Planned Parenthood will stop taking reimbursements for fetal tissue.

[churchmouse]

Are there any rules against abusing the reporting system? For wasting mods' time when zero rules are being broken?

Similarly, if mu*****tion is a prohibited word, maybe we could expand the INGO word filter?

Just let it go.

 

[Libertarian01]

"You accused me of 'hating liberty', speaking of ad hominems. But yes, you do flunk quite a few libertarian purity tests. It applies to people, but you'll not ever convince me that it was intended to mean that every entity is entitled to government contracts. Nor will you convince me that any real libertarian should support such a thing."

I didn't think I needed to put the "why do you hate liberty" in purple, but aparently I should have. Mea culpa. There were a LOT of things that weren't meant to be, but as long as they exist I will always try to apply them equally. That is what I as a Libertarian support. I hate to see the government spend money on crap they were never meant to, but unless/until such programs are repealed I will DEMAND they act in accordance with equal protection and ALL other rights protected by the Constitution.

"Doug, unless you are arguing that every dry cleaning service in existence is entitled to a government contract, this makes absolutely no sense. They pick and choose based on a variety of criteria. By your logic, this picking and choosing is a violation of the constitution."

I am not arguing that every dry cleaning service is entitled to a contract, only that NO dry cleaning service should be denied the access to compete for and win the contracts for as long as they are being given out. And yes, if the picking and choosing of a dry cleaning service is based upon their owners religion or other services offered (such as sewing buttons onto jackets that is opposed by the Amish) then there could be a clear violation. Let's be honest, the ONLY major reason people don't want Planned Parenthood to get any money is because they perform abortions. Those is NO other issue here.

"Unless you differ from every other medical service, this is patently false. You form a contract with medicaid that allows you to accept medicaid patients. This contract comes with strings attached. Not every provider has this contract with medicaid, and if they don't have it, they can not bill medicaid."

This is totally different from what you said earlier. You said, quoting, "Your company earns it because your company formed a voluntary contract with the people in your locality who require your services." Yes, we follow medicaids rules on certain programs, but we have no obligation to "the people" to take medicaid. And those people don't have a contract, they have an entitlement. One we may both disagree with, but a contract requires something exchanged of value. Many of the people I have served have paid nothing to the government for value, ergo no contract beyond the "social contract" exists. Again, I am not supporting this idea, but as a person I accept that our society says this exists. As there are services the government does NOT perform and contracts with nonprofit organizations to fulfill, Planned Parenthood has every right to compete and win such contracts. Except that they perform abortions so a certain group of Americans doesn't want them to exist.

"This isn't a libertarian issue. There is no natural right to a government contract. Libertarianism has no bearing on this discussion. This is a simple matter of contracts. The people of this nation can use their representative government to form those contracts or not to form those contracts. Neither one is a violation of individual liberty. However, when it comes time to vote, I'll vote for a candidate who would not enter into this contract with organizations that have no basic human decency."

You are correct in that SOME of the people don't want to contract with them any more. As a Reuters poll shows, 54% support federal funding while only 26% oppose it. Also, overwhelming majorities of 73%, 69% and 59% support the work Planned Parenthood does. Americans back federal funds for Planned Parenthood health services: poll | Reuters And in another poll 63% are opposed to cutting off federal funds. Poll: 63 percent oppose defunding Planned Parenthood | TheHill So, overall, it seems likely that funding will continue.

However, you keep bringing up "human decency" as an important issue. One that I do agree with. So, when your candidate supports continued drone strikes and illegal behavior against alleged terrorists, will you continue to support him as long as he has the moral character to oppose the indecency of Planned Parenthood? Or is your value of decent behavior consistent in opposing any candidate who is indecent on any issue, such as the murder of innocent human being in the name of a war on terror? For that is where I see many conservative candidates. This is not an attack question, but a legitimate one I hope you ponder. For IF you are looking forward to only voting for decent candidates on the ballot, you may not be voting much at all.

Regards,

Doug

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Like I needed to see that.
There are other ways to convey your point.
Just keep it real OK.

