http://news.yahoo.com/senate-dems-likely-block-gop-bill-curbing-abortions-073258882--politics.html This on the same day the Pope lands here Meanwhile the all you hear is Pope's pronouncements making trouble for GOP Catholics http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/popes-pronouncements-making-trouble-for-gop-catholics-118234 Pope Franciss Visit Spells Trouble for Republican Presidential Candidates http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/09/pope-francis-republican-presidential-candidates-visit The Pope vs. the GOP - CNNPolitics.com - CNN.com http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/21/politics/pope-francis-congress-republicans-politics/ How Pope Francis just destroyed the GOPs religious con artists http://www.salon.com/2015/06/19/how_pope_francis_just_destroyed_the_gops_religious_con_artists/ How is it that they dont mention the abortion bill? Is there any doubt that the media is on the side of the left? Will the Pope bring up this topic?
Personally I think it's because the Pope, while being against abortion itself, understands that Women sometimes feel no way out and take that as an option. I don't think he is draconian about it, as evidenced by relaxing the forgiveness rules.
So Democrats are for late term abortions. Not new information of course, but nice to see them sign onto that official stance with their votes.
Wel, I find this quite disturbing Its actually its 1.4% after 20 weeks and considering the CDC showed that 3,932,181 babies were born in the U.S. in 2013. In the United States, about half of all pregnancies are unintended. Of all unintended pregnancies, 4 in 10 are aborted. Thats quite a few
Doesn't matter if Pope brings it up because Lib's would ignore his view (if it goes against their's) or spin it away in a heartbeat. Liberals will never budge on the issue, ever. I mean, if they can watch the recent video's without budging, that pretty much tells you they never will. In fact, if anything I'd say it's far more likely they'll defend selling unborn babies for reseach using some logic like this; "Well, it may seem heartless, but better these unwanted babies serve a purpose than just burning them, right?"
When the number of abortions equals the number of women wanting an abortion the number is fine. A legal medical procedure cannot be rationed. - - - Updated - - - The Pope can visit, he shouldn't make laws or policies....if he doesn't like what America does, too bad.
the bill blocked abortions over 20 weeks, hardly a late term abortion bill... be honest so if the right supports the bill, that means they approve of abortions under 20 weeks? .
Thats even worse to hear. So after 20 weeks the left still thinks it's acceptable to destroy babies? I hope not. I'm hoping it's simply a safe starting point, and that more whittling down of the circumstances will continue once they get a footing. It wouldnt be the first time Ive been let down however.
I can't speak for other liberals, but I can speak for myself in saying, that while I don't encourage it, making it Illegal doesn't make it go away. Women still get abortions, but in unsafe, unclean situations, and a great many died from this. That is why it was made legal in the first place. Though researching Wikipedia brought this to my attention Now, does this mean that PP v Casey allows states to not allow abortions after a certain point already? This confused me so if you or any other legal types help me out, I would appreciate it
Getting people on record seems to be the motive here. Having done that McConnell should move on, get the budget passed and reap the political windfall heading into next year's elections. One of Obama's signal accomplishments as president has been his failure to sign a budget into law, even when Democrats controlled Congress. That irresponsible nonsense has gone on for FAR too long.
yep, yep, I would not force a rape victim to have a rapists baby at 30 weeks even if you give the state the right to force a women to give birth, the flip side is you give them the right to force them to abort as you have given the gov the choice
It isnt all rape victims or poor people. fact is the majority of them are simply people with money who dont want the inconvenience.
With all due respect, I think it's you who is not being honest here. As a parent, I find it absurd that anyone would consider 5 months an early point in a pregnancy. As Mello pointed out, most abortions occur well before that point. Around 90% are performed during what is actually considered an early term abortion, i.e., within the first trimester.
late term has always been considered 3rd term, trying to say 20 weeks is late term is being misleading we just need to leave it alone, very very few abortion happen at late term unless the mothers health is at risk .
it's easier to get an abortion early, most people would have the abortion much before that if simple to avoid the "inconvenience"
OK seems you may be right. I always thought there was an exception for the life of the mother being in danger however Heres where i made my mistake Sorry it was not a law https://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/LIFBFROE.TXT Am interesting read
Well, we've made it far too easy judging by the numbers. This is part of the reason people dont feel the need to insist on condoms or other methods of BC. We've made it so easy to be care free.
no, it's just fine, we need to increase education and easy access to birth control if we want to reduce abortions, I am all for that girls from private Christian schools are more likely to get an abortion then those from public schools, that should tell you something in fact 3\4 of all abortions are Christians getting them.... .
It sounds good, but ineffective IMO. Education is the script we've been running on, and the numbers are horrible. Sooner or later, we must realize education isnt the answer...it's convenience. People know exactly what they're doing.
