Ah, you already did that once. Ironic flaw-pointing out only works when you haven’t already done it unironically.
Do you make room for the possibility of non-human life that is not ensouled but is sentient?
So do you support Planned Parenthood? Do you disagree with the current administration trying to defund Planned Parenthood?
Yes, Planned Parenthood does provide abortions but the money for those is scrupulously separate from the other 97% of their business which is to do what their name says.
If PP had their way there would be zero abortions because every pregnancy was a wanted pregnancy. Of course that is impossible but that is what they aim for.
So, will you support PP since they are arguably the single greatest force in the world (yeah, I went there) for preventing unwanted pregnancies and by extension preventing abortions?
EDIT to add: I agree there is no problem with advocating celibacy in conjunction with advocating use of birth control if you do have sex.
Er . . . can I just point out that this is a fascinating discussion, and I am not trying to avoid answering, but it’s gone a bit afield. My point here was to show that opposition to abortion does not have to arise from a belief that women are stupid.
So my answer to this question is certainly a better insight into the fascinating Mind of Bricker, but not so relevant to that initial point.
That said, I don’t think so, but that answer is a special pleading for the word ‘sentience.’ There is an aspect of sentience that I think reveals a soul, but I think it’s also possible to mimic this aspect easily in the short term; a gold Loebner Prize winner for the soul, if you will. In short: I doubt it, but I don’t know.
I laud, and support, the health and contraception aspects of Planned Parenhood’s mission. I don’t support their involvement with abortion.
Honesty - That is refreshing. Good on ya! 
Do you feel this way about real-world birth control options? Do you think subsidizing access to the pill, condoms, and the like reduces abortions, and do you support it?
Fair enough. Thanks for the answer.
Fair enough.
Do you support or oppose the current US administration’s efforts to defund Planned Parenthood?
Put another way do you think Planned Parenthood makes abortions more or less likely?
Post 138.
In general, I think Planned Parenthood does more good than harm. As a matter of practical social policy, I’d say I oppose the defunding efforts. But that’s not a completely clear picture. I oppose Planned Parenthood’s involvement with abortion and would prefer that they simply stop facilitating abortion as a condition of receiving funding. I know that funding is never directly used for abortion, but I don’t agree that the current method of accounting is accurate.
Specifically, if the federal funding covers the light bill, the receptionist’s salary, and the janitorial services for the office, then it’s appropriate to say that there remains indirect support for abortions, money that a separate facility would have to come up with. There is an economy of resources in the current scheme that allows abortions to be subsidized by these sorts of indirect costs being covered. I don’t favor this.
But politics is the art of the possible. On balance, Planned Parenthood does more good than bad. So if I were a legislator, I’d push as hard as possible to make abortion work uncomfortable for them, but ultimately not defund them.
But again:
The Hyde Amendment dates back to 1976 and prevents tax payer money being used for abortions.
So, any funding PP gets for abortions is 100% private donations.
I know abortion opponents will say money is fungible and it is all one big pot so that separation is meaningless. And in many case they would be right. But not in this case.
Due to the intense scrutiny PP receives they are scrupulous about this separation (I once worked for them in accounting…that said it was long ago and I am not a spokesman for them). They have to be. They have opponents working diligently to trip them up. As such they are exceptionally careful to do everything the right way (may be a broader lesson there).
As a donor you can restrict your donation for whatever purpose you want and they have to use it for that. So, any money you give can absolutely be restricted from abortion services and go to preventing abortions.
I should note this is true for any charity.
They very much prefer unrestricted funds that they can use for anything (no one donates for the office electric bill so they use unrestricted funds for that…and that is important too).
That said, if you want to, you can specify what your donation should be used for and they have to use it for that. If you specify something that is not related to their mission they will send the money back (or at least they should and the good ones will).
OK, educate me.
How is the cost of the receptionist salary and the building’s electrical allocated?
Simple.
Abortions are about 3% of their business and not all PP clinics even perform abortions.
So, you pay the electric and receptionist and the space out of the general funds and pay the abortion doctor for his or her services out of the abortion pile.
If you instantly disappeared all money related to abortions from PP I doubt much would happen except the doctor performing the abortions wouldn’t have that job, they would order fewer medical supplies and their insurance costs would drop dramatically (or as some states mandate not make themselves meet surgical center requirements). You still need the space for other exams which is, by far, what they are used for anyway.
I do not think there is a doctor who does this as their sole or even primary source of business so they will be fine. Other than that I doubt much would change.
Planned Parenthood books are audited with regularity and there are a sea of people who want to see them ended looking for any misstep. As such PP needs to be and is scrupulous about their books. As a charity it is all out in the open. Anyone can look into it.
Rest assured your tax dollars are not funding abortions.
This thread took off while I had the gall to be driving to Phoenix so what I say may be moot. OTOH, what the hell.
The part where you equate a zygote with a human being.
So your definition of “human” is 23 chromosomes? Ya know what? Zygotes have 46 chromosomes. Lets pretend you didn’t know that and just made a typo, do you know who doesn’t have the “normal” 46? A person with Down’s Syndrome. Are they not human?
The vast majority of abortions are done prior to the fetus being able to think, feel or suffer. Note that all childbirth is done after that time.
The subject was whether or not a fetus is a human. Any being who requires outside help to live beyond a couple of minutes is not yet fully developed, fully human IMO. Since I base my opinion on biology, I’d say it is more valid than those who base it on what they think the sky fairy told them.
Doing so well then off the rails…
How long does something have to survive on its own before you deem it a living being worthy of protection?
What does that have to do with the biological definition of human?