Trump signs bill allowing states to defund planned parenthood

[Mudda]

So what is it about PP that you want funding protection removed? You don't like helping poor people?

Show me the part of the Constitution that says private organizations are entitled to my tax dollars and can't be denied them and maybe I'll change my stance.

So it's ok to send tax dollars to a private company like Boeing for fighter jets, but not to PP to help poor people. Sounds like a smokescreen for some other reason. C'mon, spit it out, you can do it.

Don't change the subject. I'm waiting.............

Let me guess, is there a part about commerce in the Constitution?

The Commerce Clause doesn't apply. Try again

So there needs to be something in the Constitution for the Feds to buy some pencils from a private company?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Show me the part of the Constitution that says private organizations are entitled to my tax dollars and can't be denied them and maybe I'll change my stance.

So it's ok to send tax dollars to a private company like Boeing for fighter jets, but not to PP to help poor people. Sounds like a smokescreen for some other reason. C'mon, spit it out, you can do it.

Don't change the subject. I'm waiting.............

Let me guess, is there a part about commerce in the Constitution?

The Commerce Clause doesn't apply. Try again

So there needs to be something in the Constitution for the Feds to buy some pencils from a private company?

Where on earth did you get that idea from? How is that example even relevant to our discussion?

You're not very educated, are you.

 

[Aries]

I maintain a collection of undeveloped cells is not a person until it is viable outside of the womb.

You do realize, don't you, that your standard includes children that have been around for a while? Think of it this way.

Take an unborn child out of the womb, lay it next to a newborn child, and next to that a child aged 4 months. Walk away and come back in a week.

Which of the children will be alive?

IOW, "viability" is not a good standard unless it is defined, and when it is defined, includes either the unborn or the already born in ways not intended.

viability when talking about pregnancy is defined by whether a fetus can sustain life outside the mother womb. Thus- children who have already been born are already excluded from the conversation.
fetus' before viability do not have the ability to keep themselves alive because they are NOT fully developed. They are developing.
fetus' after viability have developed enough of their body to live. They have brains, they have lungs, they have kidneys, they have a shot at life outside the womb. They are no longer a cluster of developing cells but they are now developed. They are a baby, a person, a child. Compared to the unviable fetus.
That is my opinion, and the opinion of our law.

Okay. A preemie can sustain life outside the womb when born a few weeks early. Are you thus willing to protect all the unborn within a few weeks of delivery?

I believe after viability(around 24 weeks) the child should be protected, except for at the expense of the pregnant woman.
For example, after 25 weeks woman decides to change her mind and wants an abortion.. No, you had months to decide.
After 25 weeks the doctors tell the woman carrying to full term could be severely detrimental to her health for some reason and she wants an abortion. Yes, women should not be forced to carry out a dangerous pregnancy.
So to answer your question, a baby who a few weeks premature is a baby not a fetus and should be protected.

Can you quote the language of the Constitution that says only "viable" persons have a right to the equal protections of our laws? I can only find the part where it says ALL persons have that right.

did you see the part where abortions are legal because undeveloped tissue doesn't constitute as a person?

 

[Mudda]

Ya, you wouldn't want to help poor people.

Depends on one's definition of "help."

Plan their families, you know, like in the name, planned parenthood. Rich people can pay for their own doctors, poor families can use some help... with legal health care. You want to change some on abortion, fight it at the Supreme Court, don't beat up on poor people because they're an easier target, that's cowardly at best.

Can poor people afford a rubber? bc pills? morning after pill? If they can't figure that out, then they shouldn't be breeding in the first place. Stop Planned Parenthood from going to class rooms, telling these children how easy abortion is, and start telling them how easy it is not to get pregnant. Women have a lot of choices these days. Taking a life shouldn't be one of them.
And for the record. Pulling an infant's leg off in utero, is as painful as ripping your leg off right now.
Rethink this grotesque ritual. It truly is savage.

Ya, they should just stop breeding. Now why didn't I think of that?

 

[Chuz Life]

You do realize, don't you, that your standard includes children that have been around for a while? Think of it this way.

Take an unborn child out of the womb, lay it next to a newborn child, and next to that a child aged 4 months. Walk away and come back in a week.

Which of the children will be alive?

