They have just as much right as any other charity and/or business out there.
The blastocyst (clump of cells) if "born" would not have even been recognized as a pregnancy to the woman.
:shrug: and if it had been later in its life, it would have been instantly physically recognizable as such. So?
I dont see many people denying the unborn human is Homo sapiens. That's basic science and completely objective fact.
As for value, that is subjective and applied by people.
When it comes to dehumanizing, I think the pro-life camp wins that hands down, when it chooses to reduce the unborn to numbers and promoting as many births as possible, rather than focusing on quality of life for women and children....they compartmentalize those things amazingly well...many even wishing they could deny the latter public assistance, while insisting pregnancy women MUST produce a kid anyway, just to get more tiny baby booties on the ground.
To me, that is dehumanizing...quantity of life over quality of life.
If a clump of cells ( a blastocyst) was expelled (not uncommon) she would not even have known she was pregnant - there would have been no "later in life".
:shrug: sure, and if a clump of cells dies in a car wreck (not uncommon), there would also be no "later in life". The fact that life can end does not determine value.
Why do you think that it isn't a protection under the law issue? Is there not laws passed by congress and the senate that grants money to organizations? Note that everything congress and the senate passes is treated as a law. If they say that X amount of money must be handed out to X amount of businesses then that HAS to be done because it is the law.
If the government was to end farm subsidies would that be violating the equal protection clause? If not, why would ending funding of Planning Parenthood be any different? As I said, subsidies are not things that are owed to anyone.
That's correct - governments can't break the law.
States can, however, decide that PP is no longer an authorized provider for Medicaid reimbursement. In which case they are not breaking the law when they do not send them funds.
A federal agency warned Louisiana and Alabama on Wednesday that their latest efforts to defund Planned Parenthood by cutting the reproductive health-care provider from their respective Medicaid programs likely violates federal law.
The warning came in a letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services that runs the Medicaid program. The agency warned officials in both Louisiana and Alabama that plans to terminate Medicaid provider agreements with Planned Parenthood likely violates a 2011 agency guidance that says that states cannot discriminate against Medicaid health-care providers simply because they provide abortion services with non-federal dollars.
If all other types of business/organizations are still receiving subsidies, I'd say yes.
If the government was to end farm subsidies would that be violating the equal protection clause? If not, why would ending funding of Planning Parenthood be any different? As I said, subsidies are not things that are owed to anyone.
So if Medicare or Medicaid recipient goes into Planned Parenthood, in your mind would ending funding include no reimbursements for Medicaid or Medicare to Planned Parenthood?
You've just trotted out the old "Pro-lifers don't care about a child after its born" falsehood. There have been so many posts in so many threads over the years in which those who are pro-life who post here at DP have cited the efforts to help mothers and young families with housing, job training, and etc. and have also posted facts about faith-based charities. It never matters.
Value of life is subjective. If the blastocyst died there is an amazingly great chance that no body even knew it was there....so no value.
Obama Administration Warns States Defunding Planned Parenthood Likely Is Illegal
Hm... Interesting. So if I kill the illegal immigrant trapped in my basement that no one knows about, no biggie.
Good to know.
The value of a life is not dependent on the extent to which that life is known by others. The life of the unknown high school recluse is not less valuable than that of the popular football star.
Are you saying he was born without anybody's knowledge?
:shrug: what is the value of a born clump of cells.
because the help is only provided to those who obey the pro-fetus crowd and don't have an abortion
You've just trotted out the old "Pro-lifers don't care about a child after its born" falsehood. There have been so many posts in so many threads over the years in which those who are pro-life who post here at DP have cited the efforts to help mothers and young families with housing, job training, and etc. and have also posted facts about faith-based charities. It never matters.
I don't speak for anybody but myself, but I certainly don't dehumanize the unborn; I see them as uniquely created individuals who have the right to live. I feel the same way about those who are very old, very sick, and profoundly impaired.
It's never been brought before SCOTUS afaik so they couldn't rule on it. The only ones that could bring forth such a law suit is abortion clinics as they're the only ones with standing since the Hyde Amendment is unique and they haven't ever contested it afaik. Unless you know of other types of businesses/organizations that have been denied by law against getting government monies for simply being a certain type of legal business/organization?
IMO they should contest it all the way up to SCOTUS.
...women's freedom is not to be negotiated, and that they won't allow the country to be held hostage by a party that has increasingly become defined by regressive, religious fundamentalism.
You're so right, because the claim "If it's young enough, I should be able to kill it how I choose" is totally better than religious objections.
I'm fine with "cancer screenings, birth control, HIV tests..." etc, but so long as we're openly sacrificing the next generation for the benefit of the current, I fail to see how my religious observances are more cultish than Pro-choice.
You're so right, because the claim "If it's young enough, I should be able to kill it how I choose" is totally better than religious objections.
I'm fine with "cancer screenings, birth control, HIV tests..." etc, but so long as we're openly sacrificing the next generation for the benefit of the current, I fail to see how my religious observances are more cultish than Pro-choice.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?