U.S. Senate Passes Unprecedented Vote to Defund Abortion Giant Planned Parenthood

Abortion Credit All Night Images-compressed
Photo Credit: All Night Images

WASHINGTON — In an unprecedented move, the U.S. Senate voted Thursday to defund the abortion giant Planned Parenthood, agreeing to a provision that was part of a bill to strip key parts of Obamacare.

The Senate voted 52 to 47 in support of the measure, rejecting two efforts to remove the Planned Parenthood language from the legislation.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) had presented an amendment to restore the funding, but it was defeated 48-52. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) sought to create a fund paid for by the taxes of millionaires, but it also was rejected 54-46.

“The defeat of the Murray and Collins amendments is a victory for the American people,” said David Christensen of Family Research Council. “Across the country, people are tired of being forced by the federal government to partner with the abortion industry, including those engaged in the selling of baby body parts. This legislation protects women’s health by reallocating funds to community health centers that provide a broader array of health services.”

Liz Johnson, spokesman for Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) told reporters that reallocating the funds will not be detrimental to women’s health as there are plenty of other women’s health facilities in New Hampshire, for example.

“There are five Planned Parenthood clinics in New Hampshire,” she said. “By contrast, there are about 30 community health center sites in New Hampshire that provide primary care and women’s health services like cancer screenings, mammograms, and contraceptives.”

The bill must now be approved by the House of Representatives, but the White House has threatened to veto the measure should it make it to Barack Obama’s desk.

  • Connect with Christian News

“It seems implausible that less than a week after a tragic shooting at the Planned Parenthood health center in Colorado Springs some in Washington chose politics over compassion,” Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement about the passage of the legislation in the Senate.

But pro-life groups were pleased with the development.

“Americans shouldn’t be forced to give their money to Planned Parenthood, which has a long track record of abusive and potentially fraudulent billing practices, not to mention that it has also been caught in authenticated undercover videos trafficking aborted babies’ body parts and has repeatedly failed to report the sexual abuse of girls,” said Kellie Fiedorek of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). “That tax money should be redirected to trustworthy health care providers.”

Thursday’s vote marks the third attempt that the Senate has sought to defund the abortion giant this year.

As previously reported, Planned Parenthood’s annual report released in January of this year showed that it performed 327,653 abortions nationwide during the 2013-2014 fiscal year, up from 327,166 the year prior. The figure equates to 174 abortions for every adoption referral. No post-natal care is provided for women who keep their children.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • gizmo23

    Why doesn’t the Senate vote to make abortions illegal?

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Excellent question!

      • gizmo23

        We know the answer. There is not enough political will and abortion is a cause that keeps on giving$$$$ to politicians in the form of campaign funds

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          So true, just like slavery too, but what is especially disgusting is that the RINO Party, which does not get those contributions, still is mostly gutless, this development notwithstanding. But, they have done OK on the state level, as PP clinics are shutting down pretty frequently and (apparently) abortions are down, although I doubt that this is so.

          I might have to start a Pro-Life Party. 🙂

          • gizmo23

            I’m not sure abortions are down since chemical drug induced abortions are impossible to trace and can be done in a doctor’s office. The need for clinics is falling

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I fear you are most correct, which is why your original question is so very important, and why abortion must be abolished for the barbaric practice it is.

          • gizmo23

            I don’t think that will happen for many years. Public opinion is too divided

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Again, I fear you are correct. Slavery took many decades, then it turned mildly violent, then it exploded into the mother of all wars. Given what I see on the sidewalk from the “poor choice” crowd, I pray I am wrong, but believe that this too will erupt into serious violence – the kind that makes the past 42 years look like peaceful coexistence.

          • gizmo23

            Civil war over abortion? I doubt it

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Spend a little time on the sidewalk and observe the behavior of pro-aborts. Not only is there much weeping and gnashing of teeth, but it is clear that they will defy ANY law in place that ends their beloved child sacrifice. When abortion is made illegal, I am quite certain that the National Guard will have to be called out for the depraved ones.

          • gizmo23

            I’d easily say the same for the others side. Abortion providers have been killed. I know of no being pro life leaders targeted in such a way

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Nice try, nice fail. When it comes to killing, pro-aborts have pro-lifers outnumbered 60 million to 8. None of the 8 killed were innocent in any sense of the word, but all 60 million killed by pro-aborts were the most innocent humans in this world.

            You should spend a little time on the sidewalk and see who the demonic ones are. I have tons of video – wish I could get to you without out-ting myself, but I have been threatened.

          • gizmo23

            When you go around promoting or at least agreeing with killing doctors it’s no wonder you get threats

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Where did I promote killing Doktors?!?

            Man, you are a liar and a pro-abort: the two go hand in hand. I thank God that He created a place of darkness for you, where you and your fellow baby sacrificers can continue to hate babies and the God Who created them.

          • gizmo23

            I am pro life. I just think the pro life movement does nothing. If you state that doctors are demons, murderers, and are not innocent what is a person supposed to think.

            Then you condemn me to Hell and claim I hate babies. Your evil and vile talk outs you

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I am pro life. I just think the pro life movement does nothing.”

            BS. Those two statements contradict themselves.

            “If you state that doctors are demons, murderers, and are not innocent what is a person supposed to think.”

            Doktors (abortionists) ARE demon-controlled, murderers, and not innocent – duh! That does NOT mean that I promote killing Doktors – in fact, I attempt to love our abortionist over every time I see her. But, yes, she is still a moral murderer. So you lied.

            “Then you condemn me to Hell and claim I hate babies.”

            You must hate babies if you are an apologist for abortionists.

            “Your evil and vile talk outs you”

            Nothing evil nor vile about speaking up for pre-born babies and warning others of their eternal fate. That is LOVE – on Christian theism, that is.

          • gizmo23

            I hate me. I don’t care

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Don’t hate yourself. You must see yourself through the eyes of Jesus – as one made in the Image of God, just like all of the pre-born children.

          • gizmo23

            How has your hatred done one thing to save a baby?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            We saved several hundred babies in October and November alone. Please understand that what the world calls “hate,” God calls “love,” and vice versa. Worldly “love” is often feelings-oriented and usually means telling someone else what they want to hear – that is the way I experienced it as an atheist.

            But, Christian love is truth-based and is loving the sinner even while despising the sin. It often means NOT telling another what they want to hear, because we love him or her so much we do not want to see them fall into sin and suffer the consequences of it. Christian love is wanting what is best for the other – and sinning is never the best.

            God saves babies through our efforts all of the time, and there are also stories all over the internet of saves of one kind or another. Many times we do not even know about the saves until years later when someone comes up and tells us that they had an appointment for an abortion but cancelled it when they saw us standing out in front of the abortion mill. CPC’s and former abortion clinic workers report many saves of this sort, and then there are the obvious turnarounds and people who follow up with us. Most saves, however, will not be known to us until Heaven – where great stories will be told and re-told throughout Eternity.

            Hope this helps, and please forgive me for being a bit harsh. God bless!

          • gizmo23

            I still don’t see how calling a pregnant women a murdering baby killer while she is deciding what to do helps in any way shape or form.
            We may understand the love the sinner hate the sin concept but people outside the faith see it has an attack on them. We can’t make the mistake that people think like we do

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I still don’t see how calling a pregnant women a murdering baby killer while she is deciding what to do”

            Strawman. Never done it, never personally seen it.

            However, if pointing out to the woman that abortion is murder helps convict her heart, then that is a good thing. I have seen that happen, a change of heart, but have never seen someone call her a “murdering baby killer” when she is deciding what to do. Most women know, on some level, that abortion is murder. It would be unloving to her and to the child in the womb to shield her from that truth like the Left does with their endless supply of euphemisms.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “We may understand the love the sinner hate the sin concept but people outside the faith see it has an attack on them. ”

            We serve God, not man. The message can be delivered in a loving way, but the truth often hurts. (In this case, the lie kills and wounds.)

          • gizmo23

            Hurting hurting people never helps

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Except when it convicts hearts and minds, saves babies, and converts souls for the Lord Jesus. 🙂

            And it is MUCH better than the lie that kills a baby and wounds a woman for the rest of her life.

          • gizmo23

            Have a good evening

          • JGC

            So you support conversion by the sword. WGC?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Where did I say such a thing?!? You are not only the king of euphemisms, but the king of strawmen. 🙂

            Telling people that abortion is unjustified killing is not “converting by the sword.” What are you on today, JGC?

          • JGC

            “Please understand that what the world calls “hate,” God calls “love,” and vice versa.”
            God’s really that far out of step with reality, that he confuses hate and love?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Nope, the world is that far out of step with reality, that it confuses hate and love. Surprised you fell into it. Perhaps you need to read better next time?

          • JGC

            You’re telling me that god would consider the care and nurturance
            I provide for my family as hate, while simultaneously considering the violence jihadists are directing toward those who resist their attempt to impose a modern Islamic caliphate as love, but you believe that I’m the one who’s out of step?

            Perhaps you need a reality check yourself.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “You’re telling me that god would consider the care and nurturance I provide for my family as hate”

            Where did I say that? Are you an abortionist or something?

          • JGC

            In your post above, don’t you remember? You said (direct
            quote) “Please understand that what the world calls “hate,” God calls
            “love,” and vice versa.”

            As the world considers nurture and care for one’s family to
            be an expression of love, so by your argument god must consider this to be an expression of hate. It’s your argument—don’t blame me if I point out where it fails.

            And yes, I am a ‘something’–aren’t we all?–although not a medical care provider and I have never been involved with the provision of medical abortions.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “As the world considers nurture and care for one’s family tobe an expression of love”

            No it does not: the world calls aborting babies an act of “love.” The world calls caving to our own selfish desires “love.” The word calls euthanasia, abortion, gay “marriage,” and all sort of barbaric practices “love.” Everything about the world is anti-family, which is why the family unit has been close to destroyed through divorce, gay “marriage,” abortion, euthanasia, etc.

            So, substituting a separate specific into an argument directed at a different specific is a failure of logic on your part. It’s called “shifting the goalposts.” 🙂

            “I have never been involved with the provision of medical abortions.”

            Ok, so you are just a collaborator. You should be safe from being charged with crimes against humanity, although the French Resistance had a different way of dealing with the likes of you. It will just be pointed out to those who know you publicly that you were on the wrong side of the world’s worst holocaust in history. You will be shamed but not jailed. Count yourself lucky. “Abortion stigma now, abortion stigma forever.” — PJ4

            Perhaps you should convert now?!?

          • JGC

            “No it does not: the world calls aborting babies an act of
            “love.” “

            That wasn’t your argument: your argument is that what the
            world calls love god calls hate and vice versa.

            I wouldn’t agree that the world calls terminating a pregnancy an act of love—only that it recognizes a woman’s rights to bodily autonomy and control of their own reproductive health, as well as the necessity of access to safe medical abortions..

            “The world calls caving to our own selfish desires “love.”

            Again: I don’t agree that terminating an unwanted and unplanned
            pregnancy represents ‘caving to a selfish desire’, rather than acting in a
            responsible manner out of necessity to address the consequences of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.

            “The word calls euthanasia, abortion, gay “marriage,” and all sort of barbaric practices “love.””

            By what rational argument is recognition of same sex civil matrimony a barbaric practice?

            “Everything about the world is anti-family, which is why the family unit has been close to destroyed through divorce, gay “marriage,” abortion, euthanasia, etc.”

            What evidence demonstrates that recognition of same sex civil matrimony has had ANY harmful effects on the family unit?

            “So, substituting a separate specific into an argument directed at a different specific is a failure of logic on your part. It’s called “shifting the goalposts.” :-)”

            I’ve shifted no goalposts: you instead made a sweeping generalization that falls apart upon examination and is revealed as mere hyperbole.

            “Ok, so you are just a collaborator.”

            Let’s assume that characterization was accurate, just for
            the sake of argument—did you have a point? By what rational argument would ‘collaborating’ to ensure women’s rights are upheld with respect to abortion be considered a bad thing?

