment.  Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding.  Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.

I agree with that line of thinking, but I also think abortion providers would get by just fine without getting taxpayer dollars, and it really shouldn't be our concern even if they can't.

[Yard Dog]

But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger?  If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it.  How is a right being denied?  Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this.  Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding.   May be Bill the Thrill.

If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment.  Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding.  Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.

I agree with that line of thinking, but I also think abortion providers would get by just fine without getting taxpayer dollars, and it really shouldn't be our concern even if they can't.

That and the fact it would behoove planned parenthood to encourage conflicted women to get abortions in order to make more profit. I think that is the reason people are outraged at any profit being made by the sale of the fetal tissue.

[Spracne]

But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger?  If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it.  How is a right being denied?  Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this.  Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding.   May be Bill the Thrill.

If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment.  Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding.  Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.

I agree with that line of thinking, but I also think abortion providers would get by just fine without getting taxpayer dollars, and it really shouldn't be our concern even if they can't.

This is not an issue that is near to me, so I don't know all the particulars about how the funding is directed as it relates to specific PP services.  I do know that the amount of funding in question has not reached the general threshold where I feel that I, as a taxpayer, am unduly burdened.  Therefore I defer to the judgment of the legislature that appropriating these funds to subsidize medical care for low-income individuals serves a reasonable policy interest and is probably better than the alternative. Even if there are public dollars subsidizing abortions and the majority thought it inappropriate, (1) abortion is a legal medical procedure, (2) I'm not sure what policy would be advanced by causing poor people to give birth to babies they don't want (at a substantially higher cost to the taxpayer; giving birth is much more expensive than getting an abortion, not to mention the cascade of other benefits that would accrue), and (3) the concept of a cottage industry of abortion loans to low-income individuals seems like it would be much worse than the status quo.

[Spracne]

But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger?  If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it.  How is a right being denied?  Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this.  Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding.   May be Bill the Thrill.

If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment.  Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding.  Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.

I agree with that line of thinking, but I also think abortion providers would get by just fine without getting taxpayer dollars, and it really shouldn't be our concern even if they can't.

That and the fact it would behoove planned parenthood to encourage conflicted women to get abortions in order to make more profit. I think that is the reason people are outraged at any profit being made by the sale of the fetal tissue.

Please note the difference between profit and revenue.  PP is a non-profit.  And actually, I think you have the incentives backwards.  If we cut public funding, then it may behoove PP to encourage conflicted women to get abortions in order to make up for lost revenue.

[Rage Against the McKee]

But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger?  If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it.  How is a right being denied?  Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this.  Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding.   May be Bill the Thrill.

If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment.  Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding.  Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.

I agree with that line of thinking, but I also think abortion providers would get by just fine without getting taxpayer dollars, and it really shouldn't be our concern even if they can't.

This is not an issue that is near to me, so I don't know all the particulars about how the funding is directed as it relates to specific PP services.  I do know that the amount of funding in question has not reached the general threshold where I feel that I, as a taxpayer, am unduly burdened.  Therefore I defer to the judgment of the legislature that appropriating these funds to subsidize medical care for low-income individuals serves a reasonable policy interest and is probably better than the alternative. Even if there are public dollars subsidizing abortions and the majority thought it inappropriate, (1) abortion is a legal medical procedure, (2) I'm not sure what policy would be advanced by causing poor people to give birth to babies they don't want (at a substantially higher cost to the taxpayer; giving birth is much more expensive than getting an abortion, not to mention the cascade of other benefits that would accrue), and (3) the concept of a cottage industry of abortion loans to low-income individuals seems like it would be much worse than the status quo.

To me, it comes down to morality. I don't agree with legislating morality, therefore I think abortion should be legal. At the same time, I'd rather the US government itself not be immoral. Therefore, I don't support taxpayer dollars being used toward murdering unborn babies.

[Yard Dog]

But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger?  If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it.  How is a right being denied?  Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this.  Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding.   May be Bill the Thrill.

If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment.  Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding.  Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.

I agree with that line of thinking, but I also think abortion providers would get by just fine without getting taxpayer dollars, and it really shouldn't be our concern even if they can't.

That and the fact it would behoove planned parenthood to encourage conflicted women to get abortions in order to make more profit. I think that is the reason people are outraged at any profit being made by the sale of the fetal tissue.

Please note the difference between profit and revenue.  PP is a non-profit.  And actually, I think you have the incentives backwards.  If we cut public funding, then it may behoove PP to encourage conflicted women to get abortions in order to make up for lost revenue.

The hope/idea would be that PP would fold and the myriad of more complete and easier to access women's health non profits would be the ones speaking with conflicted women. At the end of the day, the President is willing to let the government shut down to protect an organization. The republicans have put forward a measure that would split the money previously allocated to PP among other non-profits who support women's health. It seems like a no brainer to sign that budget and be good to go. Why are the democrats so hung up on defending one organization?

[Spracne]

But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger?  If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it.  How is a right being denied?  Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this.  Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding.   May be Bill the Thrill.

If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment.  Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding.  Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.

I agree with that line of thinking, but I also think abortion providers would get by just fine without getting taxpayer dollars, and it really shouldn't be our concern even if they can't.