Post #86

I prefer post #1, where I asked people to stay off this topic :P

 

[indiucky]

Allow me to rephrase, then: how can it be justified, ethically, to create a life without their permission? If we insist that we can't end a life without consent, then why wouldn't that same standard be applied to starting one?

A sperm cell hooks up with an egg...I believe you get the gist of how that happens....Until said sperm cell hooks up with an egg there is no one with whom to request permission ......

I guess what I am trying to say is that in takes a male and a female to create life...This is usually covered in school and if you are not familiar with conception you can google it and find some pretty good videos on the subject....I guess one could ask the person they are planning on mating with if they like life and are glad they were born. If the answer is "yes" then one can look in the mirror and ask them self if they are glad they were born. If that person answers "yes" then one can make a reasonable assumption (based on the part of Darwinism that still makes a little scientific sense) that said life created will also enjoy life...

I hope you enjoy your life every day...If you are not enjoying it I suggest a Smith and Wesson Model 17, a thousand rounds of ammo, and a bag full of empty Coke cans...That can bring a smile to the most jaded of humanity...

Seriously good luck and remember what the hippies said...."Nirvana Now"....

 

[churchmouse]

I prefer post #1, where I asked people to stay off this topic :P

Me to. It never fails to get folks stirred up.
It is a hot button topic of the 1st order.
There are a lot of folks reading and not posting.
We hear it all. A lot gets overlooked as no rules are broken. Some needs to be addressed
I am merely asking for those posting in here to use there broad command of the English language to make their points.
After 2 closings, 2 or 3 in thread enlightenment's and a referral to post #86 just go with it.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Allow me to rephrase, then: how can it be justified, ethically, to create a life without their permission? If we insist that we can't end a life without consent, then why wouldn't that same standard be applied to starting one?

While I find your logic interesting....

Awww crap, I'll take a stab at it...

If 2 humans join together (some would specify *with God*) in creating a life - they give that life inherently the ability to destroy ITSELF... That human life has free will, natural rights whatever you want to call it. It has the right to self determination, and as such , it has the right to self destruction.

No third party (even those that we party to that life's creation) has the right to destroy it without just cause.

Now, we can debate what "just cause" is.... (as this is a gun forum - self defense would likely be agreed to fairly reasonably)

So, if you really don't like that your mother and father created you, and you think your life sucks... you have the inherent free will to remove yourself from the gene pool if you so choose.

I don't suggest nor promote it. But the option is inherently there.

 

[steveh_131]

I didn't think I needed to put the "why do you hate liberty" in purple, but aparently I should have. Mea culpa.

Alright then, my bad.

I am not arguing that every dry cleaning service is entitled to a contract, only that NO dry cleaning service should be denied the access to compete for and win the contracts for as long as they are being given out. And yes, if the picking and choosing of a dry cleaning service is based upon their owners religion or other services offered (such as sewing buttons onto jackets that is opposed by the Amish) then there could be a clear violation. Let's be honest, the ONLY major reason people don't want Planned Parenthood to get any money is because they perform abortions. Those is NO other issue here.

Why shouldn't it be based upon other services offered? Any company can compete equally by not offering those services. Sounds pretty equal to me.

Yes, we follow medicaids rules on certain programs, but we have no obligation to "the people" to take medicaid.

No, and "the people" have no obligation to award or offer you a contract either. They can attach whatever strings they want to that contract. If you don't like it, find another employer. Free market FTW, libertarian.

This is a far cry from denying a black man due process. I can't even fathom how we arrived from 'equal protection under the law' to 'equal distribution of government goodies', but we sure didn't get there in any rational fashion.

You are correct in that SOME of the people don't want to contract with them any more. As a Reuters poll shows, 54% support federal funding while only 26% oppose it. Also, overwhelming majorities of 73%, 69% and 59% support the work Planned Parenthood does. Americans back federal funds for Planned Parenthood health services: poll | Reuters And in another poll 63% are opposed to cutting off federal funds. Poll: 63 percent oppose defunding Planned Parenthood | TheHill So, overall, it seems likely that funding will continue.

Statistics are irrelevant. We have a system of representative government. That system makes the decision, not popular polls.