            “You should be safe from being charged with crimes against
            humanity, although the French Resistance had a different way of dealing with the likes of you.”

            What crime against humanity do you believe I’m so narrowly
            avoiding?

            “It will just be pointed out to those who know you publicly that you were on the wrong side of the world’s worst holocaust in history.”

            You’ve failed to demonstrate that any such holocaust is occurring, however. despite being repeatedly asked to do so.

            “Perhaps you should convert now?!?”

            I’m curious–convert to what?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “That wasn’t your argument: your argument is that what theworld calls love god calls hate and vice versa.”

            The context was abortion and telling the truth about it being an act of taking an innocent human life. You took that out of context, not surprisingly, and shifted the goalposts.

            “I don’t agree that terminating an unwanted and unplannedpregnancy represents ‘caving to a selfish desire’”

            We don’t care if you agree or not, we care about what is objectively true. “terminating a pregnancy” – you have already had that euphemism proven false, why persist with someone who is as intellectually dishonest as you?

            “What evidence demonstrates that recognition of same sex civil matrimony has had ANY harmful effects on the family unit?”

            https://www .lifesitenews .com/opinion/gay-activists-claim-redefining-marriage-wont-hurt-anyone-but-thats-a-lie.-j?utm_source=LifeSiteNews .com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=cd27d911da-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_06_19_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba610ac-cd27d911da-397685045

            “you instead made a sweeping generalization”

            I made a statement in a specific context, which you generalized out of that context. Your “shifting the goalposts” fallacy stands.

            “By what rational argument would ‘collaborating’ to ensure women’s rights are upheld with respect to abortion be considered a bad thing?”

            When it results in the deaths of 60 million babies, that’s when, Collaborator. 🙂

            “What crime against humanity do you believe I’m so narrowlyavoiding?”

            The taking of 60 million innocent human lives in Amerika alone. Pretty simple, but remarkably gruesome.

          • JGC

            “We don’t care if you agree or not, we care about what is objectively true. “terminating a pregnancy” – you have already had that euphemism proven false, why persist with someone who is as intellectually dishonest as you?”

            No, I haven’t had the use of that phrase proven to be either euphemistic or false. ( In fact, the only use of euphemism I’ve noted in these comment sections regarding abortions is the constant use of the phrase ‘unborn child’ where one is actually speaking of a human zygote, human embryo, or human fetus.

            Re the lifesitenews opinion piece, it offers no evidence that same sex civil matrimony has had any harmful effects on the family unit. Didn’t you read it before copy/pasting the link?

            “When it results in the deaths of 60 million babies, that’s when, Collaborator. :-)”

            And your evidence that terminating a pregnancy at all stages of development following fertilization represents taking the life of a human being would be…what, exactly? Be specific.

            The argument is always going to come back to that: your inability to make that case. If you want me to consider a zygote, embryo or fetus to represent a human being at all stages of their development following conception, you’ll first have to identify a credible and compelling body of evidence that is actually the case.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “No, I haven’t had the use of that phrase proven to be either euphemistic or false.”

            Wow – what a hyper-skeptic you are! OK, two can play that game:

            You have not proven that anything you say is true. QED. Easy win for me, thanks for introducing me to your world of thinking. 🙂

          • JGC

            What claims have I made that you believe I haven’t adequately supported? Be specific.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            All of them. QED. 🙂

          • JGC

            I’m unaware that 60 million people have been killed by pro-choice activists–can you provide a link to the source of this statistic? (Assuming, that is, that you’re not equating the termination of a pregnancy at early stages of gestation with the death of a human being.)

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I would say that abortionists are “pro-choice activists,” wouldn’t you?!? 🙂 You seem to be losing it, JGC.

          • JGC

            I’m not aware that abortionists have killed 60 million people. Citation needed.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You really ARE losing it!

          • JGC

            not at all–just waiting for you to provide actual evidence that abortionists have killed 60 million people. Got any?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Since it is established fact that abortion kills a human life (see the litany of peer-reviewed embryological facts I provided you in the last response), then abortionists have destroyed 60 million innocent human lives.

            Just because you cannot handle the fact that you are on the wrong side of a barbaric human rights atrocity, does not mean you get to use your feelings to shield yourself from the facts.

          • JGC

            It hasn’t, however, been established as fact that all stages
            of development following conception but prior to delivery aborting a pregnancy represents the killing of an actual human being, wgc. I can find no links to a supposed ‘litany of peer-reviewed embryological facts” in your comments to this article that would support this conclusion (in fact, the only links I can find here are to two anti-choice sites) and continued repetition this is the case can never sufficient to make it factual.

            Of course, if you can actually offer citations to peer-reviewed articles in first or second tier scientific journals offering evidence demonstrating that at all stages of development following conception a zygote, embryo or fetus does also represent a human being I’d be very interested in considering that evidence and if necessary revising my position.

            “Just because you cannot handle the fact that you are on the wrong side of a barbaric human rights atrocity…”

            One more time: you’ve offered nothing which demonstrates that a barbaric human rights atrocity is underway such that I could be on any side of it. .

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Again, YOU are the one who has to show that there are human lives that are not human beings, since YOU are the one who is in favor of killing innocent human lives. Good luck with that one! (And congrats on joining the club of moral monsters who dehumanized certain humans for the sake of killing them off.)

          • Valri

            That is a valid opinion to hold, Crazy. Why do you deny other people their opinions? You know there are words for people who do that, correct? They were quite prominent around World War II in fact.

          • JGC

            I’m not arguing that ‘human lives’ are not ‘human beings’–the term ‘human life’ isn’t sufficiently precise to be of utility here. What I’ve been speaking to is the lack of actual evidence demonstrating a human zygote, embryo or fetus is also a human being at all stages of development following fertilization.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Are you actually so delusional that you think that a human ZEF is not human life?!? Do you live in Colorado? 🙂

          • JGC

            If you’re using ‘human life’ as a synonym for ‘a human being’, what properties or attributes does a human zygote, embryo or fetius at all stages of development following conception possess or exhibit that demonstrates they are human beings?

            Consider the period following fertilization nut before the zygote’s first round of cell division, when it’s unicellualr, insensate, nonsentient, with no differentiated tissues, organ systems or neural activity.

            What properties does it exhibit that requires we consider it to be the exact ethical equivalent of a 5 year old boy or girl?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You just said that you were not distinguishing between the two – human life versus human beings. I think you did so because you realize the long history of de-humanizing certain humans prior to treating them brutally.

            The property that makes all human life ethically equivalent is mere humanity, of course. Otherwise, you would be distinguishing human life based on differences in size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency – and any of those factors apply equally well outside of the womb as they do inside of the womb. (Which is why intellectually consistent pro-aborts like Peter Singer advocate for post-birth abortions.)

          • JGC

            Read my response again: I haven’t said I’m not distinguishing between “human life” and ‘human being” but that the term “human life is too imprecise to be of any use in this discussion.

            Re: the property of ‘mere humanity’, by what reliable method can one distinguish between something that exhibits mere humanity and something that does not?

            “Otherwise, you would be distinguishing human life based on differences in size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency – and any of those factors apply equally well outside of the womb as they do inside of the womb”

            How is the fact that those factors might also apply equally outside of the womb of any concern, as long as their application inside or outside is valid? Consider the property I consider central to whether or not a fetus may also represent a human being–the presence or absence of characteristic human neural activity. We do apply this criteria outside the womb, to determine when something that previously was recognized as a human being as a result of traumatic injury or illness no longer is a human being and may ethically be removed from life support without this representing an act of murder.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I haven’t said I’m not distinguishing between “human life” and ‘human being” but that the term “human life is too imprecise to be of any use in this discussion.”

            Well, what is the practical difference then? You seem to be taking a non-position.

            “Re: the property of ‘mere humanity’, by what reliable method can one distinguish between something that exhibits mere humanity and something that does not?”

            The scientific method, i.e., the fact that settled embryological, biological, and medical science proves that human life begins at human conception. Pretty simple actually, for those who do not deny science.

            “How is the fact that those factors might also apply equally outside of the womb of any concern, as long as their application inside or outside is valid?”

            Because any argument based on those criteria used for killing the human inside of the womb LOGICALLY applies outside as well. If one says, for instance, that the human inside of the womb is just really small and can be killed based on that criterion, this would apply logically to a 6 month old outside of the womb. The logic here is quite simple.

            “We do apply this criteria outside the womb, to determine when something that previously was recognized as a human being as a result of traumatic injury or illness no longer is a human being and may ethically be removed from life support without this representing an act of murder.”

            Speak for yourself! People of compassion do not say that those suffering traumatic brain injury are no longer human. Hey, check out this video and let me know what you think of it (just take the space out):

            http://abortioninstruments .com/

          • JGC

            I can’t tell you the practical difference because you haven’t been able to tell me what you mean by ‘human life”. If you’re using this as a synonym for ‘human being’ it would be useful if you’d just use that term instead.

            “The scientific method, i.e., the fact that settled embryological, biological, and medical science proves that human life begins at human conception.”

            Please provide a meaningful scientific definition of the term ‘human life’ and citations to the evidence demonstrating it begins at conception, if you’re arguing anything other than a zygote is of human origin and is a living cell.

            “if one says, for instance, that the human inside of the womb is just really small and can be killed based on that criterion, this would apply logically to a 6 month old outside of the womb.”

            But as I said previously, if the criteria itself were valid why wouldn’t it apply inside and outside of the womb. Consider my example above, re neural activity or abortions performed in cases of early fetal death where the valid criteria is that the fetus is not living–why would these not apply to a 6 month old who has suffered a traumatic brain injury resulting in brain death or having actually died?

            And can you provide an example of anyone who’s advanced the argument “Early-stage abortions are ethically permissible because zygotes, embryos or fetuses are really, really small’?

            “People of compassion do not say that those suffering traumatic brain injury are no longer human.”
            I’m not saying this either: I’m saying that individuals who as a result of suffering a traumatic brain injury that has resulted in brain death are no longer considered to represent human beings and have been removed from life support without doing so constituting a act of murder, not that all individuals who have suffered a TBI resulting any degree of impairment, large or small, should no longer be considered to represent human beings.
            I get that it’s easier to address arguments you wish I had offered instead of the arguments I actually have advanced, but doing so doesn’t really contribute to the dialogue.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I failed to get your comments on the video I provided. Is this because:

            a. You failed to watch it?
            b. You watched it, but were not moved by it?
            c. You watched it, were moved by it, but must deny it in order to maintain your ideology?

            “I can’t tell you the practical difference”

            Look, I really don’t care what you can or cannot tell. I’m quite certain that there were plenty of obfuscators running around when slavery abolition was heating up too with “define human being for me.” It doesn’t make you look very intelligent, or moral to do so.

            “Please provide a meaningful scientific definition of the term ‘human life’ and citations to the evidence demonstrating it begins at conception, if you’re arguing anything other than a zygote is of human origin and is a living cell.”

            Are you on drugs? The zygote IS the new human life that begins at human conception. Here is one citation of same:

            “Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). “Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.” [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

            So, you just requested a definition of human life that denies the settled scientific definition for human life. I cannot give you that without violating the Law of Non-contradiction. It’s like you asked for the definition of a triangle without talking about 3 sides or angles. I can only conclude that you are an absurdist, and NO amount of logic or evidence will be sufficient to overturn your ideology.

            “But as I said previously, if the criteria itself were valid why wouldn’t it apply inside and outside of the womb.”

            Precisely! Which is why it is only the pro-lifers who are consistent here: laws against murdering a 6 month old outside of the womb should also apply to a 6 week old inside of the womb. It is pro-aborts who subscribe to the Magic Vagina Theory that says that a trip down the birth canal suddenly (supernaturally?!?) ascribes basic human rights to a human life.

            “And can you provide an example of anyone who’s advanced the argument “Early-stage abortions are ethically permissible because zygotes, embryos or fetuses are really, really small’?”

