PostHeaderIcon How Many Tempests Can A Teapot Hold?

The tempest of the day/week seems to be the Planned Parenthood situation.

Before getting into that, a bit of a disclaimer – as I have written elsewhere in this forum, I am a bit conflicted on the abortion issue. For starters, I do not think it is a simple thing. That is to say, there is no way a blanket rule can effectively address all the possible wrinkles in any given abortion decision. For this reason, I consider the decision to be one that belongs to the individuals directly involved, hopefully with professional input to help them come to the best decision circumstances will allow.

That said, there are several aspects of the abortion issue that I am flatly against. First, I do not think abortion should be used as a sort of after-the-fact birth control method for the convenience of the irresponsible. There are simply too many effective ways to prevent pregnancy, many of them freely available to any and all who want or need them. Second, I object to the killing of any fetus that is developed to the point where it might well be able to exist outside the womb. Third, I think that the so-called “partial birth abortion” is simply a socially acceptable term for what is actually infanticide.

Now, the Planned Parenthood (PP) fiasco… Is there any thinking person in this country that does not understand that PP is primarily a collection of abortion clinics? And further, do any of us fail to understand that their operations have been considered legal by both the states and the federal government? Sorry, no mystery there and no news either.

This leaves us with only 3 valid points of contention in this matter:

First, should taxpayer funds be used to help support the operation of PP, and,

Second, should the byproducts of the abortion process be used to harvest potentially usable cellular material, and,

Third, should PP be allowed to sell said cellular material to help fund their operation?

IMHO, the first point is the simplest to consider. A large number of the women who want and/or need abortions are from the lowest income brackets in our nation. Callous though this may sound, it is much more cost effective for the taxpayer to fund such abortions than it is to fund the many expenses associated with unwanted babies born into poverty. Given the crime that almost always results as these unwanted, uneducated, un-cared-for babies mature, it is also, again IMHO, more moral in that it very likely results in less pain and harm to fewer people – over the long run.

The second point – the harvesting of potentially usable material from the aborted fetal remains – is, to me, the most interesting of the issues we are confronted with. Given that the fetus has already been rendered dead by the process, it seems to me that primary thing to which many might object to on moral grounds has already been done (the extinguishing of life). I fail to see how wasting material that potentially has great potential to help the living makes any moral sense. However could burning or even burying the remains add any moral value for anyone? It seems obvious, to me, that finding some potential value in an otherwise unfortunate situation is more moral than rendering the entire transaction a total waste.

The third point – the selling of the material in question – strikes me as an odd thing over which to find a point of contention at all, especially for those who wish to withhold taxpayer funds from PP. If the material can be sold, why not do so, thereby reducing the funding needed from taxpayers? After all, huge industries are based on the sale of dead animal parts for human consumption. Doesn’t the sale of dead animal parts for scientific/medical purposes seem more moral than wholesale slaughter simply for our dining enjoyment?

Of course, my answers to these questions are based on what I hope is a rational thought process whereas the tempest in this matter seems to be nothing more or less than conclusions reached through an emotional process devoid of rational thought. Sadly, this seems to be the way almost all of the issues of the day are addressed. But, what else might we expect from a population that has been intentionally “dumbed down”?

I still remember a conversation held some years ago where a quite sincere lady sitting across a dinner table from me tried to explain how it was an absolute sin to kill innocent creatures. This between bites of medium-rare cow flesh.

Just for the change, why not try thinking about these things instead of feeling about them? Otherwise, you subject yourselves to emotional herding.

Troy L Robinson


16 Responses to “How Many Tempests Can A Teapot Hold?”

  • ◄Dave► says:

    Interesting and thought-provoking discussion, Troy. As you will recall, my own personal position on the abortion issue is quite similar to yours (I just enjoyed rereading that four-year-old post, which contains one of the more delightful comment section discussions hereabouts 🙂 ).

    While accepting the right of a woman to choose to abort an early pregnancy, I have always had a knee-jerk reaction against taxpayer funding for PP. However, you make your case well, and after reflecting on your points, I am inclined to agree with you on all three. Well done. ◄Dave►

  • Chris says:

    Troy I find your reasoning in the first three paragraphs well reasoned and at the very least reasoning for at least some reasonable restriction on abortion. With that I respectfully submit some ideas regarding the three points of contention for your consideration.

    “should taxpayer funds be used to help support the operation of PP”
    In short no, but it can be. The supreme court has affirmed the right to abortion nation wide. That does not mean it has to be funded by the federal government. The country would be better as a whole if questions of funding were to remain a states issue the same as states have the right to set standards for any medical practice. This would allow more people with a moral objection or even proponents a voice in how their tax dollars were spent as well as relief from the burden via location. Like so many other things those that morally object have no choice but to participate. That is the root of the funding problem.

