Posted on 06/23/2017 3:12:59 PM PDT by Morgana
Lena Dunham is back, and she has a bunch of her celebrity friends helping her fight for abortion and Planned Parenthood again.
Dunham’s “Lenny Letter” blog produced a short video this week urging people to call their U.S. Senators and tell them to support the No. 1 abortion business in the nation, according to The Wrap.
U.S. Senate leaders announced plans to consider a bill next week to defund Planned Parenthood and repeal and replace Obamacare. The U.S. House already passed a bill.
The House version of the bill would eliminate more than $390 million (about 86 percent) of the annual federal funding to Planned Parenthood from all mandatory spending programs. The measure also would redirect funding to community health centers that outnumber Planned Parenthood facilities 20 to 1 and offer a wider array of health care services, but not abortions. The bill also would repeal Obamacare abortion subsidies.
The bill would close the largest pipeline for federal funding of Planned Parenthood, Medicaid, as well CHIP, Title V and Title X block grant programs.
In the video, Dunham railed against the legislation, along with “Hunger Games” actress Jennifer Lawrence, Jon Hamm, Brie Larson, Amy Poehler, Judd Apatow, Elisabeth Moss, Alison Brie, Andrew Rannells, Aubrey Plaza, Kate Walsh and Suki Waterhouse.
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures.
They claimed that cutting taxpayer funds to Planned Parenthood would have drastic consequences.
“This is nothing more than a blatantly political attempt to do whatever it takes to attack women’s health and rights, and take healthcare away from the people who need it most,” the celebrities said in the video. “The right to decide our own bodily future is the most basic of all human rights.”
But when it comes to Planned Parenthood and abortion, the issue is not just about women’s bodies and futures. Unborn babies’ lives and futures also are involved, and abortion destroys these babies’ most basic right, the right to life. Without it, they have no control over their bodies or futures. Without the right to life, truly the most basic of all human rights, they cannot enjoy any other rights.
In 2015, Planned Parenthood performed 328,348 abortions, nearly 5,000 more than the previous year. These numbers represent human lives, babies’ lives, not just women’s.
And if Planned Parenthood really was concerned about women’s health care, not abortions, it could get out of this political fight really quickly. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump offered to support an increase in taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood if it stopped doing abortions. The abortion chain refused.
Its CEO Cecile Richards went so far as to call the offer “obscene and insulting,” making it very clear that abortion – the destruction of unborn babies’ lives – is Planned Parenthood’s top priority.
We don’t kill the individual who commits the rape; why would we kill the person who is the result of a rape?
As for pregnancy subsequent to rape, it is a "competing goods" situation. Yes, the pregnant woman has a right to physical autonomy. However, the human offspring, who is at every point a bodily human being, has that same right.
Therefore the unborn human being has a right not to be aggressed against (just as the mother had that right, which was violated: but violated by the rapist, not by the baby!) The only way to terminate this "conflict pregnancy" in such a way that both parties, the mother and the baby, can peacefully go forward with their own lives, is childbirth.
Too bad her mother didn’t feel that way ...
Even if she could pay for it herself, abortion should not be allowed.
If I wanted you dead and could pay the hired assassin myself, it should not be allowed.
To chose between good and evil is pretty much our whole purpose in life. She choose poorly.
I disagree. Abortion is never the elimination of a grown aggressively offensive adult. It’s always the murder of a blameless child who has never aggressed against anybody.
Because a woman owns herself, and is no one else's slave, regardless of how dire their need. Otherwise, the left would be correct that there is a moral obligation to feed the poor and provide them with health care services at taxpayer expense.
Forcubly removing an unwanted trespasser from your property is not, by definition, "aggression." The only valid argument against abortion would be that voluntarily creating a baby creates a moral obligation. If you can prove that there is such, I'm all ears.
Many of “the poor” have the option of working to feed themselves.
The unborn do not have that option.
Admittedly, I was pro-life until I saw Sharia and Malaria Obama./s
First if all, if a helpless little baby were placed on your property against your wishes, you would not have a legal or moral right to crush, decapitate, poison, or dismember that child.
You could call Child Protective Services or 911 and ask public authorities to take this child alive and safe off of your property as soon as it can be done without risk to the child. Bashing the kid with a shovel would be a criminal act.
Trespassing is not a capital crime. Moreover, the child, passive and helpless, was placed there. He did not intentionally or recklessly PUT himself there. He did not aggress.
So killing s child is still murder, even if the child was begotten by rape.
If intercourse was consensual, an additional argument of an “obligation to care” can be made, since all persons of reproductive age realize that intercourse can lead to pregnancy. This calls for strict liability.
Do you accept that there exists such a thing as parental obligation?
The Right to Life is, obviously, the most basic human right.
Yes, liberalism is a mental disease and it is highly contagious when certain people are exposed to it. Immediately after contracting the disease they all become victims of something.
I partially agree with you. The right to evict is not the right to kill. However, using the right to evict does not create an obligation to provide alternative housing. Nor does it obligate anyone else to do so. So I would posit that those who abort should do so in such a way that others who would be willing to provide alternative support structures would be able to do so.
You talk about ASS backwards. How in the Hell does this even make any sense? Goes against all Judeo-Christian Teaching and Tenets. Lena Dunham needs to be in serious Analysis for the next 30 years with daily does of Thorazine say about 30,000cc’s a day.
As far as abortion is concerned, I would make an exception in her case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.