            I hear that from pro-aborts fairly frequently. And one senator, maybe Hatch or Mack, can’t remember, in arguing for embryonic stem cell research, said that it was OK since the embryos were the size of the dot at the end of this sentence.

            “I’m saying that individuals who as a result of suffering a traumatic brain injury that has resulted in brain death”

            The term “brain death” is not a scientific one. Even ethicists admit that this is slippery and that hospitals, to save costs, have liberalized their criteria for same.

            “are no longer considered to represent human beings and have been removed from life support without doing so constituting a act of murder”

            By some people, yes, but not by any objective moral value or duty. Furthermore, you are conflating legality with morality – which conflation has a long and sordid history of not recognizing human rights atrocities.

            “I get that it’s easier to address arguments you wish I had offered instead of the arguments I actually have advanced”

            Oh, I addressed your arguments, alright: like others you have interacted with here, I have merely found them wanting in terms of logic and science. Now it is your turn:

            1. Please provide evidence that what is being destroyed in the womb during an abortion is not a human being. If there is any question on this, we should err on the side of not destroying the human life in the womb. Otherwise, we just might end up with an Abortion Holocaust on our hands. So, your evidence would need to be overwhelming, and not mere language obfuscation.

            2. Please provide evidence that it is not blatantly, cowardly, and repugnantly hypocritical for those who have been granted the right to access the light at the end of the birth canal to consequently turn around and deny that very same basic human right to others because the former are bigger and more powerful than the latter, or any of the other million excuses for abortion.

            3. And please provide your thoughts on that video.

          • JGC

            (I’ll try to catch up with responses over the weekend.)

            I didn’t bother to watch the video, because I saw no relevance to the central question informing ethical abortion policies: at what
            stage of development we can longer state with confidence that terminating a pregnancy does not share identity with the loss of an actual human being. If the video offered relevant citations to
            articles/evidence addressing this question I’d be happy to consider those. If the video instead exists to ‘move’ people, as your post here suggests, I don’t see it’s point—surely you’re not suggesting we craft abortion policies which would affect millions of women on the basis of
            emotional feelings?

            “The zygote IS the new human life that begins at human conception.”

            I agree that a zygote is a human cell, that it is living, and that with further development will pass through several stages until it has
            developed sufficiently that it represents a human being: that is all that your quote supports. If you’re using the terms ‘human life’ and ‘human being’ synonymously here, however, you need to do more than simply assert an equivalence between a zygote and a week-old, year-old, two year old…etc., male or female: you need to indicate exactly what properties or attributes requires us to accept it represenst a human being immediately upon conception.

            “So, you just requested a definition of human life that denies the settled scientific definition for human life.”

            See, that’s the problem with imprecise language-we really should stop using the ambiguous term ‘human life’ and stick with ‘human being’ or “human person”. You’re treating these as synonyms, when clearly they aren’t in the context of our conversation.

            “Which is why it is only the pro-lifers who are consistent here: laws against murdering a 6 month old outside of the womb should also
            apply to a 6 week old inside of the womb.”

            Why, when as the six month old outside the womb is known to represent a human being but the ‘6-week old’ within the womb is not, and is instead known to represent a human embryo?

            “I hear that from pro-aborts fairly frequently.”

            I’ve never heard that from any pro-choice advocate. ( Orrin Hatch, I’m sure you know, was one of the most outspoken anti-abortion members of the Senate.)

            “The term “brain death” is not a scientific one”

            I guess it would be possible to argue that it is a medical term instead of a scientific one, but don’t really see how that changes anything.

            “By some people, yes, but not by any objective moral value or duty.”

            There are no objective moral values: moral proscriptions derive from the perceived authority of divine entities so anything at all can be identified or defended as being ‘moral’. That’s why ethical values are
            of far greater utility than moral values.

            “Furthermore, you are conflating legality with morality”

            No, I’m not: I’m not making any arguments founded in moral considerations, because of the problem I note above. Anything at all can be identified as ‘moral’ as long as the practice is in accord with whatever religious articles of faith the actor embraces. If you’re a devout worshiper of Kali, for example, the ritual murder of strangers would represent a moral act.

            “Please provide evidence that what is being destroyed in the womb during an abortion is not a human being.”

            Prior to about 23 weeks gestation when we observe the completed integration of the peripheral and central nervous systems and the
            first appearance of characteristic human neural activity the fetus is
            demonstrably both insensate and non-sentient, and thus does not yet represent a human person—i.e., an actual human being.

            “If there is any question on this, we should err on the side of not destroying the human life in the womb.”

            Why err on the side of the possible human life within the womb rather than on the side of the woman carrying it? By what rational argument must we conclude the rights of a fetus (if it could be shown to be a human being) should take precedence over her right to privacy, bodily autonomy, etc.?

            “…deny that very same basic human right to others because the former are bigger and more powerful than the latter, or any of the other million excuses for abortion.”

            What very basic human right are you speaking of? Who are the others being denied it? And who is arguing it’s okay to deny others that right for no reason other than because they are bigger and more powerful?

            “And please provide your thoughts on that video.”

            Why? Does it indicate the properties and attributes a zygote possesses that demonstrates it represents an actual human being? If it doesn’t,
            of what utility is it?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I didn’t bother to watch the video, because I saw no relevance to the central question informing ethical abortion policies”

            This is really all I need to know about you. You will not watch the video because then your failed ideology would come into contact with its victims. Your reason for not doing so is equally repugnant, in a moral sense, were it to apply to the pictures of slaves with the skin ripped off of their backs or gassed Jews stacked up like firewood. In both of those cases, like the abortion case, it was necessary for those advocating for the wrong cause to de-humanize the human – just as you are desperately attempting to do with the case of abortion with loads of language obfuscation. You follow in a long line of morally depraved individuals. And Christian theism has an explanation for this, which atheism does not:

            “Having for most of my life believed that our acceptance of equality–racial, class, gender–was the result of the overthrow of past superstitions and prejudice by reason, I was perplexed: why had the fight against slavery, and the concern for aboriginal peoples, been so overwhelmingly the province of religious? … Hume, Voltaire, and Kant saw the African–the non-European, generally–as beyond the
            category of human to which the European belonged; race concerned them (particularly Kant) only to the extent that it could show the superiority of the European. It was not the philosophies of Paris or Edinburgh or East Prussia who fought slavery, but the evangelical Christians and Quakers who drew their inspiration not from philosophy but from ‘superstitious religion’. It was from the Evangelical Revival that the loudest claims for what we now call racial equality came.” — non-Christian historian Robert Kenny

            A picture is worth a thousand words and a video is worth ten thousand pictures. 🙂

          • JGC

            Despite the fact you haven’t affirmed that the video will offer actual evidence demonstrating a zygote is also a human being immediately upon its creation I’ll agree to watch the video sometime today–will that be satisfactory?

            “And Christian theism has an explanation for this, which atheism does not”
            You seem to be presuming that I’m an atheist–why? I’m not.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “demonstrating a zygote is also a human being immediately upon its creation”

            No, that is just that science-y thing that you keep missing. There are no zygote abortions tabulated in the 60 million, but if you wish to count those too, have at it.

            “You seem to be presuming that I’m an atheist–why? I’m not.”

            Not assuming any such thing. I just know you are not a Christian, and the quote delineates those two worldviews rather nicely. Whatever you are, your worldview doesn’t address human rights reforms adequately.

          • JGC

            I’m not speaking to how you’re crunching numbers to arrive at some specific figure (60 million or otherwise): I’m addressing your explicit claim that “The zygote IS the new human life that begins at human conception” where it appears you are using ‘human life’ as a synonym for ‘person’ or ‘human being’
            Re: addressing human rights reforms, what human rights reforms and whose human rights are you speaking of that need to be reformed?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “what human rights reforms and whose human rights are you speaking of that need to be reformed?”

            Watch the video and you tell me! Those are legal abortions in that video.

          • SonsofAnarchy5768

            Yeah and isn’t it funny they call themselves “pro life” if they really were they wouldn’t be killing people!
            Stop killing people or I will kill you, pretty much the same as the gov saying we have to take your freedoms to protect your freedom… its all absurd!
            I am pro choice, but what pph did in selling baby parts is just wrong and I think the people who were involved should do some serious jail time.

    • JGC

      Because such a bill would be unconstitutional–even if the legislature passed and the president signed it the bill it would be struck down by the SC on challenge.

  • Rebecca

    Wise decision. PP is an evil organization and there is never a reason to abort a baby. Abortions have been legal for less than 5 decades. Not long compared to the whole of history. We will get back to abortions being illegal again at some point. Thank you PP for helping toward that objective 🙂

    • gizmo23

      In the mean time the pro life movement seems to want more abortions

      • Rebecca

        I’ll bite, what foolish thought is going through your mind?

        • gizmo23

          They do nothing to stop abortions or look at why women have abortions. They have done nothing politically to help pregnant women or their children. They seem to focus on passing laws that usually get thrown out by courts.

          • Rebecca

            First of all, the responsibility for getting pregnant in the first place falls on the woman. If she doesn’t want a baby she either needs to keep her pants on or use birth control. This is the key step.
            Second, why women have abortions? Usually it is for convenience. They don’t want a baby at that point, so they kill him/her. Yes there are other reasons, but the predominate one is convenience.
            Third, They do nothing to stop abortions? Well that’s laughable. Some stand outside PP’s and try to tell them to reconsider. Adoption is also an option. There are also Crisis Pregnancy Centers who are willing to assist. Family and friends should step in also.
            Another thing, pregnant women need to learn to help themselves and not expect them being pregnant is someone else’s responsibility. There are some women who get pregnant, didn’t plan to, but make it work. Can it be hard, yes, but what in life isn’t hard at some point.

          • gizmo23

            So in other words you would rather see a baby aborted then bend your moral philosophy. It doesn’t matter what a women should have done when she is deciding what to do, it is too late at that point. Also many pro life groups are also anti birth control so how does that help?
            Women have abortions because they fear being rejected, losing a job, being throw into poverty or having to collect public assistance(for which they get called welfare queens). You have to show me where a women has ever said it is for “convenience” to have an abortion. I think that is your perception not reality.
            You seem to also say a women has all the responsibility, what about the father? Why do most other countries do a way better job of protecting families income and even mandate family leave to new parents?
            The bottom line to me is that the pro life movement is more concerned with political power and fund raising than really protecting children, babies or their mothers.
            I am pro life

          • Rebecca

            Um, I think there may be some miscommunication going on. You say, “So in other words you would rather see a baby aborted then bend your moral philosophy.” I don’t want to see any baby be aborted. I’m pro-life. Not sure what your beef is exactly. Maybe it’s just unclear communication here.

          • gizmo23

            You seem to put all of this on the women without regard to any of her fears are concerns and that fathers are not part of the cause or solution. If I could raise taxes a hundred percent to stop abortions I would do it in a heartbeat. I would give out free birth control to anyone anytime if it stopped them.
            I don’t ever see the pro life movement proposing more spending on helping with adoptions, prenatal care, after birth care, family leave, etc. They only focus on picketing and lobbying.
            Why do other countries with more more liberal laws and paid abortions have lower rates of abortions? Why did the Bush, pro life, administration cut funding to help with disabled children adoptions? In this state when the state wanted to drop PP from family services not one group came forward to take over the health care / birth control portion. Why not?
            I really don’t care if the women should not have had sex, isn’t responsible enough to have a kid, or will cost society dollars only that she protects her baby. The most irresponsible sexual women should get the same protection as a girl that got raped.
            Calling them baby killers and murderers will not help them or gain anyone’s support.
            I hope this clarifies. Thanks for listening

          • Rebecca

            “I don’t ever see the pro life movement proposing more spending on helping with adoptions, prenatal care, after birth care, family leave, etc. They only focus on picketing and lobbying.” Please go visit a few Crisis Pregnancy Centers. Volunteer if you can.

            Actions have “consequences” people have walked away from being responsible, mature adults.

