• 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!

Will Planned Parenthood get defunded?

Will PP get defunded?

  • Total voters
    33
Kal'Stang said:
Every abortion ends a potential human life. Not an actual human life. You might not see the difference. But others do. And neither you nor I have a Right to tell women what to think of something growing inside their own bodies. And we definitely have no Right to force our religious views on those women either.
Click to expand...

A potentional human life? So like a sperm and egg? Once the life cycle begins we are talking about human life, not potential human life. This biology 101 stuff here, dude. Since we are on the topic of what other people might not agree with lets take note of the fact that other people might disagree with funding PP.
 
Henrin said:
A potentional human life? So like a sperm and egg? Once the life cycle begins we are talking about human life, not potential human life. This biology 101 stuff here, dude.
Click to expand...

It is potential until it is born. Until then, miscarriages happen.
 
Kal'Stang said:
It is potential until it is born. Until then, miscarriages happen.
Click to expand...

You mean like how sometimes people die of natural causes due to organ failure and other such natural means to die? Why does the possibility of dying a natural death before being born somehow make the unborn not human life, but the possibility of dying a natural death after being born not matter to people being human life?
 
Henrin said:
You mean like how sometimes people die of natural causes due to organ failure and other such natural means to die? Why does the possibility of dying a natural death before being born somehow make the unborn not human life, but the possibility of dying a natural death after being born not matter to people being human life?
Click to expand...

Miscarriages happen for tons of reasons. Eating the wrong foods, drinking the wrong tea, moving just so, and many other reasons. More often than not we don't even know why they happen. They just do. So we have no clue if the deaths were "natural" or not. As such the "natural" argument holds no validity.
 
Bucky said:
Planned Parenthood receives roughly $528 a million a year from the government. That is where the majority of their revenue comes from. I believe the Republicans needs to defund PP in the next TrumpCare attempt, otherwise, Paul Ryan and the Republicans will lose face.

This is a big issue to the majority of the voters and polls show the majority of Americans want PP defunded from the government. The only way voters imo will accept funds continue going to that organization is if they agree to stop performing abortions, which we all know will not happen.

Will the Republicans succeed or fold?
Click to expand...

When have republicans really succeeded at defunding anything? They will do what they always do--talk a big game, but when push comes to shove they will back down.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Miscarriages happen for tons of reasons. Eating the wrong foods, drinking the wrong tea, moving just so, and many other reasons. More often than not we don't even know why they happen. They just do. So we have no clue if the deaths were "natural" or not. As such the "natural" argument holds no validity.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. Natural death is natural death no matter how it came to pass. A heart attack or many other organ failures are natural deaths even if they came about from a ****ty diet. Dying because of what you eat doesn't just somehow make the death not natural. The fact that the unborn die naturally for different reasons than the born doesn't even begin to matter to it being human life or not as human biology is not dependent on how you can die. It's frankly just stupid to suggest something is not human life because of how it can die.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
It doesn't matter to me if it ends up saving me on other programs like welfare. I simply do not want to provide assistance towards birth control or any other service PP provides, period. If people want ot have sex it is their responsibility to pay for their own birth control and STD testing, etc, not mine.
Click to expand...

Well, you're in the minority with an opinion like that.
 
calamity said:
Well, you're in the minority with an opinion like that.
Click to expand...

It's an old worn out argument at this point to argue for some liberal objective. But wait...you hate welfare, right? Well, this other thing you hate actually lowers its cost! Yeah, so what you're saying is that I should agree to this thing I hate because it lowers the cost of this other thing I hate. Yeah, I'm going to go with no on that.
 
Henrin said:
That makes no sense. Natural death is natural death no matter how it came to pass. A heart attack or many other organ failures are natural deaths even if they came about from a ****ty diet. Dying because of what you eat doesn't just somehow make the death not natural. The fact that unborn die naturally for different reasons than the born doesn't even begin to matter to it being human life or not as human biology is not dependent on how you can die. It's frankly just stupid to suggest something is not human life because of how it can die.
Click to expand...

