Trump signs bill allowing states to defund planned parenthood

[Aries]

the epitome of republican hypocrisy.

"I am for small federal government. I am for cutting regulations. BUT I really want the federal government to regulate wombs."

Another false narrative.

so you're not for small government of your're not for the government controlling the womb?
which is it?

Look dumbfuck...

Nobody seriously wants government to be so small that it can not or does not do anything to protect the rights of the most vulnerable members of a society.

just big enough to intrued in private medical decisions

 

[MindWars]

7 Reasons Why Planned Parenthood Should Not Get Government Money
Even with the public outcry against Planned Parenthood, there is opposition in Congress to ending the organization’s federal funding. Some lawmakers are insisting they need more facts before acting.

Heritage expert Sarah Torre gives all the facts Congress needs to know about Planned Parenthood.

1. Planned Parenthood has become a billion-dollar organization on the backs of taxpayers. They earned $128 million in revenue with over $1.4 billion in net assets last year. In the same year, federal and state governments gave them over $528 million to fund their lucrative programs.
2. Planned Parenthood performs one in three abortions in the U.S. They reported performing 327,653 abortions last year. Former employees have even made allegations that there are mandatory “abortion quotas” each affiliate must meet.
3. Planned Parenthood emphasizes abortions instead of preventative care. They made only 1,880 adoption referrals and just 18,684 prenatal services last year. Even cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood have decreased 50 percent since 2004.
4. Planned Parenthood has been accused of financial fraud with taxpayer dollars. In 2013, an affiliate payed a settlement of over $4 million to Texas for Medicaid fraud. Similar investigations revealed over $8 million in possible fraud across nine states.
5. Planned Parenthood fights laws that protect women and children. They have opposed legislation that would protect infants born alive after failed abortions and tried to derail an anti-human trafficking bill because the legislation included a longstanding and widely-supported policy against taxpayer funding of abortion.
6. Planned Parenthood stands accused of jeopardizing the health and safety of women and girls.

7 Reasons Why Planned Parenthood Should Not Get Government Money | myHeritage

 

[Aries]

not if she was a vegetable. Meaning she could not sustain life on her own. Much like the clumps of fetal tissues you guys are calling "babies."

Former Planned Parenthood workers: They know it’s not just a “clump of cells”


Today, national pro-life organization Live Action released video testimonials from a former Planned Parenthood manager and nurse describing in detail what happens immediately following abortions in the “products of conception” lab where abortionists sift through the dismembered body parts of the babies they just killed.

The gruesome process these women describe exposes not only the barbarism of abortion, but also that Planned Parenthood isn’t aborting “clumps of cells” or “products of conception” – euphemisms the abortion industry often uses to mislead women about how developed their babies are – but rather children with beating hearts at just three and a half weeks old.

Sue Thaye

Former Planned Parenthood workers: They know it’s not just a “clump of cells” - Hot Air

They aren't children until they can sustain life on their own. Before 24 weeks, they can not do that. Their organs aren't even developed yet. No brain, no kidneys, no lungs. They are a cluster of developing cells, scientifically.

TRY again



The “clump of cells” argument exists to dupe the public into ignoring the brutal nature of abortion, as I wrote last year at The Week during the CMP campaign to expose it. Unfortunately, the “clump of cells” lie works, and sometimes mutates into even cruder slogans:

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.

Fact #5: The right to not be killed supersedes the right to not be pregnant.
The comparison between a baby's rights and a mother's rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother's lifestyle, as opposed to the baby's life. Therefore, it is reasonable for society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child.

Of course a child does not have more rights than her mother. Any two people are equal, and any two people have equal rights. Hence, a mother has every bit as much right to live as any child. But in nearly all abortions, the woman's right to live is not an issue, because her life is not in danger.

The mother has not only the right to live, but also the right to the lifestyle of her choice—as long as that choice does not rob other people of even more fundamental rights, the most basic of which is the right to live. The right to a certain lifestyle is never absolute and unconditional. It is always governed by its effects on others.

