• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

And now they come for Planned Parenthood

redbeer said:
People have come up with thousands of reasons to kill unborn babies....what else is new?
Click to expand...
And others have come up with thousands for why they are wrong. The difference is, it is the pregnant woman's body at risk, not yours or those others who think like you. It is the pregnant woman's welfare, and possibly that of her children at risk for a choice that is legally and morally hers to make.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
redbeer said:
"No rights until I was born".....this is how they justify the killing of unborn babies. There will be much to answer in the future.
Click to expand...
You have no rights until birth.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
And others have come up with thousands for why they are wrong. The difference is, it is the pregnant woman's body at risk, not yours or those others who think like you. It is the pregnant woman's welfare, and possibly that of her children at risk for a choice that is legally and morally hers to make.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


The life in the womb of a pregnant woman is not her life, but the life of another human being to come into the world. She is not birthing herself and that which is born is NOT her, but a separate entity. We do not have a right to chose who lives or dies....when we decide, "we do", then comes the demoralizing of the life in the womb, such as, "it's the woman's body", no, it's not, the woman's body surrounds and supports that new life within her, for that which is born is not her, but another's.
 
roguenuke said:
And others have come up with thousands for why they are wrong. The difference is, it is the pregnant woman's body at risk, not yours or those others who think like you. It is the pregnant woman's welfare, and possibly that of her children at risk for a choice that is legally and morally hers to make.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


"duplicate post"
 
roguenuke said:
You have no rights until birth.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


That becomes an issue of faith:


(Jer 1:5) Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.


This is anathema to those who have no faith. I know unborn children have rights....
 
redbeer said:
The life in the womb of a pregnant woman is not her life, but the life of another human being to come into the world. She is not birthing herself and that which is born is NOT her, but a separate entity. We do not have a right to chose who lives or dies....when we decide, "we do", then comes the demoralizing of the life in the womb, such as, "it's the woman's body", no, it's not, the woman's body surrounds and supports that new life within her, for that which is born is not her, but another's.
Click to expand...
Life is not judged by merely being life. It is judged by the value we give it. Other lives do not have a right to put yours at risk, be provided for by your resources simply because they are lives.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
redbeer said:
That becomes an issue of faith:


(Jer 1:5) Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.


This is anathema to those who have no faith. I know unborn children have rights....
Click to expand...
Freedom of religion. I have no faith in those beliefs you do. I am not held to your standards, your beliefs on this plane of existence and none of us know what is in the next, if anything.

Legally, in the US, rights begin at birth.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
redbeer said:
That becomes an issue of faith:

(Jer 1:5) Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

This is anathema to those who have no faith. I know unborn children have rights....
Click to expand...

That is a religious perspective, & that's fine. You're guaranteed (in the US) the right to freedom of worship.

However, the US is a secular republic. Religious belief is all over the map in the US, from devout Christians to no religious belief @ all, & all kinds of beliefs in between. As a practical matter, the US government either has to recognize all beliefs as equally valid, & be careful not to infringe any of their tenets; or steer a neutral course on all belief.

Given the difficulties of respecting all religious beliefs, the federal government steers a neutral course on religious belief. & so no belief system in the US is privileged, they all have to contend for believers. In the long run, this has been beneficial to the various beliefs & to government. As witness the gradual decay of state religions in Europe, for instance.
 
dorsai said:
As a black person, I am fully aware of the religious and morally conservative nature of much of the American black population. There may be more preachers and deacons in my extended family than teachers. My own staunchly Democratic parents are very active in the Catholic church. I have always been surprised at many that turn a blind eye to Planned Parenthood. Many, like my sisters and cousins my age, believe Planned Parenthood is a force for good. When I have tried to point out Planned Parenthood was started by a racists and her idea of eugenics was to breed the non-whites out of existence, that is always met with skepticism and derision.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you felt the need to identify yourself as a black person for this discussion. But since you did, let me just say that, as a black man, it is clear to me that your problem here has little to do with race and everything to do with knowledge of that history (or lack thereof).