That and the fact it would behoove planned parenthood to encourage conflicted women to get abortions in order to make more profit. I think that is the reason people are outraged at any profit being made by the sale of the fetal tissue.

Please note the difference between profit and revenue.  PP is a non-profit.  And actually, I think you have the incentives backwards.  If we cut public funding, then it may behoove PP to encourage conflicted women to get abortions in order to make up for lost revenue.

The hope/idea would be that PP would fold and the myriad of more complete and easier to access women's health non profits would be the ones speaking with conflicted women. At the end of the day, the President is willing to let the government shut down to protect an organization. The republicans have put forward a measure that would split the money previously allocated to PP among other non-profits who support women's health. It seems like a no brainer to sign that budget and be good to go. Why are the democrats so hung up on defending one organization?

Couldn't one ask why the Republicans are so hung up on destroying one non-profit?

[star seed 7]

Why are theocratic republicans so hell bent on persecuting one women's health organization

[Yard Dog]

Because there is doubt that they are operating ethically and/or legally. If the videos are accurate or not, the issue comes down to whether we continue to fund them and turn a blind eye to the possibility of unethical and illegal behavior, or pause their funding during a full investigation.

[Spracne]

Also, any argument beyond "it will make it slightly harder for poor people to get abortions" is a mere pretext. I think Democrats defend PP because it is the largest organization of its kind that provides services to low-income women, and that fits into their brand narrative. Also, they see it for what it is--yet another attempted end-around to limit the availability of abortions. "Well, we can't make it illegal, so let's make it slightly harder."  It reminds me of the Democrats during Reconstruction. "Sure, blacks can be free, but not toooooo free."

[Spracne]

I think history will judge both the same.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think history will judge both the same.

I think that is unlikely.

[star seed 7]

Because there is doubt that they are operating ethically and/or legally. If the videos are accurate or not, the issue comes down to whether we continue to fund them and turn a blind eye to the possibility of unethical and illegal behavior, or pause their funding during a full investigation.

There is only doubt if you suspend reality and choose to think there are things in the videos that aren't there

[Yard Dog]

Also, any argument beyond "it will make it slightly harder for poor people to get abortions" is a mere pretext. I think Democrats defend PP because it is the largest organization of its kind that provides services to low-income women, and that fits into their brand narrative. Also, they see it for what it is--yet another attempted end-around to limit the availability of abortions. "Well, we can't make it illegal, so let's make it slightly harder."  It reminds me of the Democrats during Reconstruction. "Sure, blacks can be free, but not toooooo free."

How accurate is that really? Is PP practically giving away abortions for free and every other abortion provider is price gouging?

[star seed 7]

Planned parenthood is generally located in low income areas and areas other clinics do not serve, that's why your "plenty of other places to go!" argument is ignorant

[Spracne]

Also, any argument beyond "it will make it slightly harder for poor people to get abortions" is a mere pretext. I think Democrats defend PP because it is the largest organization of its kind that provides services to low-income women, and that fits into their brand narrative. Also, they see it for what it is--yet another attempted end-around to limit the availability of abortions. "Well, we can't make it illegal, so let's make it slightly harder."  It reminds me of the Democrats during Reconstruction. "Sure, blacks can be free, but not toooooo free."

How accurate is that really? Is PP practically giving away abortions for free and every other abortion provider is price gouging?

Are you challenging the validity of the bolded part? For the record, I have no idea what PP charges relative to whatever the market rate is, but that's not even the point.

[Yard Dog]

Also, any argument beyond "it will make it slightly harder for poor people to get abortions" is a mere pretext. I think Democrats defend PP because it is the largest organization of its kind that provides services to low-income women, and that fits into their brand narrative. Also, they see it for what it is--yet another attempted end-around to limit the availability of abortions. "Well, we can't make it illegal, so let's make it slightly harder."  It reminds me of the Democrats during Reconstruction. "Sure, blacks can be free, but not toooooo free."

How accurate is that really? Is PP practically giving away abortions for free and every other abortion provider is price gouging?

Are you challenging the validity of the bolded part? For the record, I have no idea what PP charges relative to whatever the market rate is, but that's not even the point.

Well your statement seemed to be based around that being an understood fact, which I, in my limited research, have found no proof of. I would agree that this is so important to republicans in congress because any damage they can do to the abortion industry is well worth it. Democrats know this, and since our political system is so incredibly divided, they know it would be considered a major loss by the media and their constituents if PP was defunded.

I have a hard time believing the narrative that if PP was defunded that individuals who needed information on the topic of sexual health would be unable to get it. I also doubt that if an individual wanted an abortion, PP being defunded would stop them if they were truly resolute. If I were the democrats I would let this budget through to prove that you can work with the republicans, and then set out to prove that the republicans haven't limited access to abortions at all.

[Spracne]

Do you think if we banned soup kitchens it would be slightly harder for homeless people to get soup?  On the one hand, you say you can't find anything to confirm what I asserted as an understood fact, but on the other hand you seem to rely on it implicitly. After all, if we banned soup kitchens, a truly resolute homeless person would still be able to get soup somewhere else.