          • gizmo23

            The consequence is that they have abortions

          • Rebecca

            No one forces them to abort do they??? No, so that is wrong. Abortion is not a consequence, it is a choice they make.

          • gizmo23

            It seems to me the pro life movement wants to make that choice easier to choose an abortion

          • Rebecca

            I’m not seeing it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Me neither, but you are smarter than I am, Rebecca!

          • Rebecca

            Maybe, maybe not 🙂

          • JGC

            No one’s arguing the choice one way or the other be made easier–I doubt that that would be possible as no one elects to terminate a pregnancy without giving the matter serious thought–only there shouldn’t be unreasonable obstacles placed in the way of acting on one’s choice once it’s made, whether the choice is to carry to term or to safely terminate the pregnancy.

          • Angel Jabbins

            There are more than enough childless couples waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting…to adopt every single unwanted baby, even those with disabilities. No one is forced by their circumstances to have an abortion. Adoption has always been the loving option which is open to all. We waited 9 years to adopt….9 years… and believe me it was hard watching people abort babies that we would have taken in a heartbeat. There is pain for couples struggling with infertility also, but how little we hear of their plight. But, oh the sympathy for women who get themselves pregnant and then don’t want to take responsibility for the consequences of their own choices. Giving birth to the child is a blessing, not only for the child that was conceived, but also for a couple who desperately wants a family but is unable to conceive. Abortion is a completely selfish choice. As for birth control, there is plenty of it today, available to all, yet many don’t use it or use it inconsistently. Or just rely on abortion as a means of birth control.

            Three cheers to the Senate for finally having the guts to do what is right. The President will veto it, but at least some lawmakers finally showed some moral courage….finally!

          • gizmo23

            Congress showed no courage. If they voted to end abortion I’d agree.
            How much did your adoption cost? Who paid for it?

          • Angel Jabbins

            We were trying to adopt through India which would have cost around $7,000- $10,000 at the time. Now I think international adoptions cost around $30,000…out of range for many people. We were in the middle of that process when the country dept of social services called saying they had a baby for us. Our second adoption was also through the county as well, a little girl from the foster care system who has a developmental disability. We would have loved to have had more, but felt we were getting too old. We had wanted 4 children, but are thankful for our two and for the grandchildren we now are enjoying. And thankful for their birth moms who allowed us have this joy.

          • gizmo23

            I think you are the exception. My understanding is that disabled children are very difficult to place. God bless

          • JGC

            A healthy white infant is relatively easy to find adoptive parents for, For anyone else, however…

          • xyz

            Wrong. Its trendy to have dark/black pets

          • Angel Jabbins

            Raising a disabled child, particularly one who is mentally disabled is not easy. After what we have been through, I would caution anyone who is considering it. Make sure you have a strong marriage and are confident in your parenting skills. If the child has a physical disability, the gov’t offers quite a bit of support to the family through varioius means…financial and programs. But when a child has mental issues along with behavioral problems, there is no help at all. None. You are on your own and it can be very tough. As much as you love your child and want to help them, it is a lonely road. (Prepare to be ostracized by others when they see you child acting up and think it is due to your bad parenting.)
            When we adopted our daughter, we were told that her mother was slow so she could possibly have some form of retardation as well. We accepted that and took her anyway. There was very little known at the time about FAS (fetal alcochol syndrome). There were signs of problems around pre-K which persisted and worsened when she started school. We sought help for her all along the way…schools, doctors, therapists….but never got any specific answers, though she was prescribed lots of medication for hyperactivity (which never helped much). As she got older, things got more difficult. We went through quite a time with her…many psyche ward admissions… before someone finally pinpointed the problem through extensive psychological testing. But, because we did not have the mother’s history of alcohol use during pregnancy, we were never able to get an official diagnosis for her. Consequently, without that official diagnosis, she did not qualify for any programs that could help us transition her to adulthood. She is almost 30 now but has the maturity of a 15 year old. She lives on her own but with difficulty and it is always a worry..we are always waiting for the next shoe to drop.
            Am I sorry we took her? No. She has a better life than her birth mother ever had and she had a very secure, happy, safe childhood. Every child deserves that. I am glad we could give that to her. But, it was not easy. It was very difficult. It is not for everyone. It can destroy a marriage lliving through what we did. So, no, I am not surprised some children are hard to place. It has to be the right couple who know what they are getting into, are up to the task and committed to the child for the long haul.
            If the gov’t stopped funding PP and put some of those funds towards helping parents so they have support when they adopt these special children, I think more couples would be willing to welcome them into their homes.

          • gizmo23

            Great story. I am a special education teacher so I know how these kids can be. I do have a question. Why do you think the pro life movement has all but ignored help for people like you that have done noble things? It seems they should spend some time trying to get government to support adoption of kids with disabilities and also support pregnant women carrying children with possible birth defects.

          • Angel Jabbins

            The pro-life movement, Crisis Pregnancies Centers in particular and other Christian ministries are helping pregnant mothers. You just don’t hear about it in the media because of the pro-choice, pro-PP bias. And, a lot goes on behind the scenes through church members ministering one on one that you never hear about. Does there need to be more awareness? Of course. Those in my church were unfamiliar with the kinds of disabilities… mental and emotional….that adopted children (especially from foster care) often have. I tried to educate them, giving them pamphlets on FASD and Reactive Attachment Disorder. Most people are totally uninformed. We had one family in our church that adopted several physically handicapped children. The church was very involved in helping them. In my case, they just did not understand what we were going through. Our daughter looked ok on the outside… an invisible disability. It is not that they didn’t care and didn’t want to help. They just didn’t understand and probably thought we were bad parents. When they finally did understand, they were not sure what to do to help us.
            The Pro-life movement’s main lobbying effort and focus is to stop the killing of innocent babies in the womb. If they can stop the funding of PP, then the gov’t has no excuse not to help adoptive parents who have mentally disabled children. Right now their excuse is they don’t have the funding. Well, stop funding PP and there you go…tons of money can go where it is truly needed….to bring awareness, to give support to parents so more will see that, yes, they CAN adopt these special children, and help all along the way, especially in transitioning them to adulthood….services!
            You want to blame the pro-life movement for not lobbying for these changes. The problem is much bigger and needs to be addressed by other segments of our society as well before anything will be done to improve the situation. And, in the meantime, these children will sit in foster care….waiting. And parents who DO adopt some of them will struggle alone and wonder every day….what will become of my child when she reaches adulthood and I can no longer care for her?

          • gizmo23

            Take away the reasons to have abortions and the rate will fall. I doubt that abortion will be made illegal in the next 50 years, it’s already been legal for over 40, There hasn’t been much change in the public’s attitude in many years and with chemical abortions done in doctors offices clinics are not needed as much.
            It would be a tough sell in congress to limit people on medicaid from choosing their own healthcare providers, which is how PP is funded.

          • Angel Jabbins

            And what are the reasons for abortions…what reasons are justifiable for the taking of a human life?

          • gizmo23

            Very few are justifiable, but that doesn’t mean it won’t or doesn’t happen.

          • Angel Jabbins

            It happens and it happens a lot because our society does not value human life at all stages. We have legalized murder of one segment of society for the benefit of another segment…women and the men who get them pregnant. The only time taking the life of an unborn baby is justifiable is when the mother’s life is in danger. That is the only time a mother has a right to choose…the life of her baby or her life. If it is wrong to kill a one month old, a 6 month old, a two year old, it is wrong to kill a baby in the womb. We, as a society, are allowing it to happen….1,000’s day and it a tragedy that is affecting the very moral fiber of our nation, causing us to devalue life at other stages now as well.

          • JGC

            I realize this is a very late response to your post, but I just saw this and feel it needs to be pointed out you’re asking two entirely different and separate questions here, as there’s no evidence I’m aware of that terminating a pregnancy at early stages of development following conception represents the taking of a human life.

          • StanW

            So which aspect are you disputing… That the child is not alive, or that the child is not human?

          • JGC

            Well, my first problem is with the prejudicial use of the word ‘child’ to describe what is instead a zygote, an embryo or a fetus.

            “Living” while necessary is insufficient to establish the destruction of any of these represents an act of murder—after all, we kill living entities daily by the millions (plants, vertebrate and invertebrate animals,
            bacteria, fungi, etc.) without ethical concern. The relevant question with
            respect to crafting an ethical abortion policy isn’t “At the time the pregnancy was terminates was it alive?” but instead “At the time the pregnancy was terminated did it represent a human being?”

            And that is what no one has so far been able to demonstrate (in fact, what no one has made any serious effort to demonstrate) by identifying
            specific properties a zygote etc. exhibits or attributes they possess that
            requires we recognize them as representing an actual human being ethically indistinguishable from a day-old, week-old, month-old, year-old…etc. male or female.

            So yes: I’m disputing that a zygote, embryo or fetus at all
            stages of development following conception but prior to delivery has been shown to represent a human being.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Can you clarify a few things for me? At what ‘stage of development following conception’ IS the fetus a human being…at what point is its termination ‘the taking of a human life’? And what scientific evidence can you give me to back it up.

          • JGC

            The relevant question with respect to crafting an ethical abortion policy isn’t “At what point following conception has a zygote, embryo or fetus developed sufficiently to represent a human being?” but instead “At what following conception has a zygote, embryo or fetus developed
            sufficiently that we can no longer state with confidence it is not yet a human being?”

            I’d say that point is between 23 and 26 weeks gestation when
            a fetus’ peripheral and central nervous systems integrate and we observe the first appearance of characteristic human neural activity (i.e., brainwaves). This is after all the criteria widely accepted as evidence that, following a traumatic brain injury or serious illness, what previously had been a human being no longer was a human being such that the body can ethically be removed from life support without doing so being an act of murder.

            And again—I’m not saying that immediately upon integration and the first appearance of human neural activity it has become a human being, but only that at that point we can no longer state with confidence it isn’t a human being.

            The earliest neural activity that can be associated with fetal brain function has been measured was at 12 weeks of development. It
            however displays none of the characteristics of actual brainwaves seen on a normal EEG. R. M. Bergstrom inserted electrodes into and stimulated the fetal brain stem directly and recorded random bursts of electrical activity, which are indistinguishable from bursts produced by fetal leg muscles when they are stimulated in the same manner.

            At 17 weeks gestation Bergstrom reports finding “primitive wave patterns of irregular frequency or intermittent complexes from the oral
            portion of the brain stem and from the hippocampus” in the midbrain, measured by EEG. None of the fetuses Bergstrom studied, however, displayed “brain waves” or other kind of signal from the cerebral cortex as late as 150 days post-fertilization (the oldest fetuses studied). [see Bergstrom RM, Development of EEG and unit electrical activity of the brain during ontogeny. In: Jilke LJ, Stanislav T, eds. Ontogenesis of the brain. Praha, Czech: University of Karlova Press, 1968:61-71.]

            When we first begin to see actual brainwaves originating from the cortex–-sustained, bilaterally synchronous waves, characteristic sleep
            spindles, etc., the kind of brainwaves whose absence indicates that a victim whose suffered a traumatic injury is brain-dead–-is around 25 weeks gestation.

            “Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns…First, intermittent
            electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.” [“Pain and Its Efffects in the Human Neonate and Fetus” Anand et al, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 317, Number 21: Pages 1321-1329, 19 November 1987]

          • Angel Jabbins

            I do not think you can compare a brain dead individual with a living zygote or fetus. (And to say a
            brain dead person is no longer a human being is ludicrous. Just because a
            person dies doesn’t mean he ceases to be human. He is still a human…just a dead
            one.)

            You are comparing apples to oranges when you compare a
            brain dead person to a zygote or fetus in early stages of pregnancy.