However, you keep bringing up "human decency" as an important issue. One that I do agree with. So, when your candidate supports continued drone strikes and illegal behavior against alleged terrorists, will you continue to support him as long as he has the moral character to oppose the indecency of Planned Parenthood? Or is your value of decent behavior consistent in opposing any candidate who is indecent on any issue, such as the murder of innocent human being in the name of a war on terror? For that is where I see many conservative candidates. This is not an attack question, but a legitimate one I hope you ponder. For IF you are looking forward to only voting for decent candidates on the ballot, you may not be voting much at all.

You're right, there are none perfect. I have to pick the lesser of the evils, I suppose.

 

[Lowe0]

While I find your logic interesting....

Awww crap, I'll take a stab at it...

If 2 humans join together (some would specify *with God*) in creating a life - they give that life inherently the ability to destroy ITSELF... That human life has free will, natural rights whatever you want to call it. It has the right to self determination, and as such , it has the right to self destruction.

No third party (even those that we party to that life's creation) has the right to destroy it without just cause.

Now, we can debate what "just cause" is.... (as this is a gun forum - self defense would likely be agreed to fairly reasonably)

So, if you really don't like that your mother and father created you, and you think your life sucks... you have the inherent free will to remove yourself from the gene pool if you so choose.

I don't suggest nor promote it. But the option is inherently there.

But when do those natural rights take effect? That's the key. If natural rights are inherent, then creation violates self-determination. If they're not, then what conditions put them into effect, and who holds those rights until then?

As for suicide, that has negative externalities, and I don't inherently have the right to inflict negative externalities into others.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

But when do those natural rights take effect? That's the key. If natural rights are inherent, then creation violates self-determination. If they're not, then what conditions put them into effect, and who holds those rights until then?

As for suicide, that has negative externalities, and I don't inherently have the right to inflict negative externalities into others.

I'm going to leave this alone - if for no other reason than out of concern for churchmouse's sanity (and possibly my own!).

It becomes a chicken or egg discussion regarding whether one existed before one was conceived. This thread doesn't need us going there.

Sometime at one of the meet and greets, maybe we'll chat and go down that rabbit hole. For now.... I'm going to let it drop.

 

[jamil]

Allow me to rephrase, then: how can it be justified, ethically, to create a life without their permission? If we insist that we can't end a life without consent, then why wouldn't that same standard be applied to starting one?

But when do those natural rights take effect? That's the key. If natural rights are inherent, then creation violates self-determination. If they're not, then what conditions put them into effect, and who holds those rights until then?

As for suicide, that has negative externalities, and I don't inherently have the right to inflict negative externalities into others.

Ah, so apparently you don't believe in level.eleven's predetermination theory.

Anywho, to answer.

First, you're asking a bit of a circular question, depending on when you believe a person has rights. I think we derive inherent rights through our existence. My rights can't be violated if I don't yet exist.

Second, we don't do the conceiving anyway. That is a biological process that is mostly out of our control. We can mostly just choose to initiate the process. Nature decides from there.

Third, it's part of human nature to procreate. It's also part of human nature to desire to be alive. We can then presume that our future children will be glad to be alive. Most are. But I recognize that not everyone's life experience is good, and for psychological and other reasons they'd prefer not to live. That's not the typical experience. Once alive we generally fight to survive. Well, government handouts not withstanding.

Fourth, there are circumstances under which we don't have a right to procreate. Would-be parents should want children and take reasonable steps to be able to care for them. And I also realize "accidents" happen, but that's a nil point either way.

I'm going to leave this alone - if for no other reason than out of concern for churchmouse's sanity (and possibly my own!).

It becomes a chicken or egg discussion regarding whether one existed before one was conceived. This thread doesn't need us going there.

Sometime at one of the meet and greets, maybe we'll chat and go down that rabbit hole. For now.... I'm going to let it drop.

Yeah, I went there. Not in the sense of ever having existed before. I have no clear evidence for me to believe that. But I think Lowe0's argument is invalid.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Brk: Texas is cutting Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid entirely, citing program violations in videos

There is currently a circuit split on whether this can work. Here we come, Fifth Circuit

 

[Libertarian01]

Brk: Texas is cutting Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid entirely, citing program violations in videos

There is currently a circuit split on whether this can work. Here we come, Fifth Circuit

Well... Somebody in Texas wants to get elected.