IOW, "viability" is not a good standard unless it is defined, and when it is defined, includes either the unborn or the already born in ways not intended.

viability when talking about pregnancy is defined by whether a fetus can sustain life outside the mother womb. Thus- children who have already been born are already excluded from the conversation.
fetus' before viability do not have the ability to keep themselves alive because they are NOT fully developed. They are developing.
fetus' after viability have developed enough of their body to live. They have brains, they have lungs, they have kidneys, they have a shot at life outside the womb. They are no longer a cluster of developing cells but they are now developed. They are a baby, a person, a child. Compared to the unviable fetus.
That is my opinion, and the opinion of our law.

Okay. A preemie can sustain life outside the womb when born a few weeks early. Are you thus willing to protect all the unborn within a few weeks of delivery?

I believe after viability(around 24 weeks) the child should be protected, except for at the expense of the pregnant woman.
For example, after 25 weeks woman decides to change her mind and wants an abortion.. No, you had months to decide.
After 25 weeks the doctors tell the woman carrying to full term could be severely detrimental to her health for some reason and she wants an abortion. Yes, women should not be forced to carry out a dangerous pregnancy.
So to answer your question, a baby who a few weeks premature is a baby not a fetus and should be protected.

Can you quote the language of the Constitution that says only "viable" persons have a right to the equal protections of our laws? I can only find the part where it says ALL persons have that right.

did you see the part where abortions are legal because undeveloped tissue doesn't constitute as a person?

QUOTE it.

Then, link to it.

 

[hadit]

I maintain a collection of undeveloped cells is not a person until it is viable outside of the womb.

You do realize, don't you, that your standard includes children that have been around for a while? Think of it this way.

Take an unborn child out of the womb, lay it next to a newborn child, and next to that a child aged 4 months. Walk away and come back in a week.

Which of the children will be alive?

IOW, "viability" is not a good standard unless it is defined, and when it is defined, includes either the unborn or the already born in ways not intended.

viability when talking about pregnancy is defined by whether a fetus can sustain life outside the mother womb. Thus- children who have already been born are already excluded from the conversation.
fetus' before viability do not have the ability to keep themselves alive because they are NOT fully developed. They are developing.
fetus' after viability have developed enough of their body to live. They have brains, they have lungs, they have kidneys, they have a shot at life outside the womb. They are no longer a cluster of developing cells but they are now developed. They are a baby, a person, a child. Compared to the unviable fetus.
That is my opinion, and the opinion of our law.

Okay. A preemie can sustain life outside the womb when born a few weeks early. Are you thus willing to protect all the unborn within a few weeks of delivery?

I believe after viability(around 24 weeks) the child should be protected, except for at the expense of the pregnant woman.
For example, after 25 weeks woman decides to change her mind and wants an abortion.. No, you had months to decide.
After 25 weeks the doctors tell the woman carrying to full term could be severely detrimental to her health for some reason and she wants an abortion. Yes, women should not be forced to carry out a dangerous pregnancy.
So to answer your question, a baby who a few weeks premature is a baby not a fetus and should be protected.

Can you quote the language of the Constitution that says only "viable" persons have a right to the equal protections of our laws? I can only find the part where it says ALL persons have that right.

That's a good point. Chris Reeves didn't lose his personhood when he hit his head on the rock, but he would have quickly died without artificial life support. He was, for all intents and purposes, unviable, yet anyone who cut his body apart with a saw or burned his skin off with chemicals would have been tried for murder.

 

[Mudda]

So it's ok to send tax dollars to a private company like Boeing for fighter jets, but not to PP to help poor people. Sounds like a smokescreen for some other reason. C'mon, spit it out, you can do it.

Don't change the subject. I'm waiting.............

Let me guess, is there a part about commerce in the Constitution?

The Commerce Clause doesn't apply. Try again

So there needs to be something in the Constitution for the Feds to buy some pencils from a private company?

Where on earth did you get that idea from? How is that example even relevant to our discussion?

You're not very educated, are you.

You don't want the Feds to give money to a private company for services rendered to the population. They do it when they buy pencils, bombs, limos, protection in Iraq... basically, all day, every day. So stop being such a troll, it's not a good example to set.

 

[Aries]

viability when talking about pregnancy is defined by whether a fetus can sustain life outside the mother womb. Thus- children who have already been born are already excluded from the conversation.
fetus' before viability do not have the ability to keep themselves alive because they are NOT fully developed. They are developing.
fetus' after viability have developed enough of their body to live. They have brains, they have lungs, they have kidneys, they have a shot at life outside the womb. They are no longer a cluster of developing cells but they are now developed. They are a baby, a person, a child. Compared to the unviable fetus.
That is my opinion, and the opinion of our law.

