Am I accountable for the abortions I fund?

Dan Lucas_July 2012_BW

by Dan Lucas

In the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion. Since that ruling, there have been more than 53 million abortions in the U.S. That’s more lives stopped than the entire population of the United States in 1880.

Abortion has been in the news lately because a pro-life group is releasing a series of video exposés of Planned Parenthood that reveal aborted fetuses being “sold for parts.” They are uncomfortable videos to watch. The first video shows a Planned Parenthood senior director of medical research discussing “crushing” fetuses in just the right place to avoid damaging the parts they want to sell, as she casually eats her salad and sips wine at a nice restaurant.

John Kass, writing in the Chicago Tribune, says the pro-life group “alleges the videos are evidence that Planned Parenthood — which receives more than $500 million each year in federal tax money — is illegally selling body parts for profit.” Kass goes on to comment “You can say that it’s not human life. And many do. But in this case, using euphemisms is a shield. I suppose we can convince ourselves that the research ‘materiel’ is not human, until of course, you see a lab tech with tweezers pick up a tiny limb. What’s going on at Planned Parenthood is barbaric. And, since Americans fund Planned Parenthood with our tax dollars, avoiding the issue doesn’t really work. Because the use of our money makes us complicit.”

That really strikes home for me, “the use of our money makes us complicit.” The problem for me is that I believe1 an unborn child is a human life and yet through my federal and state tax dollars, I am required by my government to pay for abortions that deliberately end those innocent lives.

My tax dollars go to pay for the half a billion dollars given to Planned Parenthood each year, and almost half of all abortions in Oregon are paid for by the State of Oregon’s Oregon Health Plan, also using my tax dollars.

So I am complicit – through my tax dollars. I have genuinely wondered if I will be held accountable for those abortions. I understand they are legal by law, but our government laws are a pale shadow, a flawed and imperfect attempt to reflect greater laws, greater truths. I am concerned about accountability under those greater laws.

I wish the laws of my country and the laws of my state didn’t put me in this position.

1I use the word “believe” as a concession to the current state of the public discourse. More accurately, I agree with columnist George Will, “When life begins is a scientific, not a philosophic or theological, question.”

To read more from Dan, visit www.dan-lucas.com

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Abortion, Religious Liberty, State Taxes, Taxes | 175 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Bob Clark

    Just say No to such guilt. The person(s) asking for the abortion generally is(are) the one(s) bearing the guilt and the anguish of such decision. Pray for them to grow spiritually in their journey to make amends with such event.

    I do think Planned Parent Hood has become seriously corrupted, and is not entitled to federal funding. The body parts business is demoralizing, and its approach to it is morally bankrupt. Then too, Planned Parent Hood has become a stealth political organization, reinforcing the decrepit welfare state.

    • DavidAppell

      “U.S. Scientists Speak Out About The Need For Fetal Tissue In Research: Vaccines have been one of the best things to come out of fetal tissue research,” Associated Press 8/11/15

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/us-scientists-speak-out-about-the-need-for-fetal-tissue-in-research_55ca245ce4b0923c12be3261?kvcommref=mostpopular

      • MrBill

        If someone took your liver, heart, kidneys, or whatever at the cost of your life would it be right?

        • Eric Blair

          No, of course not.. however, if I had already died then yes. And that is what is happening Bill. In the cases of fetal tissue donation, they are not removing the fetus to gain tissue. The woman has decided for reasons of her own to have an abortion.

          Your question is a red herring.

          • Michael Advantageous

            Your smells bellwether a foul odor coming from your abscess pool, proof positive that liberalism is a mental disorder.

          • MrBill

            Perhaps it would be better if I phrased it as follows. If someone decided for reasons of THEIR own to terminate YOUR life, is it then okay to have your liver, kidneys, brain, etc. donated to research?

            I would agree that the answer would be yes, but there’s a bigger underlying question that needs to be answered first and it is this. Is it okay for someone, for reasons of their own, to terminate your life? Can that act then be justified on the basis that your body parts went to a good cause?

          • Eric Blair

            If that “person” is an unborn fetus residing in a woman’s body. Is it fair that someone, other than yourself, can make you have a baby against your will? Doesn’t THAT seem like the government over-regulation that conservatives go on and on about? Seems to me that the government intruding on your ability to make decisions for yourself, about yourself, is the ultimate in government intrusion.

            We can debate the pros and cons of abortion forever. However, if an abortion is legal, and it is, then yes, it is OK to donate the tissue from the aborted fetus.

          • MrBill

            No it’s not unfair to make someone have a baby against their will. Mom had a role in giving that baby life. The least Mom can do is let him or her have a chance at the life she helped to bring about. So it would be unfair to kill that baby before he or she even sees the light of day.

            Just because abortion is legal doesn’t make it right. I don’t think that’s particularly relevant.

          • redbean

            “Is it fair that someone, other than yourself, can make you have a baby against your will?”