If it dies because of an allergic reaction due to the food you fed it I wouldn't call that a natural death.

If it dies because you went jogging where as if you hadn't gone jogging it wouldn't have died, I wouldn't call that a natural death also.

Dying a natural death is dying due to an internal malfunction of the body or an illness. Anything else is considered as being an unnatural death.

Your argument that a miscarriage is "natural" is false because a miscarriage is not always the result of a natural death. As such you have no leg to stand on. Which means the "natural" argument has no validity.

Now if you started to or advocated for autopsies to be performed to determine why a miscarriage happened and prosecuted people for preventable things that could have killed the ZEF just like you'd prosecute someone for leaving a child in a car with windows rolled up in 100 degree weather then it might have some validity. And I'll easily admit that such people do exist and would argue such a stupid concept. But I don't think you're one of those people. As such your natural argument holds no ground.
 
Henrin said:
It doesn't matter to me if it ends up saving me on other programs like welfare. I simply do not want to provide assistance towards birth control or any other service PP provides, period. If people want ot have sex it is their responsibility to pay for their own birth control and STD testing, etc, not mine.
Click to expand...

Well, then pretend that it's my tax dollars paying for PP ...and your tax dollars are paying for Maro Lago and the Wall. That's fair isn't it?
 
Moot said:
Well, then pretend that it's my tax dollars paying for PP ...and your tax dollars are paying for Maro Lago and the Wall. That's fair isn't it?
Click to expand...

You see, you hit the nail on the head there. It would be pretending. That is being too liberal with reality for many.
 
PP's political PAC's spend around 6mil per election cycle. PP receives around 1mil per election cycle of federal funding. PP can fully and easily fund themselves.
 
Phys251 said:
Here we go again. A bunch of us men arguing over whether women's health is an important enough issue for federal support.
Click to expand...

If PP were the only women's health provider you'd have a point, but they're not so you don't.
 
Kal'Stang said:
If it dies because of an allergic reaction due to the food you fed it I wouldn't call that a natural death.

If it dies because you went jogging where as if you hadn't gone jogging it wouldn't have died, I wouldn't call that a natural death also.

Dying a natural death is dying due to an internal malfunction of the body or an illness. Anything else is considered as being an unnatural death.

Your argument that a miscarriage is "natural" is false because a miscarriage is not always the result of a natural death. As such you have no leg to stand on. Which means the "natural" argument has no validity.

Now if you started to or advocated for autopsies to be performed to determine why a miscarriage happened and prosecuted people for preventable things that could have killed the ZEF just like you'd prosecute someone for leaving a child in a car with windows rolled up in 100 degree weather then it might have some validity. And I'll easily admit that such people do exist and would argue such a stupid concept. But I don't think you're one of those people. As such your natural argument holds no ground.
Click to expand...

None of your examples come about from external factors, but things that went wrong with the body of the unborn. An external factor would be something like a gun shot, not an allergic reaction.
 
Henrin said:
None of your examples come about from external factors, but things that went wrong with the body of the unborn. An external factor would be something like a gun shot, not an allergic reaction.
Click to expand...

So the baby fed itself from magically made food that appeared in its tummy? The shaking movement of jogging didn't damage the baby enough to kill it?

And no, an external factor can be anything that was caused by something outside of the babies body. Ask any coroner and they will tell you that is how they rule on naturally occurring deaths vs unnaturally occurring deaths.

Death by natural causes
 
Kal'Stang said:
So the baby fed itself from magically made food that appeared in its tummy? The shaking movement of jogging didn't damage the baby enough to kill it?

And no, an external factor can be anything that was caused by something outside of the babies body. Ask any coroner and they will tell you that is how they rule on naturally occurring deaths vs unnaturally occurring deaths.

