On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at a campaign event in Manchester, New Hampshire, a man at the town hall told Donald Trump he's "opposed to wasting our military in the Middle East on behalf of Zionist Israel."
Trump replied "Israel is a very, very important ally of the United States and we are going to protect them 100%. 100%. It's our true friend over there."
Later, Trump added "That was a tough question on Israel. That was nasty. Whoa."
The man who asked about "Zionist Israel" also said"I'm opposed to the murder of unborn babies being legal," to which Trump replied "We are with you."
That has always been a touchy subject. A total ban on abortions would be too harsh since there are times when a woman cannot be expected to bear a child. If there are congenital problems or the pregnancy is from a rape, abortion should be considered.
But then I went to High School with a kid. He got his girlfriend pregnant and they had to drop out. ;)
That has always been a touchy subject. A total ban on abortions would be too harsh since there are times when a woman cannot be expected to bear a child. If there are congenital problems or the pregnancy is from a rape, abortion should be considered.
I understand rape is a terrible crime but why sentence an innocent to death over it? abortion should not be legal, period.
any mind-twisting or attempted justification for infanticide is straight from hell. it really is as simple as that. :-)
Would you oppose giving rape victims a morning after pill to prevent conception before the swimmer even makes it to home base?
I agree that is a specific distinction, since conception has not occurred, supposedly, but even that is