The next president's Supreme Court appointments could determine whether abortion remains legal, Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday night.
"The next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees, that's how close Roe v. Wade is," Vice President Joe Biden said.
His opponent, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), avoided a question about whether abortion-rights supporters should be "worried" about a Romney-Ryan administration while reiterating that he opposes abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest and when the life of a pregnant woman is at stake....
SA has a new sermon by Joey Faust, "Nazi Death Culture Arises". Eugenics alive and well right now.
solving the abortion conundrum, can it be resolved on managed care? managed care is now rationing who gets what, who deserves what, is the risk of cost to the system too great.....this would be reason enough for a hospital to recomend to a mother "for her health" to have an abortion.
The system, as it is, is too broken.
Now decentralized, where insurance and pharma doesn't decide, and truly the patient and doctor do not have these others making the decisions for them, and they can look at the realities they are facing, in that kind of situation, I would prefer that it just be left to doctor and patient.
But under current circumstances, doctor-patient decision, would really mean insurance-pharma-hospital-panel decision.
Thanks for both of your comments and thoughts. They do cause me to ponder what I am saying and that is always a good thing.
I have read where the true instance of the possibility of a mother dying while giving birth is so rare that it doesn't warrant a statistics. But, even if I am wrong, then it doesn't really change my thoughts on abortion. In our society, a woman gets an abortion because she wants one or because it is convenient. Now, if having a baby would cause her death, then she should have the right to say, her life or the life of the baby. Life is the issue and I don't see how I or anyone can tell a woman to do something that would cause her death. But, if someone felt that the mother "must" give birth, then I would understand that. What we have a tendency to do is find some kind of exception to a rule and then form our opinions using the exception.
My guess is a doctor would probably tell a woman that giving birth "might" cause her death? Now when someone rushes into a burning building to save someone; that might cause his death, but no one would say he was reckless with his life or that he didn't cherish his life because he did that, but just as suredly, it was his choice to do that and he would know of the possibility of death.
I'll be interested to read any replies because your two points are the exact scenarios that I've always questioned myself.
I've always tried to look at it as murder, is murder, is murder, but I've never been able to resolve these comfortably.
I know it's easy to say since I'll never be the woman or the girl, but in the case of the girl, as horrifying as the situation may be, have the child, put the child up for adoption, if necessary, and make long term, professional Christian councilling available to her. Personally, when it comes to murder, I just can't comfortably say, this situation is ok, but that one isn't. I'm against Capitol murder as well because I want everyone, no matter what they've done, to have every possible minute in this life to answer the call of God. Eternity is a long time and I would not wish Hell upon my worst enemy.
As for the woman that could be facing possible death upon birth, I'll look forward to any replies.
@ Frank and Servant. Of course when you look at abortion soberly, then it is nothing but murder. I won't argue about it, and in fact I am on your side when looking at the broad definition of abortion. However, what happens when one of the less than 1% of victims of rape or incest does indeed become pregnant. I'm not a fan of creating fantastic scenarios, but what would happen in a case in which say a 12 yr old becomes pregnant through no fault of her own? Will we really make sure she has the baby through government mandate?
Neither of you addressed "life of the mother" which would be a real concern with a girl as young as the one in my scenario. There are other complications that could come upon an expecting mother at any age. Does the innocent baby inside of her outweigh the mother's own life? Could it be called justifiable homicide?
Trust me, I'm not trying to defend abortion in any way. I always choose my candidate based on the abortion stance of their party, but there are tough situations out there.
On a side note...Adoption rules are so strict. A person needs to make so much money and be "financially stable" to adopt. The government makes it much easier to kill a child via abortion than to adopt one.
Unproitable Servant wrote: If a man, who say had three children, went out on a school playground and used a machine gun to take the lives of twenty-two children. Would we call it justice if the judge said, Just as you have made people childless, so will we do to you, and ordered his children put to death. We would all cry FOUL. The children should not be put to death for the sins of the father. Incest and rape abortions are less than one percent of the abortions performed. We don't punish the unborn child for the activities of the father. The victims do have a choice, they can chose to give life to that child and let a loving couple who can't have kids adopt it.
jpw wrote: The expectation is to comply, not choose.
It is happening all around us, jpw, and increasing daily.
I was meditating only this week on how the people of the UK are systematically being forced to comply concerning finances. We are now unable to use a cheque book in a shop, it is card or cash only.
My own bank has been taken over by Santander, of Spain. The account I have is free, but if I was to upgrade to a Santander account it would cost me a monthly charge. But this charge would be paid for by a cashback scheme, whereby if I have at least two direct debits to utilities, I would get a big discount on those bills, paid by cashback.
And I thought, "Yes, instead of reducing prices to a normal level, they put their prices up, and force you into a corner if you want to get the normal price you have to 1. Have a bank account. 2. Pay monthly charge for your bank account. 3. Have all your bills paid by direct debit."
Those who wouldn't comply, have to pay over the top.
