Defend Planned Parenthood Saturday Feb. 11

[oladub]

Computer says nooooo....

I just did 2 searches... I'm sure there are many more topics on child health that predominantly opposed by "people on the right"....

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gop-s...b07bd6950cd49d

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/1...erage-00132282

I can provide other programs that show that once children are born... there is a big falloff in interest in child health care in conservative states that are pro-life.

Why is that?

The eleven states with the lowest abortion rates all voted red. At least more kids got off to a start in those states. I'm not convinced that the benefits of states signing up for yet another federal program does enough good to make up for billing our children, the same children who survived the Democrats' abortion chambers, with federal debt to pay down. They have to pay for it themselves eventually along with everyone else. Putting people into debt is a funny way to help people escape poverty. Besides, the article didn't say what part of the Constitution delegated the power to create this bill. If the states paid for it themselves, it at least would be constitutional.

I consider Michigan to be a purple state leaning blue. "A national study of child welfare shows that in most categories, Michigan ranks in the bottom half of the nation with regard to issues like child poverty, education and community well-being.Michigan ranks 30th in the nation in child “economic well-being,” 37th in education and 29th in the “family and community domain,” which refers to “children living in high-poverty neighborhoods." As I understand it, Michigan has liberal abortion laws. Michigan even has this program mentioned in your article. Yet Michigan is not doing so good per child welfare. What could be the excuse? If I were you, I would point out that this was in 2019 and things have changed since then if true. Also, if 'child welfare' includes education and so many of Michigan's children are enrolled in Detroit schools, it is difficult to argue that Detroit children are benefitting from the education brought to them by elected Democrats.

[Richard]

I would be very surprised if VP Harris did not come to Detroit during the campaign.

What is fascinating though is your personal experience with your peers and your shared feelings that the MAGA party will give you a larger political voice. Do you feel that ‘Making America Great Again’ like it was sometime in the past will be much better for black women? I respect your experiences and opinions based on them so I am curious on when exactly it was ‘Great’ for you and other Detroit black women?

That’s base on a flawed look ,Build Back Better is Make America Great Again - just reworded and carried forward programs that started under the previous administration.

The infrastructure bill would have been DOA under this administration because they are based on shovel ready projects,infrastructure takes 3-5 years to go through the process to be shovel ready.

There is plenty of evidence out there that shows African Americans did do better in that time frame and have now slipped back under,but not just African Americans,everybody that was medium to low income is feeling the pain.

But that is cause and effect of the virus and flooding the country with cash which de-valued it,which will be a case study forever because they refused to take that approach during the depression so it was either no help and drag it out for the next 5 years or more or throw a bunch of cash at it and bring it to a close quickly but any way you do it you are going to pay the piper and it is always medium and low income that it hurts the most.

Not sure why VP Harris would come to Detroit,as far as the city is concerned,your representation that covers a majority of the city is off on her own personal agenda so for the most part she is censored,right along with you and your voice,so VP Harris showing up would be considered supporting a cause that is against the party.

It’s entirely possible to take a stance without cutting your nose off to spite your face.

When it comes to planned parenthood,that’s not the Right sitting up there you had your chance to convince her to create policy more to your liking,that was why the Supreme Court made that decision,to give you your voice back at the state level,you cannot blame on everybody else when the ball is in your court and you drop it.

Democracy kicks in at the local and state level,if the majority rule,then that’s what happens,the system is not tailored to individuals.

[Henry Whalley]

Build Back Better Act - Wikipedia

[Warrenite84]

So Southern, Let's start with the basics. Sperm is not a person. An egg is not a person. A fertilized egg is a person. It has all the genetic material necessary to complete a human being. Abortion interrupts the potential completion of a human to the point of birth. Yes this interruption is murder.

I think my post was pretty clear. A human fertilized egg has innate value that does not require us to assign them that value. Just like you, endowed by our Creator with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Every day, doctors learn new things about child development that was unknown just a few years ago. Development continues after birth in the development of humans brains until maturity in the person's 20's. Does this new knowledge shift your calculations on who is considered human and who is not?

Who made you the arbiter of who is a human and who is not?

It is bad enough to be forced to pay for this procedure through our taxes believing what many of us believe. What ignoble power haughty people have with small, cold hearts. Bake my cake! Pay for my abortion! You better call me by my right pronoun! No, I don't.

[Henry Whalley]

...A fertilized egg is a person..Abortion interrupts the potential completion of a human to the point of birth. Yes, this interruption is murder.

By your logic, not implanting an embryo interrupts the "completion of a human to the point of birth" and is murder. Is that what you're arguing?

P.S. I didn't follow how you got from embryos to pronouns, either.

[Warrenite84]

First question. If a frozen embryo is allowed to die not implanted it could be considered murder if willful. If through equipment failure perhaps negligent homicide. IMHO all embryos should be allowed to develop. Interestingly, I have heard that unwanted human embryos can be adopted now. That is good news.

Yes, I can see your question about the second point. It was a bit off topic. More of a general comment.

[Henry Whalley]

...human embryos can be adopted now

Do they go through a standard adoption process?

[Warrenite84]

I am not familiar with the adoption process.

[southen]

So Southern, Let's start with the basics. Sperm is not a person. An egg is not a person. A fertilized egg is a person. It has all the genetic material necessary to complete a human being. Abortion interrupts the potential completion of a human to the point of birth. Yes this interruption is murder.

I think my post was pretty clear. A human fertilized egg has innate value that does not require us to assign them that value. Just like you, endowed by our Creator with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Who made you the arbiter of who is a human and who is not?

You said it in the first paragraph. Potential. A fertilized egg is not a person, it has the potential to be one. A potential that doesn't begin until birth. I will grant you that I think at some point during pregnancy that a fetus can live outside of the womb, and I think that is where the conversation should be, but prior to that it is not something that can physically live on its own.

Curious... should it be illegal for a woman to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes while pregnant? What if she really loves fish and eats so much of it that the mercury is passed onto the child. Where should your regulation of a women's body end?

Who made you the arbiter? Or is this you pushing your Christian beliefs in a country where we have freedom from religion? You wouldn't be against Sharia Law now would you?

[oladub]

You said it in the first paragraph. Potential. A fertilized egg is not a person, it has the potential to be one. A potential that doesn't begin until birth. I will grant you that I think at some point during pregnancy that a fetus can live outside of the womb, and I think that is where the conversation should be, but prior to that it is not something that can physically live on its own.

Curious... should it be illegal for a woman to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes while pregnant? What if she really loves fish and eats so much of it that the mercury is passed onto the child. Where should your regulation of a women's body end?

Who made you the arbiter? Or is this you pushing your Christian beliefs in a country where we have freedom from religion? You wouldn't be against Sharia Law now would you?

I am curious about this: Since the Supreme Court ruling, there were more than 1 million abortions in the United States in 2023, the highest rate in more than a decade. One would think, based on Democratic Party hysteria, that the abortion industry has crashed nationwide but truth is found in numbers. Where is the joy among Democrats? If Christians and Muslims can be villainized for opposing abortions, Democrats are fair game for trying to politically benefit from the myth that abortion has been struck a death blow by the Supreme Court.

"Abortion is [[already) legal throughout pregnancy in Michigan – there is no ban or limit on abortion in Michigan based on how far along in pregnancy you are. If you are under the age of 18, a parent or legal guardian must give you permission to get an abortion in Michigan." -Abortion Finder

[southen]

Actually many muslims are okay with abortion as are many jews. It is the Christian right in this country that has taken the mantle on legislating by their book.

It might be hard to believe but despite things being okay in Michigan I think it is silly that a woman's right to bodily autonomy depends on how religious of a state one lives in. Abortions will continue to happen and people with means will still be able to leave whatever backwoods state they are in to get healthcare. It is the people who CAN'T afford to do that that I worry about. There are plenty of examples already how restricting this care is impacting women.

I have to keep asking this question, how would you feel if Muslims were legislating by their book? What if somehow the court was packed with religious zealots of a different stripe? Would you be so welcoming to that kind of rule as you are when it is your religious group?

[oladub]

I am not familiar with the adoption process.

"is he still alive?
Yes, yes, he is."

