In the comment you referred to earlier, I was not making that comparison - you will see that if you read it. You weren't "letting anything by" - you were misreading my comment.
Again, you're referring to a comment that does not claim that a fetus and an irreversibly comatose person are wholly the same thing. In this new comment that you quoted, I am explaining that a fetus and an irreversibly comatose person are both human, nothing more - this is not a contested statement, so your comments on it are strawmen.
Let me make this clear so you stop attributing imaginary arguments to me:
Not once have I claimed that someone in an irreversible coma and a fetus are the same thing. I have claimed that both can be considered human and that both can respond to external stimuli. Nothing more.
Yeah, you just brought it up to say they are both human. It had absolutely nothing to do with suggesting the two are otherwise comparable to each other. :roll: Seriously, how transparent can a lie get? You were playing the classic "pro-choice" game of likening the unborn to vegetables, actually putting them beneath such people, so as to suggest there is absolutely no reason a person should object to their mass slaughter for the sake of convenience.
This is dishonest, simply because the issue is far more complex than you are presenting.
The issue is always more complex, but I am not nearly interested enough in refuting the absurdity of the argument in detail. If Planned Parenthood were to be shut down as a result of defunding, not a certainty, it might inconvenience the people who use it and possibly make it difficult for a small portion of them to receive some of the services offered, but the kind of rhetoric being thrown around about Planned Parenthood is greatly exaggerating its importance.
I've told you before, DoL. You do not get to tell me what my position is. I know you would much prefer to argue against what you WISH I had said than what I actually said. Too bad. Try to be honest when you debate.
Lol, I wasn't telling you for any other reason than because I think it would be the correct thing to say. You can spin it around however you like and get all paranoid, but I was merely suggesting you should adopt a position that I consider correct.
What's not going to work is you attempting to straw man my argument. Again, I know you would MUCH prefer to argue against what you WANT me to have said, but THAT'S not going to fly. Your descriptions were over the top and absolute. Mine were not. You failed, again.
So are you telling me you think there will not be more of these issues? If you insist you were not stating an absolute than that would mean you are suggesting these might not be an issue at all yet you are insisting I provide a solution for these problems that are already present. Of course, I was reading between the lines of your comments since I know how people on the "pro-choice" side tend to debate. As it stands you have yet to deviate from the typical path of debate. The nonsense of saying "Oh but these children will be abused; it will put even greater strains on social services, the budget, and our economy; and there will be serious health risks if you go and stop killing babies!" is just par for the course. That is an appeal to emotion.
Of course it is. You don't want it to be because it prevents you from attempting to validate your position using emotional and inaccurate terminology. Debate correctly and we won't have these problems.
Are you saying calling for the mass-murder of people for their race genocide is appeal to emotion? If not are you suggesting that I am lying when I say that I truly consider abortion to be the mass slaughter of children? Those are the only two options you have there.
It is not an appeal to emotion. How many people do you think would be making the arguments you are making for allowing abortion if it was widely recognized that they were as human as the rest of us?
DoL, the situation would be different. I do not care about you solving the current situation. Give some solutions to the issues that the addition of hundreds of thousands of children will bring. This is not a small matter. You want this, you identify how it works.
The situation would not be different, however. It would only mean that the issues might be larger. Like I said, your demand is illegitimate because someone who believes it is the slaughter of innocent human life for no good reason is not going to think first about the consequences and second about stopping it. How about, for once, someone on your side actually debate the issue of abortion itself? Tell me why the near certainty of human consciousness in a matter of months after conception does not merit the same protections other people have. Explain to me how you would go about determining a cut-off point for when the unborn are worthy of said protections and are not, since I assume you believe there is a point where such protections should exist.
Abortion is currently legal. Your position is invalid based on that.
That is just a difference in how we view the law. You believe the physical institutions of the State and the force to impose their decisions are the only things that matter and my belief is that there is a natural law overriding any institutions of man with that belief being the very basis of constitutional government.
DoL, you do not understand the difficulty in finding Medicaid providers. Medicaid pay SO poorly, most providers refuse to accept it. So, telling someone to find another Medicaid provider is not so easy.
"Most" providers? From what I can tell that is definitely wrong.
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. I have no problem with a facility that provides abortions getting federal aid as long as that aid is not being used for abortions.
I am just demonstrating how many places get funding to provide these services to the poor.
OK. Let's say that is accurate. So, 11% of what PP does is provide abortions. 89% is other services. STILL... big difference.
Actually, that just means 11% of their clients received abortions that year. It does not reflect how much of that takes up their efforts. One must keep in mind that at present only a third of their facilities offer abortions so it would suggest those facilities provide far more abortions than anything else.