Those who comply, imagine they are getting a great deal, saving money, getting a bargain. But they don't realise it is all leading somewhere, and they are being led by the nose as willing dupes of the system. Not long now!
jpw wrote: Good day Frank, Forcing doctors to not do treatments that have worked. Bill Gates said that hiring teachers was more important than saving grandma. The area of eugenics and depopulation is the "redestribute wealth to help the poor" jargon that is used to purge the life out of this generation. Its never done honestly. Does the baby have a choice? Then its not prochoice. Do people know the tumor studies, etc? Its hardly a secret. But no they do not know. Articles have been out recently, Bill Gates and others will put organics into their cafeterias, Romney for his wife to help with MS, in their campaign travels, food is organic. Time Magazine headline, "How to Die", Newsweek, "The Case for Killing Granny". The expectation is to comply, not choose.
Thanks for the clarification. I have been aware of Bill Gates and his depopulation goals through vaccines, but your post made me research it again. He is a very wicked fellow and there are many who laud his so-called giving to charities and make him out to be some kind if kind, generous man.
And, I will not call this a conspiracy theory, but a fact.
Mark M. wrote: ... The victims of rape and incest never had a choice. This shouldn't mean the baby automatically gets aborted...
If a man, who say had three children, went out on a school playground and used a machine gun to take the lives of twenty-two children. Would we call it justice if the judge said, Just as you have made people childless, so will we do to you, and ordered his children put to death. We would all cry FOUL. The children should not be put to death for the sins of the father. Incest and rape abortions are less than one percent of the abortions performed. We don't punish the unborn child for the activities of the father. The victims do have a choice, they can chose to give life to that child and let a loving couple who can't have kids adopt it.
the abortionist I talked with knew that gm foods would make people sicker and would be beholden to synthetic drugs.
Forcing people who are losing their jobs to pay into a system which will then decide if they have a right to treatment or not is eugenics. Forcing doctors to not do treatments that have worked. Bill Gates said that hiring teachers was more important than saving grandma.
The area of eugenics and depopulation is the "redestribute wealth to help the poor" jargon that is used to purge the life out of this generation.
Its never done honestly. Does the baby have a choice? Then its not prochoice. Do people know the tumor studies, etc? Its hardly a secret. But no they do not know.
Look at legislation on the ballot in California. People want to know if gm's are on their plate. The companies involved in gm's have spent millions to keep them from knowing. This is trickery.
Articles have been out recently, Bill Gates and others will put organics into their cafeterias, Romney for his wife to help with MS, in their campaign travels, food is organic.
Time Magazine headline, "How to Die", Newsweek, "The Case for Killing Granny".
Mark M. wrote: My opinions about abortion are clear. In my eyes it is murder, pure and simple. However, if the mother was a victim of rape, incest, or if her own life were in jeopardy
I agree with most of what you said, but there is an inconsistency there. If life begins at conception and a woman was a victim of rape or incest, what did the baby do that warrants it be murdered? The baby did no wrong at all. The mother "should" have the baby and then put him/her up for adoption if the memory is too painful. I'm sure you would agree with this thought, so I am a little unsure why you seem to be making an "possible" (not automatically aborted) exception for rape or incest. Now in the case of the death of the mother, then of course we don't have an argument.
A baby in the womb is either an innocent life or it isn't!
My opinions about abortion are clear. In my eyes it is murder, pure and simple. However, if the mother was a victim of rape, incest, or if her own life were in jeopardy (often in those cases there is a good chance that both baby and mother are at real risk of dying) then we come into a tough situation.
I always say that I'm pro-choice; the father and mother make that choice when they decide to have sex. Once the baby has been conceived, then it is a living being that shouldn't be murdered. The victims of rape and incest never had a choice. This shouldn't mean the baby automatically gets aborted. Counselling the mother about the nature of her child,and providing alternatives such as adoption would go a long way to save the baby. I would bet that most mothers would ultimately keep the child, and be better off for it.
A mother who is likely to die in labor should also be able to protect herself, even if it costs her the baby. Again, in that situation the mother has a better chance of surviving versus going through with the pregnancy and losing both mother and child.
In the end, if families would raise their children the right way, it wouldn't matter how many abortion mills were in the States, because they would only be used in the rarest of circumstances.
No, are only choice is Obama, since one doesn't know where Mitt stands he'll become pro-abortion again, when it suits his needs. Prolife Profiles: Mitt Romney.
Of course the real issue this election is to get reasonably honest politicians into office, Ah, just to remind everyone,
1 Corinthians 6 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.---NASB
I guess there is no one that's is truley pro life in politics any more the country is going down the drain economically and our dear leader Obama apparently can't fix it so we have no choice but to vote for a morman and a catholic who is kinda pro life
upset wrote: In a spiritually-desertified constitutional republic, what is the path into the Oval Office without compromising on life or marriage?
upset IMHO church going people are looking in the wrong place and direction.
Joel 2 speaks of weeping and mourning over a nations sins before God AND precious few are the Pastors who preach accordingly and call the people of their congregations entrusted to them to prayer, confession of sin, repentance and crying out to God for His mercy.
Playing church lays a huge foundation to giving empty lip service to the things of God, in this case being actually pro-life.
John for Jesus wrote: I agree with you Gop. It is funny to me that people will say the Romney-Ryan team is pro-life even though they support abortion.
It seems a Laodicean like (luke warm neither cold nor hot) attitude is even there in Roman Catholics and Mormons in this case give lip service to being pro-life but not so pro-life as to upset militant abortionist but rather attempt to appease them, while at the same time give the pro-life community a bone of words that don't mean all that much in the 'real' world of politics.