Planned Parenthood states: [1]

The desire to complete school or to continue working are common reasons women give for choosing to abort an unplanned pregnancy.
Completing school and working are desirable things in many cases, and pregnancy can make them difficult. But a woman normally can continue school and work during pregnancy. If she gives up a child for adoption, she need not give up school or work. If she chooses to raise the child herself, there are childcare options available if she must work outside the home. I am not suggesting this is ideal, nor do I say it callously. I have worked with single mothers and know their difficulties. I am simply pointing out there are alternatives, any one of which is preferable to an innocent child's death.

Regardless of the challenges, one person's right to a preferred lifestyle is not greater than another person's right to a life.
Rebutting Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion"

What about pregnancies that put the woman's life at risk? Should she be forced to sacrifice herself for these undeveloped cells?

 

[koshergrl]

Former Planned Parenthood workers: They know it’s not just a “clump of cells”


Today, national pro-life organization Live Action released video testimonials from a former Planned Parenthood manager and nurse describing in detail what happens immediately following abortions in the “products of conception” lab where abortionists sift through the dismembered body parts of the babies they just killed.

The gruesome process these women describe exposes not only the barbarism of abortion, but also that Planned Parenthood isn’t aborting “clumps of cells” or “products of conception” – euphemisms the abortion industry often uses to mislead women about how developed their babies are – but rather children with beating hearts at just three and a half weeks old.

Sue Thaye

Former Planned Parenthood workers: They know it’s not just a “clump of cells” - Hot Air

They aren't children until they can sustain life on their own. Before 24 weeks, they can not do that. Their organs aren't even developed yet. No brain, no kidneys, no lungs. They are a cluster of developing cells, scientifically.

TRY again



The “clump of cells” argument exists to dupe the public into ignoring the brutal nature of abortion, as I wrote last year at The Week during the CMP campaign to expose it. Unfortunately, the “clump of cells” lie works, and sometimes mutates into even cruder slogans:

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.

Fact #5: The right to not be killed supersedes the right to not be pregnant.
The comparison between a baby's rights and a mother's rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother's lifestyle, as opposed to the baby's life. Therefore, it is reasonable for society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child.

Of course a child does not have more rights than her mother. Any two people are equal, and any two people have equal rights. Hence, a mother has every bit as much right to live as any child. But in nearly all abortions, the woman's right to live is not an issue, because her life is not in danger.

The mother has not only the right to live, but also the right to the lifestyle of her choice—as long as that choice does not rob other people of even more fundamental rights, the most basic of which is the right to live. The right to a certain lifestyle is never absolute and unconditional. It is always governed by its effects on others.

Planned Parenthood states: [1]

The desire to complete school or to continue working are common reasons women give for choosing to abort an unplanned pregnancy.
Completing school and working are desirable things in many cases, and pregnancy can make them difficult. But a woman normally can continue school and work during pregnancy. If she gives up a child for adoption, she need not give up school or work. If she chooses to raise the child herself, there are childcare options available if she must work outside the home. I am not suggesting this is ideal, nor do I say it callously. I have worked with single mothers and know their difficulties. I am simply pointing out there are alternatives, any one of which is preferable to an innocent child's death.

Regardless of the challenges, one person's right to a preferred lifestyle is not greater than another person's right to a life.
Rebutting Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion"

What about pregnancies that put the woman's life at risk? Should she be forced to sacrifice herself for these undeveloped cells?

Another false narrative.

 

[Chuz Life]

the epitome of republican hypocrisy.

"I am for small federal government. I am for cutting regulations. BUT I really want the federal government to regulate wombs."

Another false narrative.

so you're not for small government of your're not for the government controlling the womb?
which is it?

Look dumbfuck...

Nobody seriously wants government to be so small that it can not or does not do anything to protect the rights of the most vulnerable members of a society.

just big enough to intrued in private medical decisions

If you see the government's legitimate role in defending children's rights as an INTRUSION .... maybe you should be watched to make sure you are not in fact violating any of those children yourself.

 

[Aries]

not if she was a vegetable. Meaning she could not sustain life on her own. Much like the clumps of fetal tissues you guys are calling "babies."

Former Planned Parenthood workers: They know it’s not just a “clump of cells”


Today, national pro-life organization Live Action released video testimonials from a former Planned Parenthood manager and nurse describing in detail what happens immediately following abortions in the “products of conception” lab where abortionists sift through the dismembered body parts of the babies they just killed.