Okay. A preemie can sustain life outside the womb when born a few weeks early. Are you thus willing to protect all the unborn within a few weeks of delivery?

I believe after viability(around 24 weeks) the child should be protected, except for at the expense of the pregnant woman.
For example, after 25 weeks woman decides to change her mind and wants an abortion.. No, you had months to decide.
After 25 weeks the doctors tell the woman carrying to full term could be severely detrimental to her health for some reason and she wants an abortion. Yes, women should not be forced to carry out a dangerous pregnancy.
So to answer your question, a baby who a few weeks premature is a baby not a fetus and should be protected.

Can you quote the language of the Constitution that says only "viable" persons have a right to the equal protections of our laws? I can only find the part where it says ALL persons have that right.

did you see the part where abortions are legal because undeveloped tissue doesn't constitute as a person?

QUOTE it.

Then, link to it.

roe v wade, women can have abortions up until viability. Do your own homework.

 

[Mudda]

Now Planned Parenthood has a CHOICE to make. Stop performing abortions and receive government money again so they can continue to "help the poor." Or continue killing children and use their own blood soaked profits to do so.

Why should they stop a legal procedure? If you want to make that procedure illegal, go to the Supreme Court. Don't try to beat up poor women because they're an easier target, that's cowardly.

The Supreme Court doesn't make law.

That's why RvW is not legal in the first place.

So does the Supreme Court's opinion not count always, or just in this particular case?

 

[Aries]

You do realize, don't you, that your standard includes children that have been around for a while? Think of it this way.

Take an unborn child out of the womb, lay it next to a newborn child, and next to that a child aged 4 months. Walk away and come back in a week.

Which of the children will be alive?

IOW, "viability" is not a good standard unless it is defined, and when it is defined, includes either the unborn or the already born in ways not intended.

viability when talking about pregnancy is defined by whether a fetus can sustain life outside the mother womb. Thus- children who have already been born are already excluded from the conversation.
fetus' before viability do not have the ability to keep themselves alive because they are NOT fully developed. They are developing.
fetus' after viability have developed enough of their body to live. They have brains, they have lungs, they have kidneys, they have a shot at life outside the womb. They are no longer a cluster of developing cells but they are now developed. They are a baby, a person, a child. Compared to the unviable fetus.
That is my opinion, and the opinion of our law.

Okay. A preemie can sustain life outside the womb when born a few weeks early. Are you thus willing to protect all the unborn within a few weeks of delivery?

I believe after viability(around 24 weeks) the child should be protected, except for at the expense of the pregnant woman.
For example, after 25 weeks woman decides to change her mind and wants an abortion.. No, you had months to decide.
After 25 weeks the doctors tell the woman carrying to full term could be severely detrimental to her health for some reason and she wants an abortion. Yes, women should not be forced to carry out a dangerous pregnancy.
So to answer your question, a baby who a few weeks premature is a baby not a fetus and should be protected.

Can you quote the language of the Constitution that says only "viable" persons have a right to the equal protections of our laws? I can only find the part where it says ALL persons have that right.

That's a good point. Chris Reeves didn't lose his personhood when he hit his head on the rock, but he would have quickly died without artificial life support. He was, for all intents and purposes, unviable, yet anyone who cut his body apart with a saw or burned his skin off with chemicals would have been tried for murder.

When talking about pregnancy- viability is defined by whether or not the fetus can sustain life outside the womb. Including persons or children who have already been born is irrelevant, circular, and misleading.

 

[tycho1572]

What happened to RealDave?

 

[Aries]

How is abortion brutal when the developing cells can't feel pain?
Abortions are brutal on a woman, that is why the decision should be in the hands of her and her doctors.

So you maintain it's okay to dismember as long as the person being hacked apart can't feel it?

Can I dope up my mom and hack her to pieces? She won't feel it, after all...

I maintain a collection of undeveloped cells is not a person until it is viable outside of the womb.

You do realize, don't you, that your standard includes children that have been around for a while? Think of it this way.

Take an unborn child out of the womb, lay it next to a newborn child, and next to that a child aged 4 months. Walk away and come back in a week.

Which of the children will be alive?