There will be a court case. Texas will lose, after spending lots of taxpayer dollars. Sad. But hey, somebody will get lots of press and a few points in the next election, so all is good.

Regards,

Doug

 

[ArcadiaGP]

'Confidential' Planned Parenthood video leaked - POLITICO

Complete raw footage from the Planned Parenthood videos surfaced Thursday on the conservative website Got News?, whose editor said he had gotten it from a House staffer despite lawmakers’ pledge to keep it confidential.
Editor Charles Johnson released the full footage Thursday even after the National Abortion Federation got a temporary restraining order a day earlier prohibiting any dissemination. Johnson vowed to "contest any unconstitutional prior restraint of speech."

Politico quietly notes that PP videos were leaked, doesn’t mention what was in those videos. As per usual.

 

[Fargo]

Well... Somebody in Texas wants to get elected.

There will be a court case. Texas will lose, after spending lots of taxpayer dollars. Sad. But hey, somebody will get lots of press and a few points in the next election, so all is good.

Regards,

Doug

Before you get too cavalier about this, You may want to look more closely at the 5th circuit precedents on abortion...

 

[Libertarian01]

Before you get too cavalier about this, You may want to look more closely at the 5th circuit precedents on abortion...

Oh, I am quite certain there will be a fight. It's just in the long run going to SCOTUS I see them failing. But we shall see.

Doug

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Planned Parenthood Abortionist Admits To Illegal, Partial-Birth Abortions In New Video

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Planned Parenthood Abortionist Admits To Illegal, Partial-Birth Abortions In New Video

She also remarked that babies’ spines are easy to grab ahold of with forceps and rip out of the womb, especially when she’s trying to keep all of the organs intact.

How these people live with themselves, I cannot fathom.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

How these people live with themselves, I cannot fathom.

Without breaking my own rule about morals on the subject...

It just comes down to what you believe, I guess. The people that have been in these videos have had a pretty jovial attitude about it all. Some people see humans, babies, people. Others see waste, refuse, materials. I imagine the person fits into that latter category. If you don't consider it a "baby", as the author worded it... then you'd probably have little to no issue explaining what you're doing without feeling sick about it.

Then again, when they clearly refer to body parts and organs, and the importance of keeping them intact.... you have to think somewhere in the back of their mind they know what this stuff was, or what it was going to be, or what it is.

I dunno, I couldn't do it.

If they're performing partial-birth abortions, they should be investigated.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Without breaking my own rule about morals on the subject...

It just comes down to what you believe, I guess. The people that have been in these videos have had a pretty jovial attitude about it all. Some people see humans, babies, people. Others see waste, refuse, materials. I imagine the person fits into that latter category. If you don't consider it a "baby", as the author worded it... then you'd probably have little to no issue explaining what you're doing without feeling sick about it.

Then again, when they clearly refer to body parts and organs, and the importance of keeping them intact.... you have to think somewhere in the back of their mind they know what this stuff was, or what it was going to be, or what it is.

I dunno, I couldn't do it.

If they're performing partial-birth abortions, they should be investigated.

Nobody cares.

 

[Mark 1911]

Without breaking my own rule about morals on the subject...

It just comes down to what you believe, I guess. The people that have been in these videos have had a pretty jovial attitude about it all. Some people see humans, babies, people. Others see waste, refuse, materials. I imagine the person fits into that latter category. If you don't consider it a "baby", as the author worded it... then you'd probably have little to no issue explaining what you're doing without feeling sick about it.

Then again, when they clearly refer to body parts and organs, and the importance of keeping them intact.... you have to think somewhere in the back of their mind they know what this stuff was, or what it was going to be, or what it is.

I dunno, I couldn't do it.

If they're performing partial-birth abortions, they should be investigated.

Nobody cares.

I know you are saying that tongue-in-cheek GFGT. Although there are many who don't care, I know that you do, and many others do as well. It is up to the people who do to defend these most helpless among us who can't defend themselves. If we can't even defend our own children as human, then we have lost sight of what it means to be human ourselves.