            Are you of the school that says all heterosexual intercourse is rape?

          • Eric Blair

            Why no, I’m not. What an odd question.

          • redbean

            I apologize. Apparently I didn’t understand your statement: “Is it fair that someone, other than yourself, can make you have a baby against your will?” Some gender feminists contend that all heterosexual intercourse is rape. Based on my misunderstanding of your statement, I mistakenly thought you held to that belief.

            Unless a woman is raped, she consented to the act that resulted in the baby’s existence. Creating a baby consensually, and carrying her/him to term, is obviously not guaranteed in today’s world.

          • Eric Blair

            LOL.. you didn’t offend me. I don’t offend easily, at all. If I did, I probably wouldn’t spend much time on OC.

            Sometimes birth control fails… or there is a failure of the moment. I think, since we don’t usually have much information, that we can avoid the moralizing that goes with a woman getting pregnant.

            I think it is better that we make access to birth control for both women and men (and it will be more effective if we remove the moralizing), and we give them a good solid foundation in sex education.

            On the individual level, we don’t know what the reasons each woman has for getting an abortion, and I think it is best if we step back and let her make the decision.

          • redbean

            So, when the State decides, for reasons of its own, that a certain prisoner is to be executed, can we take their organs without their consent? Once their appeals are all done, they’re just gonna die anyway, right?

          • Eric Blair

            Nope.. but please continue with the apples and oranges comparison. LOL.. are you saying a fetus is a prisoner?

          • redbean

            LOL? I’m as serious as a heart attack.

            I didn’t say a baby was a prisoner. I said the political status of a baby in her/his mother’s womb is more tenuous than a death row prisoner’s. At least a prisoner has rights to appeal and the hope of DNA exoneration.

            For a baby in the womb, mother is both judge and jury, and the executioner is a functionary, almost never the mother’s “personal doctor” who knows her life situation well.

          • Eric Blair

            Well.. if we’re not being literal, then we’re back to apples and oranges. Sorry if you don’t see the irony. I’ll keep that in mind next time.

            Actually you didn’t say any of those things until this post.

            While a doctor is capable of giving medical advice, they are no better than anyone else at giving philosophical or moral direction. There is no law that requires a patient to listen or take their doctor’s advice.

            Are you one of those purists who believe that if the mother doesn’t take care of herself, that she can be held liable for a crime if the baby has issues upon birth, or dies? And if a fetus does miscarry, or dies, do you think there should be an investigation?

          • redbean

            My point about the doctor is regarding the common remark that an abortion decision is best left “between a woman and her doctor.” This is not reality, especially at abortion mills like PP, but it makes a good sound bite.

            The human body is remarkably resilient, even more so when it comes to pregnancy. Rarely do miscarriages occur because a mother “doesn’t take care of herself.” Miscarriage is a natural event and doesn’t require an investigation unless foul play is suspected, such as physical abuse by fathers, pimps or family members in order to precipitate an unnatural miscarriage.

          • Eric Blair

            What about alcohol use? Fetal alcohol syndrome is very real, and very debilitating.

          • redbean

            It certainly is. Are you saying you want to lock up all pregnant women so they never take a drink?

        • DavidAppell

          I am not a fetus, am I?

          • MrBill

            Not now, but once upon a time you were. And your life had value then just as it does today, and will in the future when you’re old and gray.

          • DavidAppell

            Fetuses being aborted are typically clumps without even a nervous system, and it’s not clear that’s “life.” In any case, the decision about a womb belongs to the women who has it.

            If only conservatives cared so much about babies and children after they were born, as they claim to do before.

          • MrBill

            By the time most women realize they are pregnant (4 weeks) the baby already has a beating heart. You kind of need a nervous system for that to happen. Virtually all abortions happen after this point. It takes intentional ignorance to not believe the baby is living at this point.

          • DavidAppell

            No, you don’t need a nervous system for beating heart cells. Researchers have shown it in a petri dish:

            http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/02/stem-cell-research-heart-disease-long-qt

          • redbean

            Unlike the embryo, cells in a petri dish are not capable of developing into a fully formed human.

          • DavidAppell

            Of course not. I used them in a reply to a point about nervous systems.

          • MrBill

            That story mentions that stem cells can be caused to differentiate as heart muscle and that they even pulse like regular heart muscle. It does not say whether they do so on their own, or as a result of outside stimulus. It may only be saying that they are capable of pulsating like heart cells. You need to show a little more clarification on what they’re saying for this to be even remotely relevant.

            In the baby’s case, the heartbeat is being driven by signals sent from a developing brain. So there is a nervous system at work.

          • DavidAppell

            They are capable of beating, and they did. And without a nervous system. You can look up the details if you want.

            Heart muscle cells beat on their own. They don’t need a brain to do that, or even a nervous system. You were wrong.

          • DavidAppell

            Heart cells in the petri dish were on their own. Did you see any nervous systems hanging off the petri dish?

            Your claim was wrong. Just accept it instead of digging your hole deeper.

          • MrBill

            Okay, I can accept that the heartbeat at this point is an involuntary action. But it doesn’t substantially change what should be obvious from all the posts below which Mr. Redbean argued very articulately. And that it is that life is a continuum from the time one is conceived until their eventual death. Each of us passes through all these stages and our lives have value at all these stages and should be protected.

          • DavidAppell

            Glad we got that settled — a beating heart does not mean a nervous system.

            A clump of cells isn’t “life,” it’s just a bunch of molecules. So is a grape.

            If you’re so concerned about “life,” why aren’t you arguing against the killing of houseflies?

          • MrBill

            But a beating heart does mean life. Human life, and not a housefly’s life.

          • DavidAppell

            A beating heart is an inherent property of heart muscle cells — it does not prove “life.”

          • redbean

            So all fetuses are “life unworthy of life” until otherwise decreed by someone who was allowed to be born?

          • DavidAppell

            Fetuses are clumps of cells, not human life.

          • redbean

            Clumps of cells? I am too, and so are you.

            Thanks for the 1970 science lesson.

          • MrBill

            It is only an inherent property of living cells.

          • DavidAppell

            Yes — rocks do not have a heartbeat.

          • redbean

            Thank you for your cogent arguments, Mr. Bill! Your support is also much appreciated. (But please, it’s Ms., not Mr.).

          • MrBill

            My apologies.

          • redbean

            Not the first time this gender confusion has occurred on OC. No harm, no foul.

            You rock, MrBill…MrBill…MrBill!

          • redbean

            “Clumps?” Not exactly a scientific term.

            The nervous system develops in the 3rd week after conception, but its antecedents were there from the moment of fertilization.

            If having a nervous system makes someone’s life valuable, what about people with diseases of the nervous system? If their nervous system doesn’t work properly, do they not “count” as members of the human family?

            Conservatives do care about babies and kids after birth. That’s why they’ve created thousands of privately funded pregnancy resource centers that offer non-judgmental physical, emotional and practical support to pregnant women before and after birth. They adopt lots of special needs kids. They are also the main supporters of private education, which takes some of the financial burden off of the chronically broke public system. Besides, most elected Republicans support the very same social programs as Bernie Sanders. The fight is usually over some small percentage of a budget increase.

            But even if the caricature of the dastardly conservative was 100% true, the violent invasion of a woman’s uterus for the purpose of killing the unborn child temporarily residing there would still be the taking of human life.

          • DavidAppell

            “Conservatives do care about babies and kids after birth.”

            Against food stamps. Against the ACA. Against welfare for children. Against Planned Parenthood and its women’s health services. Against sex education. Against paid maternal leave. And on and on it goes.

          • redbean

            You’re wrong on all counts. Most Republicans agree with Bernie on taking money from taxpayers to fund Head Start, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps (EBT cards), refundable Child Tax Credits, Pell Grants, Community Development Block Grants, National School Lunch Program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, refundable Earned Income Tax Credit, unemployment benefits, Section 8 rent subsidies, State Children’s Health Insurance program (SCHIP), federal job training, Women, Infants and Children program (WIC) as well as the departments of Health & Human Services, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy and let’s not forget the FTC, EEOC, FCC, SEC, NEA, NEH, EPA, FHA, ATF and TSA. (Laurence M. Vance, 8/11/15, LRC.com)

            Don’t confuse Democratic and Republican talking points – designed to fool their bases – with reality.

          • DavidAppell

            “House Republican Budget Whacks Food Stamps And Medicaid,” Huffington Post 3/17/2015

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/17/republican-budgets-whack-_n_6885122.html

          • DavidAppell

            “How the GOP House budget takes aim at funding for college students,” Washington Post 5/7/15

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/07/how-the-gop-house-republican-takes-aim-at-funding-for-college-students/

          • redbean

            As I said, arguing over how many bureaucrats can dance on the head of a ballpoint pen. Republicans don’t cut budgets or defund anything. They only talk about it.

          • DavidAppell

            “Republicans don’t cut budgets or defund anything.”

            Ha ha.

            https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TRP6001A027NBEA

          • redbean

            I see steady increases, e.g after Bush I and Bush II, or holding the line. Not seeing the apocalypse that you see.

          • DavidAppell

            Liar. The data show a decrease in SNAP when Clinton left office, compared to when he began office:

            https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TRP6001A027NBEA

            And they show Obama turning it around too, after inheriting the worst economy since the Great Depression.

            https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TRP6001A027NBEA

            Look at the vast increase during Bush II’s administration. Care to explain?

          • DavidAppell

            “GOP budget bill slashes CHIP program,” The Hill 4/8/11

            http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/154801-gop-budget-bill-slashes-chip-program

          • DavidAppell

            That’s enough for now — I don’t need to do any more debunking of your wildy rosy view of what Republicans want to fund. It doesnt’ pass the laugh test.

          • DavidAppell

            “…the violent invasion of a woman’s uterus for the purpose of killing the unborn child temporarily residing there would still be the taking of human life.”

            It’s not a “child,” it’s a fetus.
            It’s not a “human life,” it’s a fetus.
            It’s not “killing,” since it’s not a human life.
            Most of all, it’s not your business, it’s the woman’s.

          • redbean

            Using terms like “fetus” outside of a medical context is one of the ways
            we dehumanize people, a necessary prerequisite to society’s acceptance of their extermination.

          • DavidAppell

            A fetus isn’t “people” in any normal sense of the word, it’s a fetus. So an abortion isn’t “extermination.” But again, it’s none of your business what a woman decides to do with her own body. Stay out of her bedroom, and her medicine cabinet, and her doctor’s office.

          • redbean

            No one wants inside her medicine cabinet or her doctor’s office, and definitely not her bedroom – so long as she doesn’t expect other people to pay for it or to shut up and go along with the fantasy that there is no harm being done. Aborting a child aborts not just one person, but every generation from that person’s line.

            When we intentionally engage in the biologic act of reproduction, it’s absurd to call the resulting pregnancy an “accident” – it’s not. It’s the expected outcome even if contraception is used. Sexual intercourse is a biological activity with major emotional and physical implications – it’s not a recreational sport.

            Advocating for abortion is not about protecting women – it’s about exploiting them.

          • DavidAppell

            I don’t like paying for nuclear bombs, drone strikes and military invasions based on lies. Where can I get my money back?

          • redbean

            I don’t either. Let’s start a third party to get our money back – no money for empire or baby killing of any kind. No death penalty. We could call it the Non-Aggression Party (NAP).

            Can I get an amen, brother?

          • DavidAppell

            Nope, sorry. I think women needs organizations just like Planned Parenthood, doing just what Planned Parenthood has been doing, with federal funding for the women who can’t afford it.

          • DavidAppell

            “Advocating for abortion is not about protecting women – it’s about exploiting them.”

            I’m not advocating for abortions. I’m advocating that the woman, and only the woman, gets to make the decision about her pregnancy.

          • redbean

            Did you know that many women feel pressured to abort by others, such as the baby’s father or other family members? It’s not uncommon for parents to force their teenaged daughters to abort. Did you know that victims of sex trafficking are forced to abort so they can get back to work?

          • DavidAppell

            Outlawing abortions isn’t going to stop victims of sex trafficking from getting abortions.

          • redbean

            Abortion on demand enables sex traffickers and other abusers to slide under the radar, while allowing society to ignore the holistic needs of the pregnant woman. Abortion’s widespread acceptance shows the culture’s devaluation of women and children.

          • DavidAppell

            Yes, I’m sure sex traffickers are seeking abortions at Planned Parenthood. (eye roll)

          • redbean

            Sex traffickers don’t seek abortions. Their victims do. As do the victims of statutory rape and incest.

          • DavidAppell

            All the more reason to keep PP funded.

          • redbean

            PP is the McDonald’s of abortion. No questions asked when the mom is under age.

          • DavidAppell

            “…while allowing society to ignore the holistic needs of the pregnant woman.”

            Women decide what their needs are, not you. (Why do you find this so difficult to understand?)

          • DavidAppell

            “Sexual intercourse is a biological activity with major emotional and physical implications – it’s not a recreational sport.”

            Each couple, not you, gets to decide what sex is for them. It’s none of your business.

          • redbean

            Sorry, biology being what it is, you can’t choose your own facts. “Sex” can have multiple definitions, but that’s not what I was talking about. Any activity that allows sperm to travel through the cervix and up into the fallopian tubes make babies. Biology 101. What do you think those man and lady parts are for, anyway?

          • DavidAppell

            “What do you think those man and lady parts are for, anyway?”

            They are for whatever the owners of those parts want to use them for in a consensual situation.

          • redbean

            People can believe and do whatever they want. The reality is that if they allow the parts to function normally, then the biological outcome is reproduction.

          • DavidAppell

            “The reality is that if they allow the parts to function normally, then the biological outcome is reproduction.”

            False — birth control means there can be sex without reproduction. Sex is enjoyable. Is that really what scares you?

          • redbean

            False again, David, about “sex without reproduction.” Around half (give or take) of abortions are sought because of contraceptive “failure” – some of this is operator error and some of it because no single method is fool proof.

            Of course, oftentimes “accidents” don’t result in abortion because many people are generous types who find a way to welcome another mouth at the table, or accept that adoption is the best option for their circumstances.

            The reason that abortion rates have risen right along with contraceptive use for 40 years is because of the false assurance provided by contraception, resulting in a “contraceptive mentality” in which people believe the myth of “sex without reproduction” 100% of the time. They believe that something has “gone wrong” when pregnancy happens because of their belief in the myth you mentioned.

            In fact, most women using hormonal birth control are in fact aborting without knowing it. The newer pills have lower levels of hormones because the older pills with higher hormone levels were such potent carcinogens, although the newer ones still carry an increased risk of cancer. They work by making a healthy reproductive system into a dysfunctional one by causing the uterine lining to be too thin to support a developing child, who passes out of the body with menstruation having starved to death because implantation was barred.

            Not false about the enjoyable part (unless coercion is involved). What is it about taking on the responsibilities of fatherhood that scare you?

          • DavidAppell

            Conception failure is just as good a reason to get an abortion as any other.

            Again, it’s none of your business what a couple decides to do.

            Where did you ever learn to think my life was your business?????????

          • redbean

            About the time you asked me to subsidize it or to sit down and shut up when I see you making a mistake you’re likely to regret.

          • DavidAppell

            I dislike subsidizing drone strikes that kill foreign women and children. Where can I go to opt-out?

          • redbean

            Too late, you could have supported Ron Paul in 2012.

          • DavidAppell

            “They believe that something has “gone wrong” when pregnancy happens because of their belief in this modern mythology.”

            Which is exactly right.

          • DavidAppell

            “They work by making a healthy reproductive system into a dysfunctional one by causing the uterine lining to be too thin to support a developing child.”

            Bull. Lots of women have children after having once been on the pill.

            Second, why do you think it’s any of your business? It’s not.

          • redbean

            Not bull because I didn’t say the effect was permanent. I was referring to the FACT that a woman while on the pill is hormonally tricking her body into thinking it’s pregnant. Given the uncertainties about biological factors involved in human mating choices, one should be cautious about making life-altering decisions under its influence.

            The effect on the developing child is also a concern. Women who want to become pregnant after using the pill are advised to wait at least 6 months after stopping the pill before conceiving a child.

            WHO classifies the pill as a class I carcinogen, BTW. Perhaps you should exercise skepticism before trusting a pharmaceutical company regarding the pill’s safety.

          • Eric Blair

            Actually it can be, but given that fertilization happens less than 25% of the time, statistically speaking, the outcome is usually not reproduction.

          • redbean

            Good point, Mr. “Eric Blair.” Women are only fertile for about 1 day/month. Men, on the other hand, are always “on.” (Oh dear, I hope that doesn’t come across as a rather awkward pun.) Since sperm can live in a woman’s reproductive tract for about 3 days, there is a chance of conception 3 days before and after a woman ovulates. This is part of the basis for fertility awareness methods of family planning. No carcinogens or raincoats required.

          • DavidAppell

            “The nervous system develops in the 3rd week after conception.”

            No, it doesn’t, only in some rudimentary form as the neural plate. That’s not a human life, it’s an fetus.

          • redbean

            Definition of fetus: “The developing human, in utero, after completion of the eighth gestational week. Before that time it is called an embryo.”

            Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, 21st ed.

            Rudimentary? As in basic, beginning, first principle? Yes. Age and developmental status has nothing to do with whether the fetus or embryo or blastocyst or morula or zygote is human. At fertilization, egg and sperm are united and a genetically unique human being is now in existence.

            The real question is whether we value this tiny person or not, and that’s not a scientific but a philosophical, i.e. moral question.

          • DavidAppell

            *Developing* human. That’s not “human.”

            The egg and sperm make a zygote, not a “unique human being.” It’s just cell, no different than countless skin cells you scratch off every day.

          • redbean

            That’s incorrect. A skin cell cannot develop into a fully formed human on its own. A zygote can.

          • DavidAppell

            A zygote is just a cell. It is no more “alive” than a skin cell.

          • DavidAppell

            The chromosomes are just more tissue. The zygote doens’t have a brain, or even a rudimentary nervous system. It is no more alive than an rock.

          • redbean

            Wow, that’s some hard-core materialistic fundamentalism.

          • DavidAppell

            “The real question is whether we value this tiny person or not, and that’s not a scientific but a philosophical, i.e. moral question.”

            It’s not a “tiny person” — it’s a fetus. It’s the right of each woman to make her own moral choices about her own body.

            If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one. If the womb isn’t yours, it’s none of your business.

          • redbean

            A fetus is not the woman’s body – the fetus has her own body distinct from both her mother and father, temporarily residing in her mother’s uterus, which has no purpose other than the nurturing of new human life. A woman can live without a uterus, a fetus cannot. A fetus is dependent on his mother.

            Should the value of all persons dependent on others be at risk if the ones supporting them decide to stop doing so?

            Perhaps you meant to say that the fetus is the mother’s property, which she can dispose of at will. You know, like slave owners used to do, except slaves had economic value, unlike a fetus. Unless, of course, you’re going to sell the parts, which is illegal for the mother to do – but not a third party. Why do you think that is?

          • DavidAppell

            A fetus is part of the woman’s body. It cannot survive outside that body. It is the woman’s body, not yours.

            “Should the value of all persons dependent on others be at risk if the ones supporting them decide to stop doing so?”

            Fetuses aren’t “persons,” they are fetuses. And you certainly don’t get to decide waht a woman does with her body.

          • redbean

            So in your view the woman “owns” the fetus – just like a slave owner “owns” a slave.

          • DavidAppell

            No, not just like. A slave is alive. A fetus isn’t.

          • redbean

            Now you’re just being stubborn.

            A fetus is most definitely alive – unless something causes it to die.

          • DavidAppell

            House flies are alive. Where is your great concern for them?

          • redbean

            They’re not human life, but I do try to practice good stewardship by employing catch and release. Or I just cover my food so they can’t lay their eggs there.

          • DavidAppell

            Houseflies are life. But now some forms of life are beneath you — not equal to your own? How do you get to make that decision about who lives and who dies?

          • redbean

            I eat chicken, fish, seafood beef and pork in addition to vegetables, fruits and grains. So apparently the answer is yes.

          • DavidAppell

            “Why do you think that is?”

            Whack-job hyper-Christian I-know-best Republican extremists.

          • redbean

            The same extremists who failed to make abortion illegal or to defund PP when they had control of the White House, the Senate and the House back in the early 2000s?

            Your HuffingPo link says this:

            “The U.S. government prohibits the sale of fetal tissue for profit and requires separation between researchers and the women who donate
            fetuses. Some schools go further, requiring written consent from donors.”

            Are the medical schools that use fetal tissue filled with extremists?

          • DavidAppell

            Republicans only use abortion as a talking point, to stir up people like you and get you to vote for them. Once in office, their focus is on enriching the already rich. The electorate falls for it every time.

          • redbean

            Agreed – just like Democrats and now, Socialists.

          • DavidAppell

            Democrats actively protect women’s right to determine the fate of her own body. They just protected it the recent Senate vote against PP.

          • redbean

            No woman needs Senate Democrats to protect her “right to determine the fate of her own body.” Women are perfectly capable of doing that on their own. Apparently you disagree.

          • Eric Blair

            But, perhaps, they need Senate Democrats to protect them from Senate Republicans?

          • redbean

            Who will protect women from the biotech companies who see their unborn children as profit centers?

          • DavidAppell

            Legally, women did need the Senate Democrats to protect her right to control her own body.

            Thanksfully, those Democrats did.

          • redbean

            Democrats actively protect the right of biotech companies to make obscene profits.

          • DavidAppell

            You mean “socialists” like the rich farmers who get farm subsidies?
            Or those who bailed out Wall Street? How many trillions did that cost, anyway?

          • redbean

            No, I mean socialists like Bernie the superhero who votes like a Republican more often than not.

            Personally, I’m opposed to farm subsidies and would never willingly participate in a Wall Street bailout, but I don’t have the right to force my beliefs on others.

          • Eric Blair

            LOL.. he doesn’t vote like a Republican more often than not… unless you are very selective on the issues you are presenting.

          • DavidAppell

            How many times did Sanders vote with a Republican majority, versus with a Democrat majority?

          • DavidAppell

            You participated in the Wall Street Bailout, and in farm subsidies, whether you liked it or not.

            All huge examples of socialism that Republicans are very, very happy with.

          • redbean

            So true, which is why so many folks are PO’d.

          • DavidAppell

            Are you equally PO’d at the subsidies YOU get??

      • redbean

        The vaccines listed in the article were created using cell lines developed from two – that’s two, count ’em two – humans aborted in the 1960s. (Abortion was legal in some states before Roe v. Wade in 1973.) A newer cell line from one human aborted in 1985 is also currently in use for vaccine purposes. There is absolutely no medical or research need for the roughly 55 million lives lost to abortion since 1973.

        The ethical way to obtain fetal tissue is to use cadavers from natural miscarriages.

        • DavidAppell

          “[Ben] Carson defends his research on aborted fetuses,” CNN 8/13/15
          http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/13/politics/ben-carson-aborted-fetuses-research/index.html

          • redbean

            He has also stated the fact that PP was created to eliminate people of color, according to Sanger.

          • DavidAppell

            And without any evidence at all, you believed him.

            You’d probably believe anything if it met your preconceived notions.

          • redbean

            Are you unaware of Sanger’s views? Google stats on black abortion rates compared to population. Or not.

        • DavidAppell

          “The ethical way to obtain fetal tissue is to use cadavers from natural miscarriages.”

          Only if you think there is something unethical about having an abortion. Many don’t.