The gruesome process these women describe exposes not only the barbarism of abortion, but also that Planned Parenthood isn’t aborting “clumps of cells” or “products of conception” – euphemisms the abortion industry often uses to mislead women about how developed their babies are – but rather children with beating hearts at just three and a half weeks old.

Sue Thaye

Former Planned Parenthood workers: They know it’s not just a “clump of cells” - Hot Air

They aren't children until they can sustain life on their own. Before 24 weeks, they can not do that. Their organs aren't even developed yet. No brain, no kidneys, no lungs. They are a cluster of developing cells, scientifically.

TRY again



The “clump of cells” argument exists to dupe the public into ignoring the brutal nature of abortion, as I wrote last year at The Week during the CMP campaign to expose it. Unfortunately, the “clump of cells” lie works, and sometimes mutates into even cruder slogans:

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.

View attachment 121709


On May 12, 2015, David A. Prentice, Ph.D., Vice President and Research Director of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, was invited to speak on the science of fetal pain on Point of View radio talk show. On May 13, 2015 the United States House of Representatives passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

The full transcript is below:

Ms. Penna Dexter:

We want to talk about fetal pain […] because this bill is so much stronger. It actually bans abortions after twenty weeks, and that’s because – I don’t think there’s a doubt now that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks?

Dr. David Prentice:





But even in terms of viability, the New York Times of all places reported last week on a new scientific study out in the New England Journal of Medicine and their focus was on survival of these little ones. Very, very premature babies, some as early as, yes five months after conception, lining up just exactly with what these bills are going for, twenty weeks after conception. They are talking about how a number of these little ones even that early survive, and – lo and behold – if you actually intervene, care for them, and try to keep them alive many many, more of them survive.

Medical Expert Confirms Unborn Children Feel Excruciating Pain During Abortions | LifeNews.com

that's really amazing how they can feel pain without a developed brain or nervous system. How does it work, is it magic?

 

[koshergrl]

Defunding the chop shops and human trafficking minions that make up PP will not remove any rights from women. Nor does it represent bigger government. Taking federal money from the baby killing industry is the.removal of government interference in family planning....not further intrusion.

 

[Aries]

Defunding the chop shops and human trafficking minions that make up PP will not remove any rights from women. Nor does it represent bigger government. Taking federal money from the baby killing industry is the.removal of government interference in family planning....not further intrusion.

for hating poor people so much, you sure do want them to breed uncontrollably.

 

[koshergrl]

Former Planned Parenthood workers: They know it’s not just a “clump of cells”


Today, national pro-life organization Live Action released video testimonials from a former Planned Parenthood manager and nurse describing in detail what happens immediately following abortions in the “products of conception” lab where abortionists sift through the dismembered body parts of the babies they just killed.

The gruesome process these women describe exposes not only the barbarism of abortion, but also that Planned Parenthood isn’t aborting “clumps of cells” or “products of conception” – euphemisms the abortion industry often uses to mislead women about how developed their babies are – but rather children with beating hearts at just three and a half weeks old.

Sue Thaye

Former Planned Parenthood workers: They know it’s not just a “clump of cells” - Hot Air

They aren't children until they can sustain life on their own. Before 24 weeks, they can not do that. Their organs aren't even developed yet. No brain, no kidneys, no lungs. They are a cluster of developing cells, scientifically.

TRY again



The “clump of cells” argument exists to dupe the public into ignoring the brutal nature of abortion, as I wrote last year at The Week during the CMP campaign to expose it. Unfortunately, the “clump of cells” lie works, and sometimes mutates into even cruder slogans:

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.

Your fantasy and lies do not create reality. It doesn't matter how stupid you are or how hard you wish it was true.

 

[Chuz Life]

Former Planned Parenthood workers: They know it’s not just a “clump of cells”


Today, national pro-life organization Live Action released video testimonials from a former Planned Parenthood manager and nurse describing in detail what happens immediately following abortions in the “products of conception” lab where abortionists sift through the dismembered body parts of the babies they just killed.

