In response to:

Planned Parenthood Performed 333,964 Abortions in 2011

Big_Bleu Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 10:56 AM
I know this is going to be an outrageous statement and will upset a lot of you, but here goes. As we cry about our tax dollars being misused on PP and other entitlement programs, i.e. welfare, is it not cheaper to allow abortions than to pay for an unwanted kid for a lifetime?
Mike ATX Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 11:08 AM
It would be less expensive to ask people to live choices they've made in their lives and not compromise our morals.
Big_Bleu Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 11:15 AM
There in lies the issue with the PP debate. On one hand it is a moral/religous issue on the other hand it is a funding issue. They might be compromising their own morals if they have any, but in no way does it affect YOU morally.
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 11:25 AM
@BB - Nonsense. It is a fundamental issue in this country which requires equal protection under the law for all human individuals. We are obliged to protect life, but that does not equate to the forced "charity through taxation" support of those who are unwilling to support themselves.

Your argument is like saying that standing aside while a hospital intentionally murders its patients to harvest their organs is "morally neutral."
Big_Bleu Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:01 PM
I am trying to follow you, but I don't think I am fully getting what you are saying in the above post. "...equal protection under the law for all human individuals", does that exist? If we are obligated to protect life why has Roe v Wade stood for +30 yrs?

My argument? My only arguement is that you cannot force morality on someone.
DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:18 PM
"My only argument is that you cannot force morality on someone."

Tell that to the person who wants to be protected from a potential murderer. "Sorry, we can't protect you, because that would be forcing morality on someone."
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:26 PM
@BB - Read the 14th Amendment. Roe v Wade was an admittedly bad legal decision made in violation of the stare decisis doctrine, based on perjured statements from the petitioner (Norma McCorvey) and her representative attorneys. It had no basis in scientific evidence and was purely an opinion piece from a liberal judicial activist. The only reason it remains on the books is because liberals refuse to open it up to debate, recognizing it is a voting "cash cow" thanks to feminism.

Your argument sounds like your own concept of morality which you are attempting to force on those who disagree with you. The law is a form of forced morality, so you are wrong in both concept and practice.
Big_Bleu Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:17 PM
It would help the discussion if you would stay in the context of the discussion, abortion.
Big_Bleu Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:25 PM
I have read it. So how does Roe v Wade upend the 14th Amendent? Better your yet point me in the direct of some good reading material and I will better understand.
I also completely agree with you on why it remains on the books.

Isn't your stance an attempt to force people to be how you see it?
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:27 PM
"I have read it. So how does Roe v Wade upend the 14th Amendent?"

Because Roe v Wade denies the humanity of the unborn, something which has been proven through genetics and biology, stripping them of their right to equal protection and makes it legal to kill them without due process under the law. This is a direct contradiction of both the Constitutional right to life and the 14th Amendment.

I have never denied my desire to force this issue on people because my "stance" is based on scientific fact and my desire to uphold the Constitution, while my opponents have never presented evidence to the contrary and frequently demonstrate their disregard for our constitutional freedoms.
Big_Bleu Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:49 PM
Sorry, I should have phrased my question better. How is Roe v Wade able to circumvent the Constition and the 14 Amendment? It seems to me that the mother not the childs rights were the only ones considered during Roe v Wade. Also, the 14 Amendment states persons born or naturalized, so does an unborn child (not conception) have the rights?

I am serious just trying to learn here not bash you veiws. I enjoy the education of this discussion.
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:58 PM
It is able to circumvent the Constitution and the 14th Amendment for the same reason it remains on the books - it is not available for honest debate or legal challenge. A court which is bound by stare decisis is not going to attempt to override a prior decision on its own.

The part of the 14th Amendment I'm referring to is this:

"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."
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 11:04 AM
On that note, would it not simply be cheaper to euthanize all welfare applicants and those who are disabled?
Big_Bleu Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 11:09 AM
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 11:11 AM
Big_Bleu Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 11:18 AM
No it doesn't make it right.
Big_Bleu Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 11:18 AM
No it doesn't make it right.
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 11:26 AM
The answer is no different for either question.
Bufa Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 11:02 AM
How about people make choices that don't affect the unborn children and others around them in a negative way?
How about better choices?

Planned Parenthood has released it's annual report for fiscal year 2011-2012. The taxpayer funded organization performed a record 333,964 abortions in 2011 alone and received 45 percent of its annual revenue from taxpayers. Over the past three years, Planned Parenthood performed nearly a million abortions.

Although the abortion giant markets itself as a women's health organization simply providing cancer screenings and contraception, those services continue to decrease at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country. Since 2009, contraceptive services have dropped by 12 percent while cancer screening services have decreased by 29 percent.

Pro-life Susan B. Anthony List...