Obama signs order reversing abortion-funds policy (political, rating, state, religion)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder if much of the organized church opposition to abortion is simply an attempt to restore the cash flow they have lost with the reduction in the supply of adoptable babies. In the extreme case the priest knocks up the nun. Nun goes to "special" convent for six months to have baby. Priest is chastised and moved to another church. Baby is separated from its mother, with or without the mother's consent, and sold to the adoptive parents. Pretty much the same happens to the teen age girls from the "good" neighborhoods. Losing millions of essentially free salable product has had to hurt. Follow the money not the "morality" because there isn't any.
You don't really think that's an actual quote from Pelosi, do you?
He apparently doesn't realize that ScrappleFace is a SATIRICAL website. May as well link to The Onion. This is a degree of sophistication that is unfortunately commonplace over there to starboard...
Nothing scientific, but I have heard women who have had an abortions and then later have other children are pained by the thought of the child who isn't there. If they could change their decision, I expect most of them would.
Have you and your wife had a child every year since you were first able to? If not, you have done the same thing...pick and choose between which child to have and which not to have. You merely used a different means. Do you run about every day being pained by the thought of your children who aren't there?
But since you deceptively paint only part of the picture, let me put in a word for another group that is most definitely pained by the thought of a child who is not there -- those who blocked the path to an abortion and came home one day to find that their pregnant teenage daughter had killed herself instead. Yeah, most of them would like to have a do-over alright.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Adoption is always an option and the best option when keeping the child isn't practical. Local churches and pro-life organizations are happy to help in every way.
Thanks for not imposing your unfounded biases upon others. As for all this "help in every way" garbage, it costs about half a million dollars to raise and educate a child from age 0 to age 18. With about 1.3 million abortions per year, that's an annual unfunded liability of about $650 billion that pro-lifers and their faux crisis pregnancy centers will need to be taking on. And people think the numbers for Medicare look bad???
On the one hand, I don't like unnecessary abortions. On the other hand, I don't like coat-hanger quacks. One thing I do know, is that if abortions are here to stay, women should not wait until after the first trimester before having one, otherwise, have the baby.
I see no good solution to this problem, except to hope that the numbers keep coming down.
And to a few of the others, I'm not the least bit religious.
Remember, these are groups giving aid, usually to dirt poor countries in Africa. I don't think anyone would argue that if everyone lived in Walnut Grove or was a member of the Walton family then abortion wouldn't be needed.
i found the silence of the churches on both the death penalty, and the Israeli bombing of Gaza shows their true colours.
They support the "Thou shalt not kill" line, as long as only women are hurt by it.
Aid is aid: when you start adding strings it becomes foreign policy.
On the one hand, I don't like unnecessary abortions. On the other hand, I don't like coat-hanger quacks. One thing I do know, is that if abortions are here to stay, women should not wait until after the first trimester before having one, otherwise, have the baby.
Luckily, the numbers show that the overwhelming majority don't wait past the first trimester.
Nothing scientific, but I have heard women who have had an abortions and then later have other children are pained by the thought of the child who isn't there. If they could change their decision, I expect most of them would. Adoption is always an option and the best option when keeping the child isn't practical. Local churches and pro-life organizations are happy to help in every way.
Claims that women who have elective abortions will experience psychological distress have fueled much of the recent debate on abortion. It has been argued that the emotional sequelae of abortion may not occur until months or years after the event. Despite unclear evidence on such a phenomenon, adverse mental health outcomes of abortion have been used as a rationale for policy-making. We systematically searched for articles focused on the potential association between abortion and long-term mental health outcomes published between January 1, 1989 and August 1, 2008 and reviewed 21 studies that met the inclusion criteria. We rated the study quality based on methodological factors necessary to appropriately explore the research question. Studies were rated as Excellent (no studies), Very Good (4 studies), Fair (8 studies), Poor (8 studies), or Very Poor (1 study). A clear trend emerges from this systematic review: the highest quality studies had findings that were mostly neutral, suggesting few, if any, differences between women who had abortions and their respective comparison groups in terms of mental health sequelae. Conversely, studies with the most flawed methodology found negative mental health sequelae of abortion.
That's the sort of thing you'd expect to see if right-to-lifers were deliberately running corrupt methodologies that would deliver the sort of results that they had hoped for. But surely, none of them is doing that...
You are right; NOBODY has the right to kill children.... Thankfully science supports the fact that undeveloped fetuses are not alive and therefore not "children" throughout the early period of time in a pregnancy abortions are legal(thus they can't be "killed"), and our laws protect scientific fact.
Undeveloped fetuses? Until Bush sign a law banning late term abortions Obama supported every level of abortions. Many late term abortions were performed on children that could of easily survived. Yet they killed them.
Are laws protect scientific fact, to bad our laws back then did not protect the children they murdered.
People need to start separating their religious views from their American views. Its like just because you are obligated by religion to feel one way or another about an issue, doesn't mean that you should morph that into your political belief also. I don't believe that abortion is right, in fact I believe it is wrong, but it is necessary. If we had a vote tomorrow deciding whether it was legal for people to spout racist views and be neo nazies, it would obviously get shot down in a heartbeat, but that doesn't mean that follows America's given rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the real world