            Brain death: A person who is brain dead became that way
            due to an injury or illness. Brain death means continuation of life support
            measures is futile. A person on a ventilator may appear to be breathing, but
            cannot breathe on their own. If the circulatory and respiratory functions can
            no longer be maintained without life support, the person is truly already dead.
            Once the medical interventions are withdrawn, the body eventually shuts down
            because there is no longer the brain function necessary to sustain it. If a
            person is brain dead, removing life support machines is not ‘killing’ or ‘taking
            the life’ of the person. The person is already dead. The body will, within
            hours, cease all its functions. So you
            say we can ‘kill’ the person who has no brain activity. But that is not what is
            happening when life support is withdrawn. The person has already died. All we
            were doing was keeping the body of a dead person functioning. There is no hope
            of reversing his situation…no way to put life back into him so he can breathe
            on his own again….none.

            Now the zygote: This is human life at it
            earliest stage. Certainly, there is not yet any brain activity, but, unlike the
            brain dead person, if left alone, the zygote will continue to develop. Where
            the brain dead person has no hope of recovery, the zygote’s life is full of
            potential and sure to continue its development UNLESS it is interfered with. It
            is not being maintained by any artificial means to keep it alive until the
            brain begins to function. It is alive of its own power and is on a set course
            of development. The brain dead person’s state of unconsciousness (lack of
            neural activity) is permanent. The zygote’s lack of neural activity, on the
            other hand, is not permanent.

            I remind you that the
            zygote contains all the DNA material of a unique, one of a kind person who has
            never existed before and will never exist again. Yes, all our body cells
            contains those same DNA, but ONLY the zygote will to grow into a fully formed
            person. Bone cells can only become bone, skins cells, skin. All those others
            cells come from that initial cell that has the seed of life implanted into
            it….human life and a distinct, unique person is present in just that one cell.
            To do something to stop the development of that life is to stop the life of a
            distinct human being. All it needs is time. The brain dead person is hopeless.
            He is already dead. The zygote is very much alive with the full potential of
            life within. No one has the right to stop that life just because it has not yet
            attained brain waves. It will….that is the point. It will. We all started out
            as a zygote. Aren’t you glad your mom allowed you to live?

            I don’t think it will
            do any good to discuss this topic with you further. I have tried repeatedly as
            have others here. You are stuck in your unfounded and irrational belief that a
            human zygote is not human life (or a human being whichever way you want to term
            it). So therefore, you are convinced that taking that life is not morally
            wrong. You are really referring to is the first trimester during of pregnancy
            when about 89-92% of all abortions take place. So, yes, I can see why you are
            anxious to believe and have others believe it is not a baby during that time.
            Nothing to feel guilty about…it is not a human being. To you, it no different
            than removing life support from a brain dead person. But the zygote is not dead.
            And that makes all the difference.

          • JGC

            “I do not think you can compare a brain dead individual with
            a living zygote or fetus.”

            I’m not comparing these—doing so would be like comparing an
            egg to a chicken or an acorn to an oak tree. I’m instead offering a characteristic of human beings living zygote or fetuses do not possess at all stages of development whose absence I believe sufficient to establish they do not represent a human being.

            “And to say a brain dead person is no longer a human being is ludicrous. Just because a person dies doesn’t mean he ceases to be human.”

            You can’t be serious: would you seriously argue that medical
            students dissecting corpses in anatomy classes are committing murder, because those corpses are still human beings?

            “You are comparing apples to oranges when you compare a brain
            dead person to a zygote or fetus in early stages of pregnancy.”

            I’m not offering that comparison: I’m indicating what property, whose absence we already accept as indicating what was once a human being no longer is, whose absence in embryos, zygotes and fetuses would indicate they were not yet human beings. To my mind the apples and oranges comparison is what you’re offering: a zygote or fetus to a human child.

            “So you say we can ‘kill’ the person who has no brain activity.”

            No, I’m not saying this: I’m saying that the absence of
            characteristic human neural activity establishes that in both cases—removing a body from life support or terminating a pregnancy early in gestation—the lack of brain activity demonstrates we’re not killing a human being at all.

            “Now the zygote: This is human life at it earliest stage. “

            Again: life of itself isn’t sufficient: we kill living things daily by the millions without ethical concern. The question is whether the zygote is also a human being at the time the pregnancy is terminated.

            “Certainly, there is not yet any brain activity, but, unlike the brain dead person, if left alone, the zygote will continue to develop.”

            The classic ‘argument from potential’, which fails: it’s actually a rigorous logical proof that terminating a pregnancy early in development (e.g., during the zygote stage) does not share identity with killing a human being as at any time the statement “If left alone
            and allowed to continue to develop this will eventually become a human being” may be found to be true the statement “This is already a human being” must be found to be false.

            I remind you that the zygote contains all the DNA material of a unique, one of a kind person who has never existed before and will never exist again.”

            As does every cell in your body; unique DNA while necessary is again insufficient (or do you believe that monozygotic twins represent a single human being with two bodies?)

            “To do something to stop the development of that life is to stop the life of a distinct human being.”

            Not to ‘stop the life of a distinct human being” but to prevent that speculative distinct human being from coming into existence at some point in the future.

            “ No one has the right to stop that life just because it has
            not yet attained brain waves.”

            Why not?

            “Aren’t you glad your mom allowed you to live?”

            Some days yes, some days no.

            “ You are stuck in your unfounded and irrational belief that a human zygote is not human life (or a human being whichever way you want to term it).”

            My belief is neither unfounded nor irrational. It’s you who has been unable to make a rational case for the premise ‘human being from conception’.

            “ So therefore, you are convinced that taking that life is not morally wrong.”

            Not at all: this misrepresents my position entirely. I am instead convinced by the body of existing evidence that terminating a pregnancy during early development does not share identity with the taking of a human life.

            “ You are really referring to is the first trimester during of pregnancy when about 89-92% of all abortions take place.”

            Actually, I’m referring to first and second trimester—recall that we don’t see human neural activity until about 23-25 weeks gestation.

            “So, yes, I can see why you are anxious to believe and have others believe it is not a baby during that time.”

            Again, you’re misrepresenting my position: I’m not anxious to believe this, I simply do believe based on the current body of evidence.

            “ But the zygote is not dead. And that makes all the difference.”

            But didn’t you just argue that it wouldn’t matter if it were dead-that after a person has died they’re still a human being, just a dead
            human being? Might help to keep your arguments consistent.

          • Angel Jabbins

            ‘zygote or fetuses do not possess at all stages of development’….

            Wrong! The zygote (which is very much ALIVE) possesses the potential
            for all stages of human development within that single cell. They only thing
            that will stop it from progressing through all these stages is an abortion…stopping
            the life process. The zygote is not like any other cell in the human body. It
            is the embodiment of human life because, from it, comes a completely new, one
            of a kind individual. No other human cell can grow into a fully formed human
            being…no other cell has the potential for all stages of development right up to
            an adult. The brain dead person is DEAD!! You are not taking a life when life
            is already gone. So you cannot compare cutting life support to a brain dead
            person to abortion of a zygote or fetus. Why did you even try? The feus is
            ALIVE and will continue to be alive and continue its development if left alone.
            The brain dead person will never have life again. And BTW, even though a person
            is dead, he or she is STILL a human being…not a hunk of flesh…a human being!

            “would you seriously argue that medical

            students dissecting corpses in anatomy classes are committing murder, because
            those corpses are still human beings?”

            Heavens no! How can medical students dissecting a dead body be committing
            murder when the person (the human being!) is already dead? That is not what I
            was inferring at all. I was saying that
            people don’t become non-human just because life has left the body. How
            ridiculous. But even if that were the case, it has no effect on your argument.

            ““ But the zygote is not dead. And that makes all the
            difference.”

            But didn’t you just
            argue that it wouldn’t matter if it were dead-that after a person has died
            they’re still a human being, just a dead

            human being?”

            Your above statement
            doesn’t even make any sense! So I will say it again: Taking
            a person off life support when they are brain dead (already DEAD!) is not the
            same as terminating the LIFE of the unborn. The zygote is alive! The brain dead
            person is dead! You are not changing his outcome no matter what you do! But if
            you do something to stop the zygote from living, you are terminating a LIFE…a
            human life.

            It is no use discussing this with you further. You are not
            thinking rationally. You say there is no current body of evidence that a zygote
            is a human being… yet the science of embryology teaches that life begins at
            conception. All I will say is that you, me, and everyone alive today, whether
            they believe in God or not, will stand before Him one day and give an account.
            If we terminated the life of the unborn or took part in championing the cause
            of abortion and promoted it, we will answer for it. In His eyes, it is the
            murder of a human being…a life He ordained to be. Who do we think we are to
            terminate a life at any stage. (Brain dead=dead so they should not be a part of
            this argument at all.)

          • JGC

            “ The zygote (which is very much ALIVE) possesses the potential for all stages of human development within that single cell. They only thing
            that will stop it from progressing through all these stages is an abortion…stopping the life process.”

            This is just a typical argument from potential—rather than arguing that it is a human being but that it may become one at a later point in
            time. In fact, argument from potential is a rigorous logical proof that a zygote isn’t an ‘unborn child’—i.e., a human being—since at any time the statement “This has the potential to become a human being if left undisturbed for a period of time” may be found true the statement “This is already a human being at this point in time” must be found false.

            “No other human cell can grow into a fully formed human being”

            See above—the question isn’t whether it may later become a
            human being but whether at the time the pregnancy is terminated it already is a human being.

            “ You are not taking a life when life is already gone.”

            And you’re not taking a human life if it is not yet a human life, but only exhibits the potential to become a one at some point later in time.

            “So you cannot compare cutting life support to a brain dead person
            to abortion of a zygote or fetus. “

            Yes, you can (see problems with argument from potential above) The
            comparison is between two entities that do not represent human beings: in the first case you’re terminating something that’s no longer a human being while in the latter you’re terminating something that has not yet become a human being.

            “ And BTW, even though a person is dead, he or she is STILL a human being…not a hunk of flesh…a human being!”

            What property does a dead person exhibit that demonstrates it’s a human being, rather than the corpse of a human being, such that it’s ethically identical to a 20 year old living human adult? Be specific, and explain why (if that’s the case) operators of crematoriums aren’t charged with homicide for destroying all those human beings
            they incinerate

            “Heavens no! How can medical students dissecting a dead body be committing murder when the person (the human being!) is already dead?”

            Because you’re claiming the corpse is a person-a human being. If your argument is valid if abortion is murder because it destroys what you assert to be a human being and you further state (direct quote) “even though a person is dead, he or she is STILL a human being” if the former is murder so must be the latter.

            “I was saying that people don’t become non-human just because life has left the body.”

            We’re have not been using ‘non-human’ in the sense that something
            is not of human origin here, but in the sense that it represents something other than an actual human being–i.e., a person. I agree that zygotes, embryo’s and fetuses may be human in exactly the same sense that a human corpse is (i.e., is of human origin). I dispute
            identifying any of these as being human in the sense that they represent a human person/human being, such that their destruction represents an act of murder.

            “Your above statement doesn’t even make any sense! So I will say it again: Taking a person off life support when they are brain d ead (already DEAD!) is not the same as terminating the LIFE of the unborn. The zygote is alive! The brain dead person is dead! You are not changing his outcome no matter what you do! But if you do something to stop the zygote from living, you are terminating a LIFE…a human life.”

            Terminating the life of a living human zygote, agreed, but if you’re further asserting this represents terminating of the life of a living human being you’ve yet to offer a credible demonstration this is the case.

            “You say there is no current body of evidence that a zygote is
            a human being… yet the science of embryology teaches that life begins at conception.”

            How are you using the word ‘life’ in the phrase “life begins at conception”? Be specific. If you’re trying to argue “the science of embryology teaches that a zygote is a human being upon conception” I’ll again have to ask you to credibly support that claim, by indicating exactly what properties or attributes a zygote possesses immediately following conception that demonstrates it is ethically indistinguishable from a ten year old child.

            “Brain dead=dead so they should not be a part of this argument at all.”

            Zygotes are brain dead, Angel, as they don’t possess a brain
            at all. Embryo’s are brain dead, in that they don’t posess the necessary structures to generate characteristic human neural activity. And fetuses are brain dead until about the 23 to 25th week of development, when the peripheral and central nervous systems integrate and bilaterally synchronous brainwaves originating in the cortex, characteristic of normal human neural activity, appear.

            Shall we agree that zygotes, embryos and fetuses prior to the
            23rd week of gestation are also no part of this argument?

          • JGC

            Federal law already prohibits planned parenthood–and any other health care provider that receive federal funding, for that matter–from using those funds to underwrite the cost of providing abortion services.
            Defunding Planned Parenthood would be defunding cancer screenings, health checks, nutrition services and pre-natal care.
            Are those really the services you wish to make less available in order to provide additional support to adoptive parents of special needs children?

          • Angel Jabbins

            While not funding the abortions directly, under Title X grants (the Public Health Services Act), abortion providers are able to prorate expenses such as staff and waiting rooms, covering a portion of the fixed costs of the abortion-related staff and facilities. So the gov’t funds do assist PP in the business of abortion. PP is the country’s largest abortion provider with affiliates performing more than 300,000 abortions per year, which amounts to approximately one out of every three in the country.

            Defunding PP would not take away those legitimate services you mention. Those services can be obtained anywhere today from doctors’ offices to health clinics, even in poorer neighborhoods….and most all accept Medicaid coverage. No one has to go to PP for screenings, health checks, etc. anymore. That is just propaganda. PP clinics don’t even have mammogram machines, for crying out loud! There are nutrition clinics through the dept of social services (WIC) and other community based services to help pregnant women, not to mention crisis pregnancy centers. Aborting babies, giving out contraceptives….that is the bulk of what PP does. Any doctor can give you contraceptives.

            All those services ARE available just about everywhere today. Services for parents adopting children with special needs, particularly mental and emotional disabilities, is for all practical purposes non-existent. You decry that fact these children sit waiting in foster care….judge people as uncaring for not adopting them, at the same time want to continue gov’t funding for an organization that performs duplicate health services and mainly kills (and now we know, even sells part of) unborn babies.

          • JGC

            “Defunding PP would not take away those legitimate services you mention. Those services can be obtained anywhere today from doctors’ offices to health clinics, even in poorer neighborhoods….and most all accept Medicaid coverage.”

            Citations needed, demonstrating that those existing other health clinics etc. would be providing health services without interruption to the low income clients who are now receiving health care via Planned Parenthood clinics.

            “PP clinics don’t even have mammogram machines, for crying out loud!”

            Neither do those other health clinics you believe could fill in for PP, nor for that matter most private physicians.: where indicated all of these refer their clients to centers that perform mammograms.

            “Aborting babies, giving out contraceptives….that is the bulk of what PP does”

            .Abortion services represents 3% of all services planned parenthood provides, provision of contraception represents 34%. In what world does 37% represent ‘the bulk’ of anything?

            “But services for parents adopting children with special needs, particularly mental and emotional disabilities, is for all practical purposes non-existent.”

            Which argues only that we should provide more support for adoption of special needs parents (I’ll, mention by the way, that two of our 3 adoptive children require special accommodation) not that we should defund planned parenthood to do so.

            “and mainly kills (and now we know, even sells body parts of) unborn babies”
            Hang on there–we know nothing of the sort! You’ve yet to demonstrate that terminating a pregnancy at all stages of development following fertilization results in the death of a human being , be it a baby or otherwise, and we actually know instead that PP does not sell tissues or organs from fetuses which have been aborted–multiple states have investigated the false claims made in the edited CME video tapes and found them groundless.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Within a 25 mile radius of my home, there are at least 5 health care clinics…all with mammogram machines and all of them accept Medicaid patients. If Obama Care is going to provide affordable health care to ALL, then why do we need to also fund PP? It makes not sense. And most clinics have gynecologists on staff. I go to one clinic for all my health care needs and screenings. In fact, there are 9,000 federally qualified health center sites throughout the country that provide comprehensive primary health care for those in need without entanglement in abortion. You content that tax dollars cannot be used for abortions. But that is no longer the case. With the implementation of President Obama’s health care reform law, new routes for abortion funding and subsidizing have been opened up. Taxpayers, whether they like it or not, are paying for abortions.

            Abortion services only representing 3% of PP’s services is a smokescreen. The calculation counts each “discrete clinical interaction” as a separate “medical service,” meaning simple tests or routine provision of birth control are given the same weight as surgical or chemical abortions.For example, if a woman in the course of a year receives a free condom, a pregnancy test, a sexually transmitted infection (STI) test, and an abortion, Planned Parenthood would say abortion was only 25 percent of the services provided. The skew the statistics to fool people like you.
            Yes, more money needs to be spent on services to support families adopting disabled children. But where will that money come from? That is all we ever heard…no funding available… and programs my daughter did qualify for kept getting cut. Defund PP which is providing duplicate services and killing babies and ….there you go!…money for services!
            You are heart was not moved by the tiny baby body parts on a plate…tiny hands, feet, eye? What is it that is growing in the womb? A banana? A monkey? Easy to say it is not a baby…not a human being but science proves otherwise… human life begins at conception.

          • JGC

            “Within a 25 mile radius of my home, there are at least 5
            health care clinics…all with mammogram machines and all of them accept Medicaid patients.”

            I find that hard to accept that these clinics operate their own individual mammogram machines, unless you’re speaking of health care clinics that are closely associated with or part of large general hospitals. But let’s assume that is true—at what capacity are they currently operating? Would they be able to immediately absorb the clients in your area who are now dependent on PP, without any interruption delivery of health services to them?

            “If Obama Care is going to provide affordable health care to ALL, then why do we need to also fund PP?”

            You are aware that the ACA doesn’t actually provide health services–it addresses how the costs of those services are paid for and/or covered by health insurance programs–and that there still is a need for clinics which will provide them?

            “It makes not sense. And most clinics have gynecologists on
            staff.”

            Regardless of what percentage ‘most’ translates to here, at what capacity are those clinics with gynecologists operating? Would they be able to immediately absorb the clients who are now dependent on PP without any interruption delivery of health services to them?

            “In fact, there are 9,000 federally qualified health center sites throughout the country that provide comprehensive primary health care for those in need without entanglement in abortion.”

            Once again: at what capacity are they currently operating and would they be capable of immediately absorbing PP’s entire client base
            without any interruption in those clients’ health services?

            “You content that tax dollars cannot be used for abortions. But that is no longer the case. With the implementation of President Obama’s
            health care reform law, new routes for abortion funding and subsidizing have been opened up. Taxpayers, whether they like it or not, are paying for abortions.”

            Citation desperately needed: what sections of the health care reform law all for federal funds to be used to pay for abortions, in violation of federal laws prohibiting this practice?

            “Abortion services only representing 3% of PP’s services is
            a smokescreen. The calculation counts each “discrete clinical interaction” as a separate “medical service,” meaning simple tests or routine provision of birth control are given the same weight as surgical or chemical abortions. For example, if a woman in the course of a year receives a free condom, a pregnancy test, a sexually transmitted infection (STI) test, and an abortion, Planned Parenthood would say abortion was only 25 percent of the services provided. The skew the statistics to fool people like you.”

            By my math one service out of a total of four services provided
            to a clinet is 25% of services provided that client. Would you accept a claim that abortion services are actually much less than 3%on the basis of the argument “if a woman in the course of a year receives a free condom, a pregnancy test, a sexually transmitted infection (STI) test, and an abortion, Planned Parenthood would say condemns, STI tests and pregnancy tests were 75% of the services provided but they were really much, much more”?

            “Yes, more money needs to be spent on services to support
            families adopting disabled children. But where will that money co me from?”

            I’m open to suggestions, of course, but I’d personally start by cutting
            military spending, corporate welfare, and reducing the tax benefits offered religious organizations.

            “ Defund PP which is providing duplicate services and killing babies and ….there you go!…money for services!”

            Hold on, again: what evidence demonstrates that PP is actually killing any babies whatsoever? Be specific.

            “You are heart was not moved by the tiny baby body parts on a plate…tiny hands, feet, eye? What is it that is growing in the womb? A
            banana? A monkey?”

            Not a monkey but at different stages during development it is a human zygote, human embryo or human fetus.

            “Easy to say it is not a baby…not a human being but science proves otherwise… human life begins at conception.

            Citations needed: the scientific evidence demonstrating that at all stages of development following conception a zygote, embryo or fetus is also a human being would be what, exactly?

            Let’s start at the beginning, in the 12 to 24 hour period between fertilization and the zygote’s first round of cell division, when it’s
            unicellular, insensate and without any differentiated tissues. What properties or attributes does it demonstrably possess that factually establish it to be actual human being (i.e., ethically indistinguishable from a 1 year old child)?

          • Angel Jabbins

            There are four small to medium sized hospitals within a 30 radius so, yes, most of the clinics are part of those health care systems. (And this is a semi-rural area.) They DO have mammogram machines most of those clinics or people are referred to one of the hospitals which have the machines. We have two PP offices within that 30 radius. Neither has a mammogram machine. Anyone wanting a mammogram is already going to one of the clinics where they are done Monday through Friday. No interruption of health care services for anyone that I know of unless they are looking for birth control, STD testing (which clinics can also provide) or abortion services. Our PP’s are small so they refer those desiring abortions to a city one hour east of us.

            Abortion funding under Obama care:

            A Sept. 15, 2014 report by the Government Accountability Office confirmed what many pro-life individuals had warned—that more than 1,000 Obamacare plans covered abortion while remaining eligible for tax subsidies.

            The report also revealed that insurance companies were failing to collect from policyholders a required separate payment for abortion coverage, what critics call a “hidden” or “secret” fee.

            Requiring enrollees to make two separate payments each month—one of them exclusively for abortion coverage—was the government’s attempt to prevent tax dollars, as Obama promised, from directly funding abortion.

            Although the Government Accountability Office exposed these shortcomings in the 22-page report, the Obama administration has yet to address many of the problems.

            As a result, when Obamacare’s 2015 open enrollment period began Nov. 15, Americans couldn’t easily discern in visiting online insurance marketplaces, called exchanges, which plans cover abortion.

            “….the scientific evidence demonstrating that at all stages of development following conception a zygote, embryo or fetus is also a human being would be what, exactly?”

            All the DNA of a unique human person is present at conception. All that is required is growth and development. So, according to you, it is human at conception, but at some point beyond that, it then becomes unhuman? Mind giving me scientific proof of that? Tiny hands and feet….sure look human to me. You must be blind.

            Human life begins at conception…many scientific references here: https://www. princeton. edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2. html (loose the spaces)
            So, I guess you are a ‘gradualist’….but even if you can’t be sure according to your line of thinking, wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of protecting a human life?

          • JGC

            “There are four small to medium sized hospitals within a 30
            radius so, yes, most of the clinics are part of those health care systems. (And
            this is a semi-rural area.) They DO have mammogram machines most of those
            clinics or people are referred to one of the hospitals which have the machines.”

            So the situation is as I described and there’s nothing
            unique about planned Parenthood doing the same thing other health clinics do:
            refer patients to centers which perform mammograms. As that’s the case, it’s hard to see how
            noting this represents a valid criticism.

            “No interruption of health care services for anyone that I
            know of unless they are looking for birth control, STD testing (which clinics
            can also provide) or abortion services. “

            So there’d be no interruption of health care services,
            except for those health care services that are interrupted?

            “A Sept. 15, 2014 report by the Government Accountability
            Office confirmed what many pro-life individuals had warned—that more than 1,000
            Obamacare plans covered abortion while remaining eligible for tax subsidies.”

            As those tax subsidies are directed to companies providing health
            insurance coverage, not to Planned Parenthood, defunding PP would do nothing to
            address this issue.

            “The report also revealed that insurance companies were
            failing to collect from policyholders a required separate payment for abortion
            coverage, what critics call a “hidden” or “secret” fee.”

            Which again would be a valid criticism of practices engaged
            in by health insurance companies, but not by PP.

            “As a result, when Obamacare’s 2015 open enrollment period
            began Nov. 15, Americans couldn’t easily discern in visiting online insurance
            marketplaces, called exchanges, which plans cover abortion.”

            More complaints directed against insurance companies.

            “All the DNA of a unique human person is present at
            conception. All that is required is growth and development. So, accor ding to you,
            it is human at conception, but at some point beyond that, it then becomes
            unhuman?”

            No: ‘according to me’ a fertilized ovum is not a human being
            immediately upon conception, but will eventually develop sufficiently in utero
            that it will become one. The criteria
            you’re suggesting is both necessary and sufficient is clearly necessary but
            insufficient—after all, every cell in your body possesses human DNA, but I
            doubt you’d consider a lymphocyte or Islet cell to be a human being.

            “Mind giving me scientific proof of that? Tiny hands and
            feet….sure look human to me.”

            If your criteria is that recognizable tiny hands and feet are necessary and
            sufficient to represent a human being, then may I conclude that at early stages
            of development prior to their formation (at about 9 weeks) you have no problem
            with a pregnancy being terminated?

            “Human life begins at conception”

            Question: are you using ‘human life’ as a synonym for ‘a
            human being”? If so, surely you’ve noted that none of the citations at the ink
            you provide scientific evidence that a zygote, embryo or fetus is also a human
            being at all stages of development post-conception.

            “So, I guess you are a ‘gradualist’….but even if you can’t
            be sure according to your line of thinking, wouldn’t it be better to err on the
            side of protecting a human life?”

            To my mind placing restrictions on third trimester
            abortions, exactly as is done now, is to err on the side of protecting a potential
            human life. An ethical abortion policy doesn’t require we identify the exact
            moment when the developing fetus crosses some line and becomes a human being,
            after all: only that we identify the latest point in fetal development where we
            can still say with confidence it does not yet represent a human being.

            I’d put that at the point where the central and peripheral
            nervous systems integrate, rendering the fetus sensate, and the first
            characteristic human neural activity appears, indicating that it may also have
            become sentient. The lack of such characteristic neural activity is accepted as
            evidence what once was a human being no longer is a human being and may
            ethically be removed from life support (i.e., is brain dead) so rationally the first appearance would also indicate when
            something that previously had not been a human being had developed sufficiently
            to represent one. These occur at about
            23 to 26 weeks gestation.

          • Angel Jabbins

            You said PP offers screenings women need. I
            point out their clinics don’t even have the machines. Now you say they are
            doing the same thing other clinics are doing…referring people to ‘centers
            that perform mammogram’. No, that is not what I said. ALL of these clinics in
            our area have machines. They don’t have to refer you anywhere else. Why would I
            go to PP so they can refer me to go somewhere else? Stupid and a waste of money
            for the taxpayers.

          • JGC

            I said PP offers services women need, not just screenings but also STD testing, contraception, etc. Planned Parenthood does do the same thing other clinics and all private gynecologists do: refer patients to accredited radiologic centers and groups (such as the ones you found that that do mammograms near you) that perform mammography.

            As to why you would go to PP to be referred somewhere else, the same reason you’d go to a gynecologist to be referred somewhere else: you’ll need a referring physician to access the service, just as you can’t just walk into a radiology suite and say “I’d like an x-ray of my chest, please.”

          • Angel Jabbins

            Of course there is all the DNA of a person present in every human cell, but only the zygote is the first cell, the one from which all the others will come Life first exists in the zygote….human life. Am I using human life as synonym for human being? Good grief are we redefining words now…how convenient for you. Human life=human being. Yes! To everyone except the avid pro-aborts that is. So, let me get this straight…a person who is on life support is no longer a human being?! Really? When a person dies, are they no longer a human being? Do they then become another species? You make no sense at all. People have been in comas for many years….for all practical purposes dead…yet they awoke from their coma and went on to live many years. Were they unhuman while in the coma? Even people on life support sometimes come back.
            I just asked my husband who worked in health care for 40 years and was at the bedsides of many ‘human beings’ who passed away. He says…..duh…they were still human beings…he never saw one of them turn into a turnip. You are being ridiculous, but that is what happens when people try to justify killing the unborn. They are human beings whether you want to admit it or not.

          • JGC

            “Of course there is all the DNA of a person present in every human cell, but only the zygote is the first cell, the one from which all the
            others will come”

            The fact that embryos, fetuses, and eventually actual humans will develop from a zygote doesn’t argue that a zygote is a human being
            immediately following fertilization.

            “Life first exists in the zygote….human life.”

            Life actually exists prior to the creation of a zygote—after all, both the spermatozoa and the ovum that fuse to create it are demonstrably alive.

            “Am I using human life as synonym for human being? Good grief are we redefining words now…how convenient for you. Human life=human being. Yes!”

            It’s important we use language precisely, I’m afraid.

            “To everyone except the avid pro-aborts that is. So, let me
            get this straight…a person who is on life support is no longer a human being?! Really?”

            I haven’t argued that any and all persons on life support are not
            human beings: I’ve instead noted that it has become possible to keep a human body functioning on life support even after such time other evidence indicates it has ceased to represent a human
            being—i.e., has become brain dead—and that in such cases removing the body from life support is not considered to represent an act of murder.

            “When a person dies, are they no longer a human being?”

            When a person dies the human being they were no longer exists–all that’s left is a human body.

            “Do they then become another species?”

            No.

            “You make no sense at all. People have been in comas for many years….for all practical purposes dead…yet they awoke from their coma and went on to live many years.”

            I haven’t offered any argument that people in comas
            do not represent human beings.

            “Were they unhuman while in the coma? Even people on life support sometimes come back.”

            Yes, people on life support do frequently come back (that’s
            why they’re put on life support in the first place, to give them the
            opportunity to do so) but I haven’t argued that simply being on life support represents evidence demonstrating what previously was a human being has ceased to be a human being.

            “I just asked my husband who worked in health care for 40 years and was at the bedsides of many ‘human beings’ who passed away. He says…..duh…they were still human beings…he never saw one of them turn into a turnip.”

            Again, I haven’t argued that people who pass away turn into
            turnips.

            “You are being ridiculous, but that is what happens when
            people try to justify killing the unborn.”

            You just offered the argument “A zygote is human from conception because people don’t turn into turnips when they die”, but I’m the one who’s being ridiculous? Really?

          • JGC

            For the sake of completeness. see

            www. obamacarefacts. com/2015/07/23/do-we-still-need-planned-parenthood/ (remove spaces)

            for a more comprehensive discussion of how Obamacare does not act to replace services offered by Planned Parenthood

          • Angel Jabbins

            I looked at your website and, though it claims to be unbiased, it is anything but….all glowing about the wonders of Obama Care. But if you read some of the stories people have been sharing the past 6 months, only a couple are positive. I don’t believe the gov’t when they tell us our tax dollars will not be used to pay for abortions. It may take a round about route to do it, but we will be paying. Wait and see. None of us knows the full ramifications of this law yet. Time will tell. No Obamacare will not replace services offered by PP…they will still be aborting babies and probably have even more money in their coffers to do it.

          • JGC

            What specific claims offered at the website do you believe to be false, and what evidence is that conclusion based upon?

            Why don’t you believe the government when they tell you that tax dollars are not and will not be used to underwrite the cost of abortion?

            But I’m glad that you agree that Obamacare does not replace the services provided by PP.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Be thankful all you children needed was accommodations. Our daughter had that as well and without if she couldn’t have graduated from high school. But little good it did her after graduation. No help to transition her to safe adult living. Services she qualified for kept getting cut and she was locked out of the services she really needed most. As an adult, she has been repeatedly abused and used by men who take advantage of her disability, has had two children out of wedlock that she could never care for (thankfully both were adopted by family members) , been homeless more times than I can count….and so goes her life and the worry never ends as we approach our 70’s. It is beyond our ability now. I was a real tough advocate for her all along the way, but worn out now and no avenues left now but welfare for her. We just hope she will survive somehow when we are gone in a few years.

          • JGC

            ALL they needed was accommodations? please don’t trivialize the extent of my children’s disabilities or presume your child’s challenges to be more significant than that of my own.
            But again, if your argument is that more funds should be dedicated to support for special needs children (either adoptive or otherwise) be aware that’s a completely separate issue from the question of whether Planned Parenthood should be defunded.

          • Angel Jabbins

            It is not a separate issue. It is the same issue. Money going to kill babies that could go to helping children born with disabilities.
            If all your children will ever need is their accommodation, be very thankful. Until you have walked my shoes, you don’t know what you are talking about.

          • JGC

            What babies are being killed, by which people? If you’re arguing that terminating a pregnancy at all stages of development following fertilization causes the death of an actual human child, rather than the destruction of a human zygote, embryo or fetus, you’ll need to do much more than simply assert that is the case.

            Again, “all you need is accommodations’ does nothing other than trivialize my children’s challenges (and I’ll note I haven’t said that’s all
            they need. That “walking in another’s shoes’ cuts both ways: unless you’re somehow privy to the details of my children’s injuries/deficits and their long term consequences you don’t know what you’re talking about.

            In any case, we’re in agreement that society should direct more resources to the parents of children who have such issues. I simply don’t agree we should re-direct funds from Planned parenthood, an organization that is providing demonstrably providing essential health care to millions of women, to do so.

          • xyz

            U still believe in gods? Imaginary friends?

          • JGC

            “There are more than enough childless couples waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting…to adopt every single unwanted baby, even those with disabilities.”
            As the parent of three adopted children, no Angel: there are not. There are far more children waiting in foster care etc. in desperate need of adoption than there are parents willing to step forward and embrace them.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Read my replies to gizmo below… what my husband and I went through as adoptive parents of a mentally and emotional disabled child from foster care. The gov’t gives assistance to adoptive parents who take children with physical disabilities. But not for mental or emotional disabilities like fetal alcohol, reactive attachment disorder and other ‘invisible’ disabilities which show up later on. Once your adoption is finalized, you are on your own. I can’t begin to tell you the heartache we went through… still go through as our daughter struggles to this day (age 29) to survive in the world as developmentally disabled adult who doesn’t qualify for any of the normal services commonly available to people with other kinds of disabilities.

            Parents who adopt children from the foster care system need on-going support to be successful and, if their children have show signs of severe mental disability…. help in transitioning them to adulthood once they age out of the school system.

            It is not as cut and dried as you try to make it. There are people who will adopt these children if the support is there. Adopting special needs children is not for everyone. But if couples knew there would be ongoing support, more of them might be willing to adopt them.

          • xyz

            Those aborted are not babies. They are embryos or fetuses. Babies are once they are out of their carrier’s wombs. But how brainwashed morons like u can get that?

          • Angel Jabbins

            You accuse gizmo of being a moron for using the term ‘babies’. I will not will not stoop to your level and use such a derogatory term to describe you, but I will call you unreasonable and blind as a bat. Didn’t you see what the PP personnel in those undercover videos were sorting through…. ‘fetus’ remains on a plate? Did you not see the tiny hands and feet, eyes, hearts, livers….not babies?

            You have one thing right. The main issue is: What is it? Is it a baby or just a blob of tissue. Science refutes what you are saying: from Princeton. edu

            “The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:
            (The article then goes on to list reference after reference confirming that statement. https://www. princeton. edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2. html (loose the spaces)
            Not that I think you will really go to that page and read it, but someone might.
            Bottom line, if is human life, why do you think we have the right to kill it? All human life is in the process of some kind of change or development…growing up, growing old. We are all changing…we are all human…not matter what stage we are at, no matter how small, no matter how frail and dependent we may be upon others. That fetus is not going to come of the womb a banana or a monkey….always a human being. Always! Think!… rather than using your emotions and personal biases to inform your brain.

  • Clae Brewer

    Imagine the definition of morals in the hands of a Legislation who believe they can make derivatives for what God instituted, knowing what God instituted. This spells reprobates.