IOW, "viability" is not a good standard unless it is defined, and when it is defined, includes either the unborn or the already born in ways not intended.

viability when talking about pregnancy is defined by whether a fetus can sustain life outside the mother womb. Thus- children who have already been born are already excluded from the conversation.
fetus' before viability do not have the ability to keep themselves alive because they are NOT fully developed. They are developing.
fetus' after viability have developed enough of their body to live. They have brains, they have lungs, they have kidneys, they have a shot at life outside the womb. They are no longer a cluster of developing cells but they are now developed. They are a baby, a person, a child. Compared to the unviable fetus.
That is my opinion, and the opinion of our law.

The law is always wrong when it's justifying human rights violations, murder and depravity. History shows us that. And we are obliged to overthrow such laws, and hold accountable the monsters who thrust them upon us.

how can you violate the human rights of a cell cluster? whats next, tumors have rights?

 

[Chuz Life]

Okay. A preemie can sustain life outside the womb when born a few weeks early. Are you thus willing to protect all the unborn within a few weeks of delivery?

I believe after viability(around 24 weeks) the child should be protected, except for at the expense of the pregnant woman.
For example, after 25 weeks woman decides to change her mind and wants an abortion.. No, you had months to decide.
After 25 weeks the doctors tell the woman carrying to full term could be severely detrimental to her health for some reason and she wants an abortion. Yes, women should not be forced to carry out a dangerous pregnancy.
So to answer your question, a baby who a few weeks premature is a baby not a fetus and should be protected.

Can you quote the language of the Constitution that says only "viable" persons have a right to the equal protections of our laws? I can only find the part where it says ALL persons have that right.

did you see the part where abortions are legal because undeveloped tissue doesn't constitute as a person?

QUOTE it.

Then, link to it.

roe v wade, women can have abortions up until viability. Do your own homework.

Roe v Wade is not in the Constitution, jackass.

 

[Chuz Life]

So you maintain it's okay to dismember as long as the person being hacked apart can't feel it?

Can I dope up my mom and hack her to pieces? She won't feel it, after all...

I maintain a collection of undeveloped cells is not a person until it is viable outside of the womb.

You do realize, don't you, that your standard includes children that have been around for a while? Think of it this way.

Take an unborn child out of the womb, lay it next to a newborn child, and next to that a child aged 4 months. Walk away and come back in a week.

Which of the children will be alive?

IOW, "viability" is not a good standard unless it is defined, and when it is defined, includes either the unborn or the already born in ways not intended.

viability when talking about pregnancy is defined by whether a fetus can sustain life outside the mother womb. Thus- children who have already been born are already excluded from the conversation.
fetus' before viability do not have the ability to keep themselves alive because they are NOT fully developed. They are developing.
fetus' after viability have developed enough of their body to live. They have brains, they have lungs, they have kidneys, they have a shot at life outside the womb. They are no longer a cluster of developing cells but they are now developed. They are a baby, a person, a child. Compared to the unviable fetus.
That is my opinion, and the opinion of our law.

The law is always wrong when it's justifying human rights violations, murder and depravity. History shows us that. And we are obliged to overthrow such laws, and hold accountable the monsters who thrust them upon us.

how can you violate the human rights of a cell cluster? whats next, tumors have rights?

What more than a cluster of cells are you?

 

[koshergrl]

Now Planned Parenthood has a CHOICE to make. Stop performing abortions and receive government money again so they can continue to "help the poor." Or continue killing children and use their own blood soaked profits to do so.

Why should they stop a legal procedure? If you want to make that procedure illegal, go to the Supreme Court. Don't try to beat up poor women because they're an easier target, that's cowardly.

The Supreme Court doesn't make law.

That's why RvW is not legal in the first place.

So does the Supreme Court's opinion not count always, or just in this particular case?

That wasn't an opinion. They created law.

Unconstitutional, and illegal.

"On a number of occasions, the Supreme Court has used the sword of its unaccountable power to rewrite the Constitution and fundamentally disrupt constitutional processes. Notable examples include, as I’ve pointed out before, Dred Scott and Roe. And then, with the damage done, it has used the shield of the “rule of law” to ensure that its lawless acts are respected and enforced, without exception. "

For an Example of Lawlessness, See the Supreme Court, Not Kim Davis

 

[Aries]

I believe after viability(around 24 weeks) the child should be protected, except for at the expense of the pregnant woman.
For example, after 25 weeks woman decides to change her mind and wants an abortion.. No, you had months to decide.
After 25 weeks the doctors tell the woman carrying to full term could be severely detrimental to her health for some reason and she wants an abortion. Yes, women should not be forced to carry out a dangerous pregnancy.
So to answer your question, a baby who a few weeks premature is a baby not a fetus and should be protected.