I have a cousin who was adopted out at her birth. She became a nurse, married, had four children and grandchildren. She grew up in a wealthy and loving adoptive home. As an adult, she was told by the adoption agency who her biological parents were. They had married two years after she was born. She once parked in front of her biological parents' house but did not have the nerve to knock on the door and introduce herself. I was told that story by her daughter.

I have another successful cousin who discovered that he had a different father than he thought when he read his mother's youthful diary after his mother died. His maternal grandmother would not let her daughter marry my uncle. His mother then married another man who claimed the baby as his own.

A third cousin corrected me when I was lamenting that her brother had no children prior to being killed. She corrected me and sent me a photo of her now grown up niece who is now an artist with exhibitions.

DNA turned up another 'first or second cousin". I wrote the lady but did not receive a response. Maybe she didn't know that the father who had done all the work of raising her wasn't her biological father. Or maybe she was just curious who her biological family is.

I am thankful to the women who didn't abort my cousins and to men who stepped up as step fathers to get them raised. Adoption isn't the only alternative to abortion. They made it possible for the world to have another nurse, industrial safely engineer and an artist.

[oladub]

Actually many muslims are okay with abortion as are many jews. It is the Christian right in this country that has taken the mantle on legislating by their book.

From Wikipedia, "In all, there are 57 members in the Organization of Islamic Conference—an organisation of countries with Muslim majorities or pluralities. Most Muslim countries have restrictive abortion laws that permit abortions only when the life of the mother is threatened. Twelve members of the Organization of Islamic Conference allow unrestricted access to abortion. With the exception of Turkey and Tunisia, they are mainly former Soviet Bloc states. Bahrain, a politically and socially conservative Muslim state, is the 12th among these countries to permit unrestricted access to abortion. Among socially conservative Muslim countries, seven countries permit abortion in the first 4 months of gestation for fetal deformities, four countries in Sub-saharan Africa [[Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Guinea) and three in the Middle East [[Kuwait, Qatar and, now, Iran)"

It might be hard to believe but despite things being okay in Michigan I think it is silly that a woman's right to bodily autonomy depends on how religious of a state one lives in. Abortions will continue to happen and people with means will still be able to leave whatever backwoods state they are in to get healthcare. It is the people who CAN'T afford to do that that I worry about. There are plenty of examples already how restricting this care is impacting women.

I have to keep asking this question, how would you feel if Muslims were legislating by their book? What if somehow the court was packed with religious zealots of a different stripe? Would you be so welcoming to that kind of rule as you are when it is your religious group?

You ignore the 10th. Amendment. Abortion is still legal as a state prerogative as it always has been. Some states like Oregon were freed by the Supreme Court to allow abortions up to deliveries just as other states were free to get rid of abortion. That's how democracy works.

I already posted on this thread expressing my support for state based versions of Rowe vs. Wade slightly adjusted to reflect medical advances since 1973. I also supported free speech. Laws should be guided by how people vote and the Constitution rather than how you or I "feel".

[Warrenite84]

Like I mentioned earlier. I totally support bodily autonomy. The pre born baby has a different genetic makeup from the mother so they are distinct from each other.

There is a great movie I recommend called, "Unplanned". It is a true story of a woman who had two abortions, one was chemical, who became a manager of a Planned Parenthood facility. She later discovered when assisting in an abortion that the "fetus" was sentient.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBLWpKbC3ww

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A16gzm9eaa8

[Henry Whalley]

...silly that a woman's right to bodily autonomy depends on how religious of a state one lives in.

The silliness stems from theologians who "may indulge the pleasing task of describing Religion as she descended from Heaven, arrayed in her native purity. A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian. He must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption which she contracted in a long residence upon Earth, among a weak and degenerate race of beings.”

― Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

[Henry Whalley]

...true story

Unplanned - Wikipedia

[Warrenite84]

Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and millions already have.

-Not quite an expert, peer reviewed site.

Care to discredit the veracity of the person in the next video?

[Henry Whalley]

Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and millions already have.

Agreed, Wikipedia isn't infallible but it's a good starting point for research. Have you tried to edit it with your theological propaganda? I'll bet you won't be able to do so.

As to discrediting veracity, you've lost all credibility AFAIC.