The gruesome process these women describe exposes not only the barbarism of abortion, but also that Planned Parenthood isn’t aborting “clumps of cells” or “products of conception” – euphemisms the abortion industry often uses to mislead women about how developed their babies are – but rather children with beating hearts at just three and a half weeks old.

Sue Thaye

Former Planned Parenthood workers: They know it’s not just a “clump of cells” - Hot Air

They aren't children until they can sustain life on their own. Before 24 weeks, they can not do that. Their organs aren't even developed yet. No brain, no kidneys, no lungs. They are a cluster of developing cells, scientifically.

TRY again



The “clump of cells” argument exists to dupe the public into ignoring the brutal nature of abortion, as I wrote last year at The Week during the CMP campaign to expose it. Unfortunately, the “clump of cells” lie works, and sometimes mutates into even cruder slogans:

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.

View attachment 121709


On May 12, 2015, David A. Prentice, Ph.D., Vice President and Research Director of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, was invited to speak on the science of fetal pain on Point of View radio talk show. On May 13, 2015 the United States House of Representatives passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

The full transcript is below:

Ms. Penna Dexter:

We want to talk about fetal pain […] because this bill is so much stronger. It actually bans abortions after twenty weeks, and that’s because – I don’t think there’s a doubt now that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks?

Dr. David Prentice:





But even in terms of viability, the New York Times of all places reported last week on a new scientific study out in the New England Journal of Medicine and their focus was on survival of these little ones. Very, very premature babies, some as early as, yes five months after conception, lining up just exactly with what these bills are going for, twenty weeks after conception. They are talking about how a number of these little ones even that early survive, and – lo and behold – if you actually intervene, care for them, and try to keep them alive many many, more of them survive.

Medical Expert Confirms Unborn Children Feel Excruciating Pain During Abortions | LifeNews.com

that's really amazing how they can feel pain without a developed brain or nervous system. How does it work, is it magic?

The whole pain aspect is a red herring anyway.

Google the State Supreme Court cases that pertain to annencephalic born children. Those children have little to nothing more than a brain stem. No ability to see, smell, think or feel pain...

Guess what!

The courts ruled they are just as entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws that everyone else is entitled to.

 

[Aries]

They aren't children until they can sustain life on their own. Before 24 weeks, they can not do that. Their organs aren't even developed yet. No brain, no kidneys, no lungs. They are a cluster of developing cells, scientifically.

TRY again



The “clump of cells” argument exists to dupe the public into ignoring the brutal nature of abortion, as I wrote last year at The Week during the CMP campaign to expose it. Unfortunately, the “clump of cells” lie works, and sometimes mutates into even cruder slogans:

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.

Your fantasy and lies do not create reality. It doesn't matter how stupid you are or how hard you wish it was true.

the majority of the scientific community back me up so, I'll settle for that.

 

[koshergrl]

Defunding the chop shops and human trafficking minions that make up PP will not remove any rights from women. Nor does it represent bigger government. Taking federal money from the baby killing industry is the.removal of government interference in family planning....not further intrusion.

for hating poor people so much, you sure do want them to breed uncontrollably.

You scum maintain the lives of the poor are without value. That's why you force them into prostitution and the abortion clinics. You show us what you think of the.poor every time you say their babies need to die.

 

[Chuz Life]

TRY again



The “clump of cells” argument exists to dupe the public into ignoring the brutal nature of abortion, as I wrote last year at The Week during the CMP campaign to expose it. Unfortunately, the “clump of cells” lie works, and sometimes mutates into even cruder slogans:

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.

Your fantasy and lies do not create reality. It doesn't matter how stupid you are or how hard you wish it was true.

the majority of the scientific community back me up so, I'll settle for that.

Appeals to authority and popularity noted.

 

[Aries]

They aren't children until they can sustain life on their own. Before 24 weeks, they can not do that. Their organs aren't even developed yet. No brain, no kidneys, no lungs. They are a cluster of developing cells, scientifically.

TRY again



The “clump of cells” argument exists to dupe the public into ignoring the brutal nature of abortion, as I wrote last year at The Week during the CMP campaign to expose it. Unfortunately, the “clump of cells” lie works, and sometimes mutates into even cruder slogans:

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.