First, the fact that Margaret Sanger was an advocate for eugenics is on relevant in proper context. After all, so was FDR. So was W.E.B. DuBois. So was Winston Churchill. So was George Bernard Shaw. So was Herbert Hoover. So was Alexander Graham Bell. So was Teddy Roosevelt. So was Jacques Cousteau. So was John Maynard Keynes. I could go on and on, but the point here is that eugenics was very much an article of faith among scholars and academics in 19th and early 20th centuries. Sanger (the founder of PP, to which you refer) was hardly unique in that regard. But she promoted eugenics (i.e. selective breeding among the affluent and educated) for whites as well as for African-Americans.

Secondly, the myth about Sanger being a proponent of "breeding non-whites out of existence"....has been long-since discredited. That's a lie that was created by the so-called "pro-life" movement. And, as you have proven, some black people have been fooled by it. So your sisters and cousins "skepticism" of that argument, and their "derision" of you...are both well-founded.

Thirdly, the simple FACT is that abortions comprise only 3% of the services provided by PP. The other 97% involves health screenings (for cancer, STD's, etc.), contraception, wellness exams and minor gynecological surgical procedures.

So it would seem to me that your opposition to Planned Parenthood is more ideological, than anything else. You should be more honest, next time.

Now, it seems Planned Parenthood's own employees are turning SJW gunships at the "women's health" organization. This is an open letter to PPGNY:
Click to expand...
Stupid comment.

That was just an open letter in opposition to a particular regional executive at PP.

I don't believe this will move the needle on support for or against PP. I don't think it will move the needle in the national discussion on racism. But it is surprising to me to see Planned Parenthood's own employees and supporters finally recognizing the deep seated racist roots in their organization.
Click to expand...
Another dumb comment.

Planned Parenthood's "roots" (as you put it) are no more relevant today than the "roots" of the Democratic Party...or the "roots" of the Republican Party. Organizations and political parties evolve over time. What matters to people is what PP (and the Democratic Party...and the GOP) stands for TODAY. TODAY, PP absolutely stands for "good". Even for anti-abortion types (who tend to be anything BUT "pro-life"), it's ridiculous to oppose an organization that provides so many needed services to communities of all stripes, regardless of socioeconomic status.

Does anyone believe these employees are off base?
Click to expand...
No, they aren't "off base". You are.

You seem to be confused about the subject and purpose of that open letter.

From a BLM perspective, should their past be overlooked because they stand in solidarity?
Click to expand...
Well, this settles it. You really are confused.

What does standing with the #BLM protesters have to do with the mission of Planned Parenthood? If you still believe that PP's "secret" mission is now (or ever was) to "breed non-whites out of existence"...you're not very smart. In deed, you're part of the problem.

Or is this just another hypocritical organization doing CYA?
Click to expand...
No, I'm afraid this is just another case of a hypocritical (or just confused) right-winger.
 
roguenuke said:
Freedom of religion. I have no faith in those beliefs you do. I am not held to your standards, your beliefs on this plane of existence and none of us know what is in the next, if anything.

Legally, in the US, rights begin at birth.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


That is evident in your belief in abortion. In some states they have prosecuted drug abusers for delivering drugs to their babies while pregnant, thusly giving some legal protection to the fetus. I think this is why the left is going further and further to the left on abortion, even going to the ninth month and even once born. We must understand that it is a living breathing human being growing inside the mothers womb and not to speak of it as if it's a non-entity.
 
redbeer said:
That is evident in your belief in abortion. In some states they have prosecuted drug abusers for delivering drugs to their babies while pregnant, thusly giving some legal protection to the fetus. I think this is why the left is going further and further to the left on abortion, even going to the ninth month and even once born. We must understand that it is a living breathing human being growing inside the mothers womb and not to speak of it as if it's a non-entity.
Click to expand...

belief in abortion - Has anyone here expressed a belief in abortion? I've seen references to the pregnant woman's ability to choose elective abortion, under the guidelines of Roe v. Wade.

abortion, even going to the ninth month and even once born - Late term abortion is medically recommended. & even so, the woman can choose not to abort. Under Roe, elective abortion can be constrained by the states in the third trimester, if they opt to do so.

Abortion can't be performed after birth - you're talking about something else there.

living breathing human being growing inside the mother - The fetus is alive, & under normal circumstances, becoming ready to be born. The fetus can't be breathing, because there is no free air in the womb; the fetus is oxygenated via the umbilical & the placenta. The human part is understood, but had nothing to do with the holding in Roe.
 
redbeer said:
That is evident in your belief in abortion. In some states they have prosecuted drug abusers for delivering drugs to their babies while pregnant, thusly giving some legal protection to the fetus. I think this is why the left is going further and further to the left on abortion, even going to the ninth month and even once born. We must understand that it is a living breathing human being growing inside the mothers womb and not to speak of it as if it's a non-entity.
Click to expand...
I am actually very much against abortion itself. I am simply for the right for a woman to make the choice for herself, for her circumstances, as it is her body and welfare at risk, and her medical privacy.

I also have issues with the implications such laws against abortion have on my medical privacy. The government has no right to know if I'm pregnant, and then no right to know if I am no longer pregnant without adding an extra person to the population.

And I'm for giving women and wanted children the best chance at the best quality life, after birth.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
ultmd said:
I'm not sure why you felt the need to identify yourself as a black person for this discussion. But since you did, let me just say that, as a black man, it is clear to me that your problem here has little to do with race and everything to do with knowledge of that history (or lack thereof).

First, the fact that Margaret Sanger was an advocate for eugenics is on relevant in proper context. After all, so was FDR. So was W.E.B. DuBois. So was Winston Churchill. So was George Bernard Shaw. So was Herbert Hoover. So was Alexander Graham Bell. So was Teddy Roosevelt. So was Jacques Cousteau. So was John Maynard Keynes. I could go on and on, but the point here is that eugenics was very much an article of faith among scholars and academics in 19th and early 20th centuries. Sanger (the founder of PP, to which you refer) was hardly unique in that regard. But she promoted eugenics (i.e. selective breeding among the affluent and educated) for whites as well as for African-Americans.

Secondly, the myth about Sanger being a proponent of "breeding non-whites out of existence"....has been long-since discredited. That's a lie that was created by the so-called "pro-life" movement. And, as you have proven, some black people have been fooled by it. So your sisters and cousins "skepticism" of that argument, and their "derision" of you...are both well-founded.

Thirdly, the simple FACT is that abortions comprise only 3% of the services provided by PP. The other 97% involves health screenings (for cancer, STD's, etc.), contraception, wellness exams and minor gynecological surgical procedures.

So it would seem to me that your opposition to Planned Parenthood is more ideological, than anything else. You should be more honest, next time.


Stupid comment.

That was just an open letter in opposition to a particular regional executive at PP.


Another dumb comment.

Planned Parenthood's "roots" (as you put it) are no more relevant today than the "roots" of the Democratic Party...or the "roots" of the Republican Party. Organizations and political parties evolve over time. What matters to people is what PP (and the Democratic Party...and the GOP) stands for TODAY. TODAY, PP absolutely stands for "good". Even for anti-abortion types (who tend to be anything BUT "pro-life"), it's ridiculous to oppose an organization that provides so many needed services to communities of all stripes, regardless of socioeconomic status.


No, they aren't "off base". You are.

You seem to be confused about the subject and purpose of that open letter.


Well, this settles it. You really are confused.

What does standing with the #BLM protesters have to do with the mission of Planned Parenthood? If you still believe that PP's "secret" mission is now (or ever was) to "breed non-whites out of existence"...you're not very smart. In deed, you're part of the problem.


No, I'm afraid this is just another case of a hypocritical (or just confused) right-winger.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...I guess Mr. "black person" (i.e. "dorsai") quietly exited his own thread, huh? :lamo

Not surprising.
 
ultmd said:
Hmmm...I guess Mr. "black person" (i.e. "dorsai") quietly exited his own thread, huh? :lamo

Not surprising.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he's gone off to study the Tactics of mistake?
 
I agree, this will not move the needle for or against PP. The founder's beliefs and PP current treatment of their employees, has nothing to do with reproductive rights. If they have issues with management, let them go on strike or other ways to mediate their concerns. Pregnant women who need their services won't be put off by this. In many cases PP is their only option.

This reminds me of liberals who want to tear down statutes of Washington because he owned slaves. But what he brought to our country far outweighs his faults and bad character traits. It's the same with the founder of PP. If there were any statues, I imagine many conservatives would tear them down because of her beliefs, while ignoring how PP provides safe, low to cost free reproductive services to millions of American women...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom