Well having grown up Catholic this is exactly what they practiced and I wound up with 6 brothers. Maybe you should re read my post. I am against teaching abstinence only
While Yahoo calls it an "anti-abortion bill" in fact it was an "anti-women" bill that is inherently unconstitutional based upon the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade that established, based upon a medical diagnosis, a woman has a Constitutional right to a late term abortion. As the story goes on to address the Senate Republicans are set to attempt another "anti-woman" bill to ban funding for Planned Parenthood that's completely unrelated to abortion. While 100% of the services by Planned Parenthood are focused on the woman no federal funds are used by Planned Parenthood for abortion. This is about cutting funding for women's reproductive services other than abortion services. These are "anti-women" measures being promoted in the Senate by Republicans. Let's call a spade a spade and call it what it is. Of course none of this has nothing at all to do with the Pope. The Pope isn't a US citizen, has no influence in our political process, and we have a secular and not a sectarian government. The Constitution matters in US politics in the United States but the Bible doesn't. Perhaps Republicans should spend more time reading the US Constitution and Supreme Court decisions and lay down or even burn their Bibles if they want to represent the American People.
Not recalling other posts made are you opposed to the defunding of Planned Parenthood that provides contraceptive and pregnancy services using federal funding but that doesn't use any federal funding for abortions? The upcoming Republican Senate legislation to defund Planned Parenthood isn't about abortion because no federal funds are used by Planned Parenthood to fund abortions. It's about defunding the other 96% of the women's reproductive health services including pregnancy and contraception services provided for by Planned Parenthood.
I find it interesting that this renewed interest about abortion seems to coincide with Presidential election cycles. Isn't it odd that the "videos" surfaced just in time for the debates? It's almost like those pushing the agenda to defund Planned Parenthood are looking for a distraction from actually talking about the things people want solvedÂ… like the economy and jobs. They used to also drag out the issue of SSM, but this time, that issue has been put to bed (with the possible exception of one nut in Kentucky.) I guess they have finally figured out after 50+ votes that the ACA isn't going to be a winning distraction. When they no longer have this issue to distract, think they will finally talk about the economy? Somehow, I doubt it.
I dont think the bill would make all late term abortions illegal . Show me if Im wrong Theres the problem There is no way you or anyone else can guarantee this. Once more federal funding of any sort of welfare is unconstitutional
Yes, closing down PP will most certainly stop some of them. No if ands or butts about it. And didnt I correct you on the "poor women" falsehood last time? The majority of abortions are convenience driven, by people who are not poor. Thanks for the quotes, you saved me the trouble of digging. Speaking of madeup ridiculous statements again... To which you say... Derp.... Not quite. I see there will be times where it is unavoidable, and hard choices need to be made. However, whats happening today is people are using it as after the fact birth control so they dont ahve to inconvenience themselves or ruin the mood beforehand. I am not fine wiht this at all, and I am not alone here. We have made it too easy and too conveniently commonplace. Time to put the brakes on it in any way we can. I dont expect perfection, nothing will be...but we can reduce the numbers.
No Im against federal funding of abortions Im not opposed to PP. There are plenty of other places that provide better care and no abortions. There is no way to separate the monies privately donated from those donated by the feds.
Considering that late term abortions are only allowed based upon the criteria established in Roe v Wade then any further restriction would violate Roe v Wade. Of course the Republicans don't give a damn about the US Constitution or the Supreme Court decision on the matter of abortion just like they didn't give a damn about "equal protection under the law" enumerated in the 14th Amendment when it came to same-sex marriage. It's also evident that many don't care about the woman at all because 7% of Republicans polled a couple of years ago stated that abortion should never be allowed for any reason including cases of rape or when the life of the woman is at stake. Their belief is (*)(*)(*)(*) (you figure out the auto-edit) the woman when it comes to abortion and her Constitutional Rights.
Here we go again. And when you try and put forth this garbage next time, I'll catch you again and correct you for a third time. http://liveactionnews.org/rich-women-have-more-abortions-than-poor-women-study-finds/ Already refuted above. When it is the reason for destroying a Human life.... You're trying for the record for dumb questions I see. Ummmm....because only the pregnant Woman gets to choose to kill the baby obviously!!! Even your oft repeated tag line of "Womans right to choose"...leaves the Man outside looking in. Are you saying they both get to choose? or just trying to smokescreen your way out of another losing debate? Are you trying to pretend that if a Man decided he didnt want the baby to be delivered, he could tell the Mother so and she'd have to honor or consider it...anbd maybe put his wishes above hers? Who else is responsible for the choice of Abortion Fox? please tell me. When it comes down to destroying Human Lives? Better have a better need than "convenience". I set a higher bar for life than you do obviously. The only idiocy here is in your attempted rebuttals. Human lives trump the convenience of being able to go out to party on a whim, sorry Fox. LOL...I notice you couldnt stand on your argument without trying to change "abortion" to "doing everything" lol. Caught you again. no, we arent talking about a Job with convenient hours, or catching a bus that runs at convenient times, or hoping your favorite reality show is on at a time thats convenient...so lets leave out falsehoods like "doing everything" as it's a transparent moving of the goalposts. If your argument had any strength you wouldnt need to. it should tell you something. Thats funny to see...especially after you asked me above why i would lay the blame on the pregnant woman. Hahaha, nothing like watching as you tangle yourself up in your own posts answering questions for yourself you tried to ask me. Fail, as usual. Derpity (*)(*)(*)(*)ing derp.
Not even close. Red - Illegal Purple - Legal in cases of rape Blue - Legal in cases of danger to woman's health Green - Legal in cases of danger to woman's health, rape or incest, or likely damaged fetus Yellow - Legal upon request.
Really? Heres where you try and paint the picture of it effecting poor women. heres where for the second time I reminded yu that pitching it from the stance of poor women is dishonest. And here was your response to me reminding you well to do people had more abortions, and blowing your "poor women" propaganda up. And then I posted you the stats again. Now you're in another corner...and trying to smokescreen about talking numbers. Oh I get that! of course it is...however you dont get to snuff out a life just because it interferes with your kardashian marathons or Friday night's at the club. There are times when convenience is a legitimate argument....taking a baby's life is not one of them. Ummm...no. Not against all Wars at all, and Im very suspicious of the line of Lives ended or destroyed", because I know that you would consider a Woman having to say no to a fun weekend out due to a baby to be "her life is destroyed". So that one, I'll leave alone. It smells of a dishonest word framing. No, Im not selective at all. Innocent Lives, like babies, have done nothing to warrant destruction. In one breath you say She has all the say...in the next you ask why hold only her responsible. You just dont get it do you? You just cant get that the word convenience puts it on a lower level of concern. Far below the word life. The numbers indicate they arent all for rape or health reasons Fox. Convenience is the term you think is ok. When someone does something due to convenience there is nothing wrong with associating it to a whim. both are carefree terms. Not even close.
No, making abortions harder to get only makes some women more determined. The only proven methods of reducing abortion are education and availability of birth control. Remember women in the Texas Rio Grande Valley who got abortion drugs from across the border when TRAP laws caused abortion clinics in the area to close.
ROFL. Indeed. They truly are proposing a non-solution to the problem(what else is new for the Left? What have they honestly contributed since 1970?) In Medicare/Medicaid and Welfare, they've used the people's money(their property) via fiat taxation and the only thing they have to show for it is: A: Their programs are still bankrupt B: Many more Americans are in fact impoverished. When the Left says they stand for "America", they mean the Americans they kept poor, dumb and ignorant largely to continue voting for them. And now they'll cry "And you see yourself as being "non-offensive" to these groups!" Actually, yes I do. It's called tough love. It's called pointing these people in the right direction, even if they don't want to hear it. Real reform of our government institutions will enable you to get more benefits for less. Even better still if we can vastly increase your economic product so that you don't need these government programs. The "web" has trapped the people, not a trampoline which allows them to rebound. Should we on the Right succeed in this endeavor, it will go along way towards for example increasing the median income of all Americans, including women. Which will in turn legally make Abortion a thing of the past. Take note that 70% of abortions are largely economic. If economic conditions in the US improve and permit, many women and many families will be able to once again afford 3 children or even more. And so the Foxhastings of the world can have their "legal abortion", the numbers would just be obsolete as to even care. The health of the nation's vitality would return after a 30 year decline. This would be the best and most likely way we can rid or at least alleviate the stigma caused by a policy of massacaring the yet-to-be-born under a hypocritical claim of self-righteousness. A woman has absolutely no right to touch what a man couldn't, and a man doesn't have a right to touch what a woman couldn't. The arrogance of the pro-choicers is laughable, as they don't realize that their argument fails miserably under the Social Contract. But in this ideal, they can keep that "right".
Hey! These days they simply buy them off the internet - even here, well especially here where abortion is technically illegal but performed daily
And it makes others less determined to get one. When something is easilly obtained, more people are inclined. When it is harder to get, less people will go through seeking it and some lives will be spared. Thats a good enough goal for me. Bullcrap. We've been doing that for decades. it's not working. Condoms and other means of birth control are free or minimal cost at best, and education has been done as well. We're still averaging a million abortions per year. Keep in mind, the majority of Abortions come from Well to do people. Do you really think the availability of birth control was the problem? Education? LOL...no chance. Nope, dont recall that one...but it doesnt matter. As I agreed above, some will certainly seek every angle to get one...but some will not. It's a good enough start IMO.
What could be easier than pills from the internet? Of course, no medical supervision means women will die, but, oh well. The more local women's clinics are shut down, the more women will turn to the internet or a week-end vacation over the border. You're not listening. Please hear this: Abstinence-only sex ed is NOT really sex ed. Until every school in every county in every state is teaching age-appropriate sex ed to every child, we do NOT have sex ed in our schools. The most reliable birth control is also the most expensive, give people access to the best birth control available, and then put some money into developing better birth control. History and geography shows us that women will get abortions in the same numbers. Criminalizing abortion doesn't change the numbers.
Oh well, not worried about it. If a Woman is so determined ot kill that baby, let her take whatever risks she feels comfortable with. No need to make it easy and trouble free. Thats how we got to this place we are now in. Buy some cut rate pills from the net, and poison yourself...dont really care. You're still under the impression that we arent really talking about Laziness, and Convenience. Sorry, your way isnt working. I dont buy into that. Theres no way that with how easy we've made it to attain that numbers didnt increase. Sorry, just not buying it.
And you call yourself "pro-life"!!! And you will never see the irony in that. Your contempt for women is noted. My way, while proven to work on a limited basis, has never been given a wide-spread trial. There are no anti-abortion laws in Canada at all, and still their abortion rates are lower than ours. https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html Illegal Abortions Were Common Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.
""""""""""If a Woman is so determined ot kill that baby, let her take whatever risks she feels comfortable with. No need to make it easy and trouble free. Thats how we got to this place we are now in. Buy some cut rate pills from the net, and poison yourself...dont really care.""""""""" Thank you for once again admitting that you are not pro-LIFE but simply want to punish women for having sex...
I'm also Pro- Free Will. If the Woman chooses to buy mail order pills....swim in shark infested waters with a pocket full of meat....or decides it's a rush to base jump...Not my concern. Thats their choice. The difference is that I will not say "Ok Kill that baby" so she doesnt have to accept those risks. I cant tell her not to take them, but I have no responsibility to make it easy for her to snuff out that growing human life. No contempt at all. Your overvalue of one gender is also noted. This opinion that life is a plaything to be created and dumped on a whim, simply because you're female is nonsense IMO. Noone, regardless of gender, is born with such power. Im not surprised at all. Their rates of everything are lower than ours, because of a lower population.
