How's this going to work?
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
My opinion on abortion has not changed.
I hate it, but in some cases it is needed.
My problem is with aborting viable children. Children who could live it if born instead of aborted.
Many babies are born prematurely and survive .
No child should be killed if it could be born and survive.
Now this is 5 months 16 or 17 weeks have gone by and all of a sudden the woman decides she wants her child ripped to pieces and sucked out of her womb. Too late lady. If you cannot make up your mind in 17 weeks you are murdering your child., and that cannot be allowed.
Of course there could be extenuating circumstance, I don't deny that, but basically I stand by my reasoning.
Women should not be forced to do it themselves with a coat hanger or go to a butcher, but damnit they need to decide earlier into the pregnancy/.
Or it's tough crap.
I hate it, but in some cases it is needed.
My problem is with aborting viable children. Children who could live it if born instead of aborted.
Many babies are born prematurely and survive .
No child should be killed if it could be born and survive.
Now this is 5 months 16 or 17 weeks have gone by and all of a sudden the woman decides she wants her child ripped to pieces and sucked out of her womb. Too late lady. If you cannot make up your mind in 17 weeks you are murdering your child., and that cannot be allowed.
Of course there could be extenuating circumstance, I don't deny that, but basically I stand by my reasoning.
Women should not be forced to do it themselves with a coat hanger or go to a butcher, but damnit they need to decide earlier into the pregnancy/.
Or it's tough crap.
22AcaciaAve
Well-Known Member
I understand your feeling, but it's just not that simple. Are you willing to take in some unwanted kids and raise them? It's not just a case of a little more money to help them live. These children need parenting and if the parent doesn't want them they become a societal problem. Unless you want to offer your time and caring these unwanted kids will be all of our problems in the future. I would rather abort them now then add to the crime problem. A lot of people who feel pregnancies should not be aborted are the same people who want to fry criminals when they commit murder. Why do you think they end up as criminals......because the parents couldn't care less.
I'll take one or two as long as mom hasn't screwed them up already.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
I see you didn’t take any accounting classes during your stint in the 13th gradeUh huh, and I'm sure they keep that money separated.
littlelady
God bless the USA
I see, as usual you have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.
This_person
Well-Known Member
That's too easy!
Here it is: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/u...90-733c01ee8148/190124-annualreport18-p03.pdf
This_person
Well-Known Member
Abortions are supposedly 3.4% of their medical services provided (not their income), but that is exceptionally misleading because of how it is calculated to reach that figure.
The government provides $563,800,000 of $1,665,100,000 (just over 1/3 of the total funding of PP). Abortions necessary for medical needs (non-elective abortions) are legally covered. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to use the funding to provide the medical equipment, as it is legal to use the equipment for medically-necessary abortions. There is no breakout in the funding of the staff, their supplies, or their insurances to be partially funded (even 3.4%) by the abortion funding from "private" funds. Thus, the funding for virtually everything comes from a singular pot without being segregated. Abortion PROCEDURES are not covered by any government funding, but abortion equipment, the building in which it is performed, the doctor's training and insurance, the utilities to provide the abortion, the equipment to provide the elective killing of humans for convenience of the mother, and the management salaries are all funded by government dollars.
If you're going to use common sense and ask if they would risk losing more than 1/3 of their total funding just to perform elective abortions, and you believe that the private funding covers the expenses I mention, then you would see the logical thing for them to do is to split their funding fully, and provide one set of locations that does the elective abortions and another that does the other 96.6% of their services. It makes no sense to risk losing it for just that tiny percentage of their overall work, right?
But, they can't do that, because their private funding would never cover all of these expenses. So, they use their government (taxpayer) funding to cover the >1/3 of the cost of equipment, the utilities, the insurance, etc., etc. They simply don't charge elective abortion PROCEDURES to the government.
This_person
Well-Known Member
My point is that constitutionality is not a function of SCOTUS opinion, as SCOTUS opinions vary depending who is on the SCOTUS. They have proven that something horribly decided can be overturned by a smarter SCOTUS - as they only offer opinions, not decrees.
For example, is the TSA's warrantless search and seizure constitutional? No, of course it is not. That has nothing to do with SCOTUS. How about the National Firearms Act of 1934? Is that constitutional? Of course not - you've made it very clear that "shall not be infringed" is pretty darned clear. Does SCOTUS matter as to whether or not that is constitutional? Of course not.
Killing people electively with no due process and no overarching medical reason should never be considered a viable option - we call that murder in all other cases than a mother doing it.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Nope, just for the equipment, facility, utilities, supplies, management, and medical insurance.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I did.