          • redbean

            So we should follow the lowest common denominator when it comes to the value of human life? What makes you think your life is so valuable? If your body alone held the key to the cure for cancer, but it required you to give up your life, would you do it? No one would fault you for saying no. How about giving the same benefit of the doubt to the most vulnerable among us – especially when there are other options that don’t require killing?

          • DavidAppell

            “How about giving the same benefit of the doubt to the most vulnerable among us”

            Fetuses aren’t “us.” And most of all, they certainly aren’t yours to make decisions about.

          • redbean

            They’re not “us?” Are they alien beings from outer space?

            If a mother drowns her baby in the toilet 5 minutes after birth, am I allowed to say that’s wrong? According to your “logic” – there’s no reason to consider birth the dividing line for determining human value – the nervous system isn’t mature at that point.

          • DavidAppell

            After birth is not pre-birth, is it?

          • redbean

            That’s a rather arbitrary distinction.

          • DavidAppell

            Hardly. The moment of birth is clear — when the fetus exits the birth canal.

          • redbean

            Ever heard of partial birth abortion? Or caesarean section?

          • DavidAppell

            Yes. Same principle.

  • Robert Collins

    Baby killing did not start with Roe V. Wade. Read up on the history of infanticide. From ancient times through the middle ages and even in recent history unwanted babies have been routinely killed immediately after birth.

  • guest

    It takes two to tango. Thereto, the paring ought untangle and face the music without taxing public assistance beyond common sense, Yes, rape and incest do matter and well as sterilization for repeat offenders.

    As for Planned Parenthood corruption, cut it off at the passé and just say hell no to taxpayer conscriptions for ‘bawdy’ part money shines.

    • Ron Glynn

      Dan, thanks for writing the piece so we can think about things. However, I must disagree with your premise . We have a representative form of government and our elected representatives determines where the tax money goes to funding. There are many things I don’t agree with such as making drone strikes to kill terrorists in other countries which ends up killing a whole bunch of innocent civilians. The only power I have as a citizen is the vote and the pen or a civil disobedience refusal to pay taxes which go to fund these things. Even my failure to pay taxes would not stop anything done by my government. In conclusion, I am not complicit in my tax dollars doing things such as killing the unborn or killing innocent people in other countries due to the ongoing War on Terrorism as I have no real power to prevent these events.

      • Peanuts Vendor Pogo Prosem

        Your role seems over, Rover, just like Neville Chamberlain appeasing a Nazionale Socialist (incessant)incitement then, as is happening by antichrist insurgents threatening US now.
        We have met the emema and they continue with more colonoscopies to add more polyps and not to subtract the insurrectus ad infinitum afflicting our sovereign nation leading into another gastronomical civil war that aids and abets a NWO A-bombination. Pearl Harboring WW3. Argh-h-h-h!

    • 2/3rds of God is Go

      Abortion remains debatable, the issue or tissue of PP remains outstanding in terms of what ‘remains’ to what seems to be obscene or pc gentrified. .

  • DavidAppell

    Dan, how do you feel about funding the drones and missiles that kill women and children in the Middle East?

    • Eric Blair

      Or the federal funds that go to police departments that kill innocent black people.

      • thevillagidiot

        that’s a cheap shot, George. So you are saying there should be no federal funds for police Departments? I agree with that.

        • DavidAppell

          In any case, there shouldn’t be federal funds and equipment given to militarize police departments.

          • redbean

            I agree with “the village idiot,” who agrees with David and Eric – no militarized police departments. Looks like the answer to “Can’t we all just get along?” is a resounding, “Si se puede!”

        • Eric Blair

          If you agree with that, then how can it be a cheap shot?

    • Onewhoknows

      Geez, Dan. We don’t get to decide what parts of the federal budget we fund! It isn’t a direct democracy. I pay taxes for LOTS of things I don’t want and don’t use. I do pay, willingly, for planned pregnancy assistance for people who can’t afford it. Check out the NYT Op-Ed – “How to Really Defend Planned Parenthood”

  • Carl

    Planned Parenthood needs the money from the body parts to fund women’s health…so they must do this, even though it does seem really, really bad. Almost like the Donner party…you know, what they did.

    • DavidAppell

      Planned Parenthood does not make a profit from selling fetal tissue — they charge only what’s needed to recuperate their costs for doing so.

      • Carl

        Just how much does it cost to kill a baby and sell those parts? I am guessing it is VERY costly.

        • DavidAppell

          It’s not a “baby,” it’s a fetus.

          • dadamax

            Unless it’s not even a fetus yet and it’s still just an embryo. Over 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester, meaning 12 or fewer weeks, and an embryo doesn’t technically become a fetus until week 11.

          • redbean

            Why does a person’s age make it OK to rip their body to shreds or poison them?

          • dadamax

            How do you define a person? Where do you draw the line and why? Customarily a person’s age is marked by their date of birth, not date of conception.

          • redbean

            Age is a social construct, so “customarily” is a good word choice. We can’t stick a camera inside to precisely date any of the events of development but it happens pretty much the same way for everyone unless something goes wrong.