    “should the byproducts of the abortion process be used to harvest potentially usable cellular material”

    You may have missed the point of the dust up over the harvesting of tissues. The demonizing and horror of administrators “casually talking about baby parts over wine and salad” is an attention ploy. I have no doubt that this casual sort of discussion goes on in the medical community very much routinely when talking about tissues from any source. It’s probably much like a car mechanic talking about the quality and price of a car part. What it is actually meant to do is raise awareness of what it is PP is dealing with. “clumps of tissue” don’t have hearts, lungs, arms, legs and if it’s a boy a penis. Call it anti abortion propaganda if they will but it’s truth that not many proponents aren’t willing to deal with and has been blurred by abortion proponents for decades.

    “Third, should PP be allowed to sell said cellular material to help fund their operation”

    Last I knew the sale of human tissue for profit no matter the source or reason was illegal for obvious reasons. The equation of human body parts to a sizzling steak on a plate is a slippery slope that would require a whole new thread to address.

    Although not one of your three points I feel the need to address this.

    “Given the crime that almost always results as these unwanted, uneducated, un-cared-for babies mature, it is also, again IMHO, more moral in that it very likely results in less pain and harm to fewer people – over the long run.”

    As someone with a libertarian bent I find this statement from you somewhat surprising Troy. Are you saying that an “un-cared-for uneducated, unwanted, person has no ability of self determination and that person shouldn’t be afforded the opportunity to be all they can because the odds are against them? Sounds dangerously close to eugenics which it has been said was an underlying principal in the founding of PP.

    “less pain and harm to fewer people – over the long run.”

    The rights of the collective negate the rights of the individual?

    IMHO. 😉

  • PoliSciPulse says:

    Hi Troy,
    Greg here.

    I am wondering if I can include this posts, or references to it, in a blog post of my own? The post, when finished, will chronicle how the government was not actually just down in October because of this very reason.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Hi Greg,
      Dave here.

      Troy has not been checking in too often of late, so I am unsure when or if he might see this request. Your proposal certainly falls within any ‘fair use’ guidelines, for which permission would not be necessary. 🙂 ◄Dave►

    • Troy Robinson says:

      Even though I am in Colorado enjoying the cooler temps, I still follow along. I don’t post often because this election makes me sick! To think that a nation that produces so many fine people would be lowered to choosing between a clown and a criminal is just too much.

      Greg, anything I post is, ergo, cast into the public domain. Do with it as you will.


      • ◄Dave► says:

        I don’t post often because this election makes me sick!

        I am surprised that you are taking it so seriously, Troy. It is by far the most entertaining political season of my lifetime. As for the Incumbrepublocrat choices, when was the last time we had anything other than the lesser of two evils to pick from? Which one of the GOPe candidates that Trump vanquished so handily with his populist campaign, would have made you feel better about the election? 😕 ◄Dave►

        • I must say I am quite enjoying this too Dave.
          Frankly I can not see why all of the weeping and wailing is going on over every Trump utterance.

          I find myself wondering exactly what all of the Trump haters are going to do WHEN HE WINS and probably does a pretty damn good job.

          It does not take rocket science to realize a good business person grabs the best in the field to solve a problem. This guy certainly has a lot of experience screaming “YOUR FIRED” when someone is not up to the task. Too bad he can not scream “YOUR FIRED” to 7/8s of Congress. A bunch of low information twits that could not hold down a job at Taco Bell for 30 minutes.

          Only fools would at this point think Trump IS NOT IN THIS TO WIN AND DO THE BEST JOB HE COULD POSSIBLY PULL OFF.

        • ◄Dave► says:

          Frankly I can not see why all of the weeping and wailing is going on over every Trump utterance.

          What confounds me, CT, is how insistent that the conservative political pundits are on being lied to. I am getting rather tired of the term ‘pivot.’ Trump is usually rather unapologetically Trump, and a remarkable percentage of Americans appreciate the guy, as he authentically is. If polls are to be believed, the normally reliably Democrat minorities, are already giving him higher percentages than GOPe candidates have gotten in the past, and their numbers are steadily climbing. If he can get them up to only 25%, he will win in a landslide.

          Traditionally, the General election begins after Labor Day. I look forward to it. I suspect all those whining that Trump is destined to lose to Hillary, will be as wrong as they were during the Primary season. As you suggest, he hasn’t come all this way to quit now. 😉 ◄Dave►

        • Dave I am tired of the whole corrupt mess. I do not joke when I say if I were in charge there would be a public hanging in the rose garden starting with Bill and Hillary Clinton. That would simply be my starting place.

          Donald Trump’s first new business venture could be a ROPE FACTORY. Next could be GRAVE DIGGERS. 🙂

        • I wrote an answer to your last comment Dave and it got lost in the ether. To tired to rewrite … lol

          • ◄Dave► says:

            Oops. Sorry! For some unknown reason, several comments by you and CT were caught in the Spam folder by AKISMET. 🙁 ◄Dave►

  • PoliSciPulse says:

    Hi Dave,
    The blog article will be published either this week or next.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Great Greg, I look forward to reading it. I just found that if I completely delete a comment, any responses to it also go away, so I did a bit of judicious editing instead. 🙂 ◄Dave►

  • PoliSciPulse says:

    Here is the article! 🙂

    Feel free to send me any proofreading notes at my email.


Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Internal Links