P.S. You seem like a nice person and a sincere believer. Just please don't use propaganda to force your religious beliefs on others. Doing so destroys our social fabric. IMHO religions and naked greed are the main sources of human suffering throughout history. They have killed countless millions of real persons -- not just embryos.

[Warrenite84]

Not familiar with [[AFAIC) acronym.

Actually, I find this is the best place to challenge what I believe. I enter every argument with a willingness to have my values challenged and adjusted or changed. I try to be respectful which is a work in process. It is a great forum for strengthening what one believes on a variety of topics. My arguments may persuade some and not others. That's ok.

Both sides of every topic have material they believe reinforce their side of an argument. Many talking points do not stand on their own under scrutiny.

Indeed there are Jim Jonses and profiteers which are the exception to many honest and sincere people of faith. There are also many atheists like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, who have killed millions of their own people.

[Henry Whalley]

...many atheists like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, who have killed millions of their own people.

True, but atheism counts as religion IMHO.

P.S. AFAIC = as far as I'm concerned.

P.P.S. IIRC Idi Amin's faith was Islam.

[Jimaz]

Is there a pro-life position on research into synthetic life? Sincerely.

[Zacha341]

Yes, some reflexively site 'religion' as the sole reason for killings as certain history is no longer taught. However it is accurate that far more have been killed for the cause and outworking of secular fascism/ communism - within the last 100 years: Mao's regime leading with over 60 ML Chinese killed.

More imposed deaths continue as you count the 20 ML killed in the Soviet Union, Cambodia's 2M, Millions killed by Po Pot's rule etc.

Indeed there are Jim Jonses and profiteers which are the exception to many honest and sincere people of faith. There are also many atheists like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, who have killed millions of their own people.

[Zacha341]

I doubt now VP. Harris is coming to Detroit to talk to use about anything. Especially if she tries to ply Detroiters with affirming that migrant crisis. We already know what that move is - displacing us.

If you're asking me to use the MAGA construct to affirm a view or defend better vs. bad vs. great. I'd have to say we don't need it. Per its political detractors MAGA is often used a canard/ joke as America was NEVER great so they will say - then on goes the long list of how it wasn't. Got that.

Beyond the politics of the extreme left vs. right: Ask most people TODAY if they feel America is getting any better? Hmm, eh NO. Exactly.

Black people have always been pawned and ascribed. What impacts the nation doubly impacts us. We've had greater times when our families were more intact. This is a fact. We know America is not perfectly great and don't see our rapid replacement as exactly 'affirming' either.

As I've stated neither MAGA ideology or religion is a requirement for black people and others to finally question abortion-on-demand.

Where MAGA aligns to some of our views and values in general so be it. But not necessary. As I stated 'we're' not wearing red MAGA hats where we protest abortion. Don't need that permission.

Many will continue to conflate blacks [and black women] not falling-in-line-view on certain issues as MAGA inspired; what we define as great also constrained.

So be it -- we're always told we can't think on our own. By our friends and our foes [past and present].

I would be very surprised if VP Harris did not come to Detroit during the campaign.

What is fascinating though is your personal experience with your peers and your shared feelings that the MAGA party will give you a larger political voice. Do you feel that ‘Making America Great Again’ like it was sometime in the past will be much better for black women? I respect your experiences and opinions based on them so I am curious on when exactly it was ‘Great’ for you and other Detroit black women?

[Zacha341]

Interesting. I see similarities with extreme secularism as a religion: it has edicts and rules [policy to politics], righteousness and ritual [our way is settled truth statements], apostates [those not agreeing], scriptures [laws and concepts/ word definitions changing daily] priests [spokespersons and affirmed leaders], sacraments [behaviors and actions deemed as good and faith affirming], allied groups [church members], etc.

I suppose 'organized' religion sorely was missed and had to be replaced with something a bit less restrictive ......

True, but atheism counts as religion IMHO.

P.S. AFAIC = as far as I'm concerned.

P.P.S. IIRC Idi Amin's faith was Islam.

[Henry Whalley]

Is there a pro-life position on research into synthetic life? Sincerely.

As long as petroleum-based, or made by Monsanto, Smith & Wesson, Halliburton, etc., it's OK with God.