  • jael2

    Not only does Planned Parenthood need to be defunded, but those who are working for this criminal enterprise need to stand trial for crimes against humanity. From the CEO down to the janitor, indictments need to be handed down.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Amen! Crimes against humanity for sure.

      Might want to leave the janitor out of it, though – it could be his first day. One walked out of our abortion mill on his first day and said he literally puked in there and was never going back. 🙁

      But, yes, administrators, doktors, and nurse-Nazis should all be tried, except for some possible evidence providers.

      • JGC

        What charges would you indict them for? It couldn’t be for providing safe medical abortions, as doing so isn’t a violation of state or federal law.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Gassing Jews was also not a violation of state or federal law in Germany, nor was owning black people as property a violation of any law in America at one time. In the former case, the charge was crimes against humanity. Obviously, that would be the case for abortionists as well. Since the species being killed in the human womb is indeed human, the charge fits nicely. Please read more carefully – I explained this above.

          And, if you are an abortionist, or work in an abortion mill, I ask you to repent of your killing and get out of the “industry.” Here are a couple of links where pro-lifers help such folks leave behind the death mills:

          http://www .clinicworker .com/

          http://abortionworker .com/

          • JGC

            I’m not seeing a valid equivalence between the Holocaust and
            terminating an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, or between slavery and terminating a pregnancy. I’m also not seeing any grounds for indicting individuals who provide medical services that would include abortion.

            “In the former case, the charge was crimes against humanity.
            Obviously, that would be the case for abortionists as well.”

            Hardly ‘obviously: in the former two examples there is demonstrable harm being done to actual human beings, while in the latter there is not. If you believe otherwise, by all means demonstrate that at any time following conception but prior to delivery a pregnancy is terminated a zygote, embryo or fetus represents a human being.

            If it really is obvious, it should only take you a few sentences to do so—10 at the most.

            To simplify the argument, let’s start with the period between fertilization and the first round of cell division the zygote undergoes. What properties or attributes does the zygote possess that requires it be considered ethically indistinguishable from a month old human child?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I’m not seeing a valid equivalence between the Holocaust and terminating an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, or between slavery and terminating a pregnancy. ”

            That’s because you are the king of euphemisms. “Terminating a pregnancy” is completely disingenuous. All pregnancies terminate: some with live babies, some with dead. The relationship between the 3 is obvious when one considers that in all three cases a human is being de-humanized, and always with language and euphemisms. Here is a chilling link on the comparison with the Holocaust (just take the spaces out):

            http://www .abortionfacts .com/literature/abortion-the-hidden-holocaust

            “a zygote, embryo or fetus represents a human being.”

            You don’t know the basic biological fact that human life begins at human conception? Really?!? What is the point in discussing with you when you are so anti-science?

          • JGC

            Terminating a pregnancy” is completely disingenuous.”

            Terminating a pregnancy isn’t disingenuous: it’s simply accurate (that is after all what is achieved as the result of an abortion).

            “The relationship between the 3 is obvious when one considers that in all three cases a human is being de-humanized, and always with language and euphemisms.

            Your evidence that terminating a pregnancy during all stages of development results in the death of an actual human being would be what, exactly? (I keep asking you this question, but you seem singularly unable to answer it in any meaningful manner.)

            “You don’t know the basic biological fact that human life begins at human conception? Really?!?”

            You don’t realize that it hs not been established as a biological fact that a zygote, embryo or fetus represents a human being at all stages of development following fertilization?!?

            What’s the point in discussing with you when you’re so willfully ignorant?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            No reply to the fact that all pregnancies terminate – some with dead babies, some with living babies. Got it.

            “You don’t realize that it hs not been established as a biological fact that a zygote, embryo or fetus represents a human being at all stages of development following fertilization?!?”

            It HAS been established that human life begins at human conception. It HAS been established that if you had been aborted at any ZEF stage, you would be dead right now. And, it has NOT been established that there is any difference whatsoever between human life and human beings, and the history of such distinction is remarkably abhorrent (see racial slavery and Jew gassing). Therefore, it is morally monstrous for you and yours to be so intellectually disingenuous.

            Why are YOU so willfully ignorant AND so morally repugnant?

          • JGC

            No reply to the fact that all pregnancies terminate – some
            with dead babies, some with living babies. Got it.”

            Didn’t think a reply was really necessary, but if you wish me to provide a response it would be to note that you’re offering a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy by implying a pregnancy can only terminate with the result of a live baby versus a dead baby, when there are other possible outcomes including the loss of something
            other than a baby ( i.e., a zygote, an embryo, or fetus).

            “It HAS been established that human life begins at human
            conception.”

            If you’re using ‘human life’ as a synonym for ‘human being’ or ‘human person’, no: it has not, and repetitively asserting it has been won’t make it true.

            “It HAS been established that if you had been aborted at any
            ZEF stage, you would be dead right now.”

            Not necessarily: for example, if I had been aborted while still in the embryonic stage of development I would instead never have existed
            as a human being—there would have been no ‘me’ to be dead right now.

            “And, it has NOT been established that there is any difference whatsoever between human life and human beings, and the history of
            such distinction is remarkably abhorrent (see racial slavery and Jew gassing).”

            If you are in fact asserting that ‘human life’ is synonymous with ‘human being’ please note that it t also has NOT been established that at
            all stages of development following fertilization a zygote, embryo, or fetus also represents a ‘human life’ or ‘human being’.

          • Elie Challita

            WGC, can you explain to me, by your own morally objective world view, just how far you’re willing to go to make sure that a woman does carry her pregnancy to term regardless of her own wishes on the subject?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Oh, that is so simple, Elie: I am an abortion abolitionist in precisely the same sense as my ideological ancestors were slavery abolitionists. I desire to see abortion outlawed just as my ideological ancestors desired to see slavery outlawed.

            A woman’s “wishes on the subject of abortion” are no more meaningful to me than a man’s “wishes on the subject of rape” or a plantation owner’s “wishes on the subject of slavery.” Of course, in the case of abortion, the victim is almost always killed, whereas in the other cases, not so.

            Good hearing from you, Elie, and Merry Christmas early!

          • Elie Challita

            At which point does the pregnant woman’s right to bodily autonomy expire, then?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            At the point at which she denies the right to life for the male or female human body in her womb. Pretty simple, actually.

            Ever see a video of an abortion, Elie? I think if you watched one, you might be a bit more compassionate toward the baby in the womb. Here is one (Warning: Very graphic):

            http://abortioninstruments .com/

            I find it hard to believe that you could watch this video and not become pro-life. But, there are Holocaust deniers out there too – and they have even seen the images of gassed Jews stacked like firewood. 🙁

          • Elie Challita

            I’ve seen one. I’ve also stayed with a friend at her house for three days after she had a medicinally induced early-term abortion last year, and taken her to the hospital when she was fainting from dehydration and blood loss.

            From that experience I can guarantee you that abortion is not a trivial process that people undertake for trivial reasons. My friend could not take care of a child, and could not afford to be pregnant. She was under no obligation to subordinate her life to that of the fetus, by the same principle which states that you are not legally obligated to offer someone your kidney if they lack one.

            If there was a way to remove a fetus from an unwilling mother, and artificially incubate it or transplant it to a willing would-be mother, then I would agree that abortions are unnecessary and harmful. Until then, I am unwilling to subordinate an independent person’s bodily integrity to my own definition of morality. Feel free to deride that different flavors of ice cream.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I’ve seen one.”

            I doubt it – at least not a graphic one. And, if so, then you have no heart. Is that all you can say?!? Did that not turn your heart? Did you watch the video I linked you to?

            “taken her to the hospital when she was fainting from dehydration and blood loss.”

            Not at all uncommon. So much for “safe, legal, and rare.” 🙁

            “From that experience I can guarantee you that abortion is not a trivial process that people undertake for trivial reasons.”

            Really. Elie?!? Have you missed the latest (and not-so-latest) talking points?!?

            ““I love abortion. I don’t accept it. I don’t view it as a necessary evil. I embrace it. I donate to abortion funds. I write about how important it is to make sure that every woman has access to safe, legal abortion services. I have bumper stickers and buttons and t-shirts proclaiming my support for reproductive freedom. I love abortion. And I bristle every time a fellow activist uses a trendy catch-phrase or rallying cry meant to placate pro-lifers. The first of these, ‘Make abortion safe, legal, and rare!” has been used for decades as a call for abortion rights.’ ” … “Terminating a pregnancy is not an unethical act, yet suggesting that abortion should be rare implies that there is something undesirable about having one.” — Jessica DelBalzo

            Filmed her abortion and proud of it: http://thestir .cafemom
            .com/bizarre_news/172111/woman_films_her_own_abortion

            Super proud of her abortion: http://chicksontheright
            .com/blog/item/28339-girls-star-is-super-proud-of-her-abortion-and-wants-you-to-know-it

            Facebook page celebrating abortion: https://www .facebook
            .com/pages/I-Had-An-Abortion/138570696250541

            #ShoutYourAbortion

            http:// www .salon .com/2015/09/22/my_abortion_made_me_happy_the_story_that_started_the_shoutyourabortion_movement/

            “For many women abortion represents a moral and ethical dilemma, but for …upper middle class ambitious ones, it does not. For many women, the regrets and the wishful what ifs they indulge in after an
            abortion are slightly below “what if I had chunked economics and majored in art”…they see abortion as a “means to a lifestyle that would allow them to view sex as a pleasure…a lifestyle that allowed room for irresponsibility” (No Birth, No Pangs, Washington
            Post 3/21/1993)

            “My friend could not take care of a child”

            Oh, she “took care of a child,” alright, boy did she “take care of” him – or her! 🙁

            “could not afford to be pregnant”

            What?!? Is the government confiscating the bank accounts of women who get pregnant these days? 🙂

            “She was under no obligation to subordinate her life to that of the fetus”

            She was under an obligation to not knock off that baby though – a moral obligation.

            “by the same principle which states that you are not legally obligated to offer someone your kidney if they lack one.”

            Bodily autonomy already failed, Elie – you are legally obligated to not remove a kidney from someone who is living. Or an arm. Leg. Head. Heart. Liver. The child that your friend had, before she killed him or her, had his or her own organs, BTW.

            “If there was a way to remove a fetus from an unwilling mother”

            Oh, but there is, Elie, there is: it happens 3000 times a day – in Amerika alone. A disgusting barbaric practice. 🙁

            “I would agree that abortions are unnecessary and harmful”

            What – only then?!? Are you really so delusional that you do not think that abortions are harmful to the child in the womb?!?

            “Until then, I am unwilling to subordinate an independent person’s bodily integrity to my own definition of morality.”

            Seriously? Sounds like you are also against laws for rape and murder then based on such poor logic. Oh, but you are all too willing to advocate the killing off of thousands of humans in the womb – by destroying THEIR bodily integrity. Do you see yet how your words keep backfiring, because all you consider is the mother and not the child too? I also note that there is no mention of adoption – the one term pro-aborts never use, and which your friend, had she not been so callous, could have offered to her child.

            And yes, indeed! YOUR definition of morality! Oh, how human history is littered with the corpses of millions because some monsters decided that THEIR morality justified it.

            I think I now know why you will not watch that video I linked to you, Elie: your ideology would come face-to-face with its victims, and you would be forced to choose between your ideology or your compassion. In fact, it looks as though you have already decided.

          • xyz

            Noone gassed Jews unless ure too dumb to believe SF stories

  • JGC

    Planned Parenthood and all other medical service providers are already prohibited by law from using any federal funding they receive to underwrite the provision of abortion services.
    Which means that what the Senate has actually voted to defund isn’t abortions, but instead cancer screening, check-ups, pre-natal care, nutritional services and STD testing.

  • xyz

    All this because state needs more obedient, brainwashed, sick slaves, cannon fodder and so on. No matter how hard ud try and foam about it, u can never ban Mother Nature. Its 21st century and idiots still moaning about embryos and fetuses “rights” and BS like that. Sure. Abortion has always been here and always be here, deal with it.