I previously posted their annual report. Here's their filing: http://990s.foundationcenter.org/99...6_990.pdf?_ga=1.163667257.78786081.1438706948
Can you show me where they separate out the money for utilities, facilities, equipment, supplies, management, and insurance to verify that the services provided for abortions are not covered by federal funds? You know, more than 1/3 of their total funding?
No. No, you can't. Because they don't.
TCROW
Well-Known Member
I understand where you’re coming from. My grandfather used to say it’s very easy to pass laws, but terribly difficult and expensive to have them found unconstitutional.
With respect to your examples, sure I believe them to be unconstitutional. But they are in fact constitutional until adjudicated otherwise. You got the time and money? I sure don’t.
But the way our system works, binding precedents matter. And as such, on its face, the AL law is unconstitutional.
Yes, who is on SCOTUS matters. Take Kavanaugh, thought widely to be the vote which will swing the Court to undo Roe and Casey. Well, Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedy, who was instrumental in the Casey decision. In fact, just last year, Kav and Roberts refused to hear an abortion case. Kav is an institutionalist and I do not believe would vote to undo.
Scalia used to say publicly that the Roe decision was unconstitutional. But as conservative as SCOTUS was during his time, it never was overturned.
This is why I’ve no problem saying that this AL law is unconstitutional in light of extant precedent. If it’s even granted cert by SCOTUS, the most I see happening is that they will say the legalese equivalent of “ the law is unconstitutional as it is, BUT if it were to be re-written thusly ..... it would be fine.”
There is ZERO interest in overturning Roe/Casey by SCOTUS.
This_person
Well-Known Member
This discussion reminds me of an old argument. It goes like this: If we agree to call a dog's tail a "leg", how many legs does the average dog have? The answer is 4, because regardless of what we call the tail, it's still a tail and not a leg.
Regardless of what SCOTUS' opinion is on abortion restrictions, they are not unconstitutional.
Kavanaugh may be more conservative than Gorsuch, but he's no Alito or Thomas, so we agree on what he is likely to vote. But, the best I can agree with you on here is that SCOTUS is likely to determine the law unconstitutional, not that it is unconstitutional.
Alabama just criminalized abortions – and every single yes vote was cast by a white man
OK CBS Race has WHAT to do with this ? or is question that blacks, Hispanics and women don't care about the murder of unborn children in Alabama
https://townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/2019/05/17/white-males-and-abortion-n2546466
Since the vote making abortion illegal in Alabama, Republican members of the Alabama senate have been targets of accusations -- mostly that they are male and white. A number of outlets pointed to the fact that all 25 votes in favor of legislation were white male Republicans. OK. But the Alabama house has lots of Republican women. The bill's sponsor in the lower chamber was a woman, as was the governor who signed the bill.
Those who fixate on the "problem" of whiteness may think this is some sort of knockout blow, but the truth is that these senators are accurately representing the views of their constituents, including women. A 2018 PRRI survey found that 60 percent of Republican women agreed with the statement, "Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned." This compared with only 47 percent of Republican men. Democratic pollster Celinda Lake notes that women tend to be more religious than men, and this aligns with more conservative views on abortion.
Still, partisan lines remain blurry on abortion. More than a third of Republicans favor keeping abortion legal. Until Brett Kavanaugh's ascension to the Supreme Court, the issue may not have ranked very high for them. They could vote for Republicans -- with whom they agree on other issues -- safe in the knowledge that nothing would threaten the regime of legal abortion throughout the nation. Now that the Court has a possible majority for overturning Roe, the calculations of moderate Republicans may change.
(Sigh) So much idiocy to untruck here. To begin, note the unsubtle inference that this being Alabama naturally white supremacists were behind the passage of this law. For proof, the writer Andy Campbell relies mostly on anonymous comments he found — on Gab.
For this little nugget of slander to take hold you need to ignore some key facts of the new state requirement. It was signed into law by a female governor, Kay Ivey. The bill was drawn up by another female, Rep. Terri Collins. And the vote in the Alabama legislature was not a closely debated issue between the genders; it passed the House and the Senate by a combined vote tally of over 90%. And those supposedly oppressive male members of the state capital were put in place to rule by…a majority of female voters. In the last election more women in Alabama cast ballots than men, by nearly 200,000 voters.
https://twitchy.com/brads-313037/20...-except-for-getting-it-180-degrees-incorrect/
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
It sure does seem that as quick as they are to go to racism and sexism as a culprit that it is really THEM that have racism on their minds.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
im sorry if that was over your head. I will break it down for you. Most large corporatrions have funding that comes in for various projects. they also have a means of tracking how that money is spent and making sure it doesn't get used for the wrong thing. its pretty ****ing simple
Abortion Break down
37% White
37% Black
19% Hispanic
I would say Pandering to Blacks ... some 16% of the population
but the % to population ratio would indicate more Blacks are getting an abortion