View attachment 121709


On May 12, 2015, David A. Prentice, Ph.D., Vice President and Research Director of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, was invited to speak on the science of fetal pain on Point of View radio talk show. On May 13, 2015 the United States House of Representatives passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

The full transcript is below:

Ms. Penna Dexter:

We want to talk about fetal pain […] because this bill is so much stronger. It actually bans abortions after twenty weeks, and that’s because – I don’t think there’s a doubt now that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks?

Dr. David Prentice:





But even in terms of viability, the New York Times of all places reported last week on a new scientific study out in the New England Journal of Medicine and their focus was on survival of these little ones. Very, very premature babies, some as early as, yes five months after conception, lining up just exactly with what these bills are going for, twenty weeks after conception. They are talking about how a number of these little ones even that early survive, and – lo and behold – if you actually intervene, care for them, and try to keep them alive many many, more of them survive.

Medical Expert Confirms Unborn Children Feel Excruciating Pain During Abortions | LifeNews.com

that's really amazing how they can feel pain without a developed brain or nervous system. How does it work, is it magic?

The whole pain aspect is a red herring anyway.

Google the State Supreme Court cases that pertain to annencephalic born children. Those children have little to nothing more than a brain stem. No ability to see, smell, think or feel pain...

Guess what!

The courts ruled they are just as entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws that everyone else is entitled to.

That was a baby that was already born, of course it has equal protection under the law! A fetus before the time of viability is not a person. That's what our LAWS and our SCIENCE tell us. I'm sorry that your distorted perceptions and misunderstanding of the reproductive system are not accepted as US law.

 

[Aries]

Defunding the chop shops and human trafficking minions that make up PP will not remove any rights from women. Nor does it represent bigger government. Taking federal money from the baby killing industry is the.removal of government interference in family planning....not further intrusion.

for hating poor people so much, you sure do want them to breed uncontrollably.

You scum maintain the lives of the poor are without value. That's why you force them into prostitution and the abortion clinics. You show us what you think of the.poor every time you say their babies need to die.

stop your dramatics. If every single pregnancy in America was carried out, it would greatly increase our poverty rates. Like we're talking third world nation level.

 

[MindWars]

Defunding the chop shops and human trafficking minions that make up PP will not remove any rights from women. Nor does it represent bigger government. Taking federal money from the baby killing industry is the.removal of government interference in family planning....not further intrusion.

for hating poor people so much, you sure do want them to breed uncontrollably.

Fact #6: Poverty, rape, disability, or “unwantedness” do not morally justify abortion.
There are all sorts of circumstances that people point to as justification for their support of abortion. Since none of these circumstances are sufficient to justify the killing of human beings after birth, they're not sufficient to justify the killing of human beings before birth.

If abortion is wrong because it is killing a child, then whether or not the child is "wanted" has no bearing on the matter—unless, of course, it is wrong to kill “wanted” people, but right to kill "unwanted" people.
When it comes to abortion, there is no shortage of "What if...?'s." Just when it seems the injustice of abortion has been firmly established, you'll hear things like: "What if the woman was raped?", "What if she can't afford a child?", or "What if the baby is deformed?"

These questions don't address the fundamental ethics of abortion, but they do introduce a host of difficult variables. Some people appeal to them earnestly. Many do not. These "hard cases" are often used as a last defense by those who actually believe abortion should be legal no matter what the circumstances. They appeal to these more emotionally-charged circumstances in an attempt to move the focus away from the heart of the issue – which is the humanity of unborn children and the violence of abortion.

The best way to expose the fallacy of such claims is to simply broaden the context and apply them to children outside the womb. No matter how you frame it, the difficulty that these circumstances present do not justify the death of an innocent human being.

What if the child is unwanted?
One of the favorite mantras of abortion advocates around the country is "Every Child a Wanted Child." It sounds noble enough, until you realize what their solution to unwantedness is. If a child isn't wanted, they argue, then it shouldn't be born. The problem, of course, is that the child is already conceived, and the only way to keep said child from being born is to kill it. How do they justify such violence? Often by arguing that it is better for the child to be dead than for the child to be unwanted.

Fact #6: Poverty, rape, disability, or “unwantedness” do not morally justify abortion.