            A person is a genetically unique human being, not simply tissue of either mother or father, but starts as the new cell formed from the union of egg and sperm (fertilization). This new cell is genetically distinct from both parents. There is no doubt scientifically that this is human life – its DNA tells us that it is not a duck, or a tree, or a fungus but a very specific human person.

            This new person is dependent on their mother until they travel those few inches down the birth canal, and they will continue to be dependent on others until able to fend for herself or himself, sometime around the age of 30 in our culture. Then, when he or she hits about 75 years old, they will again be dependent on those around them for survival.

          • dadamax
          • redbean

            If the DNA says so, then yes. I don’t judge people by their looks:)

          • dadamax

            “If the DNA says so”? What does that mean? Hair follicles and skin cells have the same DNA. Someone could harvest your skin cells and clone you, if they wanted to. You might as well say sperms and eggs are people.

          • redbean

            Yes, but in order to clone me they would need to obtain an egg cell to “mate” with the skin cell! That’s the point. Skin cells don’t become babies on their own – it requires a lot of high-tech assistance and a germ cell. The difference between “germ cells” (egg and sperm) and the other cells in the body like skin and hair is that only germ cells can produce a new human being. In biology, function matters. In politics, anything goes.

          • dadamax

            So you’re not going by DNA then. So why aren’t sperms and eggs people?

          • redbean

            Yes, I’m going by DNA. I apologize if I didn’t make that clear.

            A sperm on its own, all by its lonesome, cannot grow into a human. An egg on its own, all by its lonesome, cannot grow into a human. They lack sufficient chromosomes so they have to unite for a new life to begin.

            Sperm and egg aren’t people because they only have half the chromosomes needed for a new human life. An egg starts with 46 chromosomes (primary oocyte) but after it undergoes oogenesis (maturation), it only has 23. Sperm also start with 46 chromosomes (primary spermatocyte). Once matured into spermatozoa, each “swimmer” only has 23 chromosomes. The egg and sperm combine so that the new human has the required 46 chromosomes.

          • Eric Blair

            A fetus, on its own, all by its lonesome, cannot grow into a human.

          • redbean

            Yes it can, provided no one interferes with the normal process. Perhaps you are a follower of Ayn Rand who views the fetus as a trespasser in the uterus, even though the fetus has no choice in her place of residence.

          • Eric Blair

            No.. I think you are not understanding the words “on it’s own” and “lonesome”

            And no, I don’t believe I am a follower of Ayn Rand… in most all ways.

            You like to make odd leaps of logic. And by odd, I don’t mean insightful or interesting. They seem just very random.

          • redbean

            Fetuses are human. To say otherwise is irrational, perhaps a defense mechanism.

            From the moment of fertilization, we all have a common developmental trajectory. Arbitrarily defining someone as “human” at any particular point in the continuum of life other than fertilization is meaningless.

            If by questioning the words “on its own” and “lonesome” you mean to say that a baby human is dependent on her mother’s body for life, that is not in dispute. Nor does it change once the baby is born – someone has to continue to supply the baby with everything she needs for quite a while. If someone is dependent on you, do you have the right to deprive them of what they need to live, especially if you’re the only one who can provide it?

          • dadamax

            Identical twins are not genetically distinct from each other. Are they the same person?

          • redbean

            Obviously they are not the same person. Their identical genotype as siblings does not change the fact that each one of them is a new human being, genetically distinct from their parents. Their genetic similarity also does not change the fact that their new life came into existence at fertilization, even though the original fertilized egg divided around age 4 to 8 days into two people.

          • Carl

            Try telling that a partial birth abortion victim.

          • DavidAppell

            If it’s not your womb, it’s none of your business.

          • Sign me outa his gym

            OU Wombat in redress, DA, insurgent fodder for any kind of antichristiclasm that hirsutes your parlay.

      • redbean

        How do you know they don’t make a profit? Because they said so? Because their tax status is “nonprofit?”

        All that means is that the actual profits can go to executive salaries. Perhaps a new Lamborghini for the doctor? At least, “that’s what she said.”

        • DavidAppell

          It’s against the law to sell fetal tissue for a profit, and they know that.

          How do you know they *do* sell fetal tissue for a profit?

          • redbean

            Because former PP employees have been speaking out about it long before the recent videos came out.

          • DavidAppell

            This is hearsay, not proof. Do you have proof?

          • redbean

            Stem Express, a biotech company, sought a restraining order against the Center for Medical Progress for their undercover videos of PP execs discussing pricing of human commodity transactions. Stem Express’ request was denied by a CA judge.

          • DavidAppell

            Links?

          • redbean

            Keep your eyes on your own paper and do your own homework.

          • DavidAppell

            Links? You can’t provide any….

          • redbean

            Google. Search Engine. I know you know how.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)