Can you quote the language of the Constitution that says only "viable" persons have a right to the equal protections of our laws? I can only find the part where it says ALL persons have that right.

did you see the part where abortions are legal because undeveloped tissue doesn't constitute as a person?

QUOTE it.

Then, link to it.

roe v wade, women can have abortions up until viability. Do your own homework.

Roe v Wade is not in the Constitution, jackass.

so eff the SCOTUS? lol you're a trip!

 

[hadit]

viability when talking about pregnancy is defined by whether a fetus can sustain life outside the mother womb. Thus- children who have already been born are already excluded from the conversation.
fetus' before viability do not have the ability to keep themselves alive because they are NOT fully developed. They are developing.
fetus' after viability have developed enough of their body to live. They have brains, they have lungs, they have kidneys, they have a shot at life outside the womb. They are no longer a cluster of developing cells but they are now developed. They are a baby, a person, a child. Compared to the unviable fetus.
That is my opinion, and the opinion of our law.

Okay. A preemie can sustain life outside the womb when born a few weeks early. Are you thus willing to protect all the unborn within a few weeks of delivery?

I believe after viability(around 24 weeks) the child should be protected, except for at the expense of the pregnant woman.
For example, after 25 weeks woman decides to change her mind and wants an abortion.. No, you had months to decide.
After 25 weeks the doctors tell the woman carrying to full term could be severely detrimental to her health for some reason and she wants an abortion. Yes, women should not be forced to carry out a dangerous pregnancy.
So to answer your question, a baby who a few weeks premature is a baby not a fetus and should be protected.

Can you quote the language of the Constitution that says only "viable" persons have a right to the equal protections of our laws? I can only find the part where it says ALL persons have that right.

That's a good point. Chris Reeves didn't lose his personhood when he hit his head on the rock, but he would have quickly died without artificial life support. He was, for all intents and purposes, unviable, yet anyone who cut his body apart with a saw or burned his skin off with chemicals would have been tried for murder.

When talking about pregnancy- viability is defined by whether or not the fetus can sustain life outside the womb. Including persons or children who have already been born is irrelevant, circular, and misleading.

If viability conveys personhood, there are hospitals full of non-person humans, dependent on machines for their next breath. Yet, anyone who kills any of them faces a murder trial. Thus, viability does not really convey personhood. That fact complicates Roe, which used viability to draw the line at third trimester abortions.

 

[Chuz Life]

Can you quote the language of the Constitution that says only "viable" persons have a right to the equal protections of our laws? I can only find the part where it says ALL persons have that right.

did you see the part where abortions are legal because undeveloped tissue doesn't constitute as a person?

QUOTE it.

Then, link to it.

roe v wade, women can have abortions up until viability. Do your own homework.

Roe v Wade is not in the Constitution, jackass.

so eff the SCOTUS? lol you're a trip!

The same SCOTUS that got it wrong in Dred Scott? Yeah...

**** them for that and for every other time they stray from the principles of the Constitution. For their legislations from the bench (like Roe) especially.

 

[koshergrl]

Can you quote the language of the Constitution that says only "viable" persons have a right to the equal protections of our laws? I can only find the part where it says ALL persons have that right.

did you see the part where abortions are legal because undeveloped tissue doesn't constitute as a person?

QUOTE it.

Then, link to it.

roe v wade, women can have abortions up until viability. Do your own homework.

Roe v Wade is not in the Constitution, jackass.

so eff the SCOTUS? lol you're a trip!

When the scotus breaks the law, they are supposed to be dealt with.

Our elected officials have been screwing us for decades. It is their job to rate the other branches. Instead they pander to them. It's disgusting and has all but destroyed us as a nation.


Read more at: Constitutional Remedies to a Lawless Supreme Court

 

[koshergrl]

"The Court’s brazen action undermines its very legitimacy. As Justice Scalia powerfully explained, Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before the fall. . . . With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence. This must stop. Liberty is in the balance."

Read more at: Constitutional Remedies to a Lawless Supreme Court