 

[hadit]

Former Planned Parenthood workers: They know it’s not just a “clump of cells”


Today, national pro-life organization Live Action released video testimonials from a former Planned Parenthood manager and nurse describing in detail what happens immediately following abortions in the “products of conception” lab where abortionists sift through the dismembered body parts of the babies they just killed.

The gruesome process these women describe exposes not only the barbarism of abortion, but also that Planned Parenthood isn’t aborting “clumps of cells” or “products of conception” – euphemisms the abortion industry often uses to mislead women about how developed their babies are – but rather children with beating hearts at just three and a half weeks old.

Sue Thaye

Former Planned Parenthood workers: They know it’s not just a “clump of cells” - Hot Air

They aren't children until they can sustain life on their own. Before 24 weeks, they can not do that. Their organs aren't even developed yet. No brain, no kidneys, no lungs. They are a cluster of developing cells, scientifically.

TRY again



The “clump of cells” argument exists to dupe the public into ignoring the brutal nature of abortion, as I wrote last year at The Week during the CMP campaign to expose it. Unfortunately, the “clump of cells” lie works, and sometimes mutates into even cruder slogans:

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.

 

[hadit]

Not giving PP federal money no more eliminates abortion than refusing to give artists federal money eliminates art.

 

[MindWars]

TRY again



The “clump of cells” argument exists to dupe the public into ignoring the brutal nature of abortion, as I wrote last year at The Week during the CMP campaign to expose it. Unfortunately, the “clump of cells” lie works, and sometimes mutates into even cruder slogans:

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.

Your fantasy and lies do not create reality. It doesn't matter how stupid you are or how hard you wish it was true.

the majority of the scientific community back me up so, I'll settle for that.

Oh because SCIENCE IS LIKE YOUR GOD right , never wrong . B FKN SHIT!! Science is ALWAYS wrong. especially when you have GLOBALIST controlling they very liberal university morons being brainwashed and trained to brainwash more to be their morons.

 

[Aries]

Defunding the chop shops and human trafficking minions that make up PP will not remove any rights from women. Nor does it represent bigger government. Taking federal money from the baby killing industry is the.removal of government interference in family planning....not further intrusion.

for hating poor people so much, you sure do want them to breed uncontrollably.

Fact #6: Poverty, rape, disability, or “unwantedness” do not morally justify abortion.
There are all sorts of circumstances that people point to as justification for their support of abortion. Since none of these circumstances are sufficient to justify the killing of human beings after birth, they're not sufficient to justify the killing of human beings before birth.

If abortion is wrong because it is killing a child, then whether or not the child is "wanted" has no bearing on the matter—unless, of course, it is wrong to kill “wanted” people, but right to kill "unwanted" people.
When it comes to abortion, there is no shortage of "What if...?'s." Just when it seems the injustice of abortion has been firmly established, you'll hear things like: "What if the woman was raped?", "What if she can't afford a child?", or "What if the baby is deformed?"

These questions don't address the fundamental ethics of abortion, but they do introduce a host of difficult variables. Some people appeal to them earnestly. Many do not. These "hard cases" are often used as a last defense by those who actually believe abortion should be legal no matter what the circumstances. They appeal to these more emotionally-charged circumstances in an attempt to move the focus away from the heart of the issue – which is the humanity of unborn children and the violence of abortion.

The best way to expose the fallacy of such claims is to simply broaden the context and apply them to children outside the womb. No matter how you frame it, the difficulty that these circumstances present do not justify the death of an innocent human being.

What if the child is unwanted?
One of the favorite mantras of abortion advocates around the country is "Every Child a Wanted Child." It sounds noble enough, until you realize what their solution to unwantedness is. If a child isn't wanted, they argue, then it shouldn't be born. The problem, of course, is that the child is already conceived, and the only way to keep said child from being born is to kill it. How do they justify such violence? Often by arguing that it is better for the child to be dead than for the child to be unwanted.


View attachment 121718


Fact #6: Poverty, rape, disability, or “unwantedness” do not morally justify abortion.

Rape doesn't constitute abortion?
I wish you had to grow, birth, and raise your rapist's child you sick fck.
But I'm guessing you're a man, with no vagina or womb.