Death by natural causes
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of what the word means. You're also wrong on these points of yours. Intervention from the outside world doesn't include things like food that goes into your body and has negative affects on your body. Regardless, your point earlier dealt with the idea that because it can die in different ways than the born that it's not human life, which is biologically ignorant. Again, how something can die doesn't make it not human life. Human life has to do with biological realities of the organism itself. If the human life cycle has begun then a new human life has been created and it is of course very much alive. The idea that you can just dumbly suggest that something that has started it's life as a human is somehow only potential human life is only something that you believe has validity, not science.
 
Henrin said:
It's an old worn out argument at this point to argue for some liberal objective. But wait...you hate welfare, right? Well, this other thing you hate actually lowers its cost! Yeah, so what you're saying is that I should agree to this thing I hate because it lowers the cost of this other thing I hate. Yeah, I'm going to go with no on that.
Click to expand...

Well, think about it. If you hate welfare and abortion, and if birth control reduces both, what the **** is wrong with you when you oppose making birth control easily accessible?
 
calamity said:
Well, think about it. If you hate welfare and abortion, and if birth control reduces both, what the **** is wrong with you when you oppose making birth control easily accessible?
Click to expand...

Maybe that I don't find it reasonable to accept something I find distasteful to lower the occurrence of other things I find distasteful. If I already decided it is peoples own responsibility to pay for their own personal services then I'm not just going to drop that because liberals decided to pass a bunch of crappy laws that I don't like.
 
Henrin said:
Maybe that I don't find it reasonable to accept something I find distasteful to lower the occurrence of other things I find distasteful. If I already decided it is peoples own responsibility to pay for their own personal services then I'm not just going to drop that because liberals decided to pass a bunch of crappy laws that I don't like.
Click to expand...

So, in other words, you're perfectly fine with being unreasonable. :)
 
Henrin said:
I'm well aware of what the word means. You're also wrong on these points of yours. Intervention from the outside world doesn't include things like food that goes into your body and has negative affects on your body. Regardless, your point earlier dealt with the idea that because it can die in different ways than the born that it's not human life, which is biologically ignorant. Again, how something can die doesn't make it not human life. Human life has to do with biological realities of the organism itself. If the human life cycle has begun then a new human life has been created and it is of course very much alive. The idea that you can just dumbly suggest that something that has started it's life as a human is somehow only potential human life is only something that you believe has validity, not science.
Click to expand...

Just depends on how you think doesn't it? Having human DNA and living tissue is not the same as being a human being worthy of protection and Rights. My nose has human dna and is living tissue. However even if you cut it off of me and put it in an environment in which the tissue can survive still won't make it a human being.
 
Phys251 said:
Here we go again. A bunch of us men arguing over whether women's health is an important enough issue for federal support.
Click to expand...

Look ma, misandry.
 
hanger4 said:
If PP were the only women's health provider you'd have a point, but they're not so you don't.
Click to expand...

Well, in a lot of community's PP is the only health provider for low income women...and one of the main points for not defunding them.

In order to defund PP...Congress would have to discriminate against women...change or repeal the Title X law...change Medicare and the tax law... and suffer a slew of lawsuits that the high courts have already ruled on in PPs favor. And thats why I think PP will not be defunded by the government anytime soon.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Just depends on how you think doesn't it? Having human DNA and living tissue is not the same as being a human being worthy of protection and Rights. My nose has human dna and is living tissue. However even if you cut it off of me and put it in an environment in which the tissue can survive still won't make it a human being.
Click to expand...

Your nose is not it's own human organism. Try harder.
 
Moot said:
Well, in a lot of community's PP is the only health provider for low income women...and one of the main points for not defunding them.

In order to defund PP...Congress would have to discriminate against women...change or repeal the Title X law...change Medicare and the tax law... and suffer a slew of lawsuits that the high courts have already ruled on in PPs favor. And thats why I think PP will not be defunded by the government anytime soon.
Click to expand...

PP provides services to both men and women, so it would be hard to make the argument that defunding it is discrimination against women. Anyway, if you repeal title X then the courts would have to find a new argument to rule that defunding PP is unconstitutional. Considering that nothing in the constitution mandates private organizations get funding they are going to have trouble doing that without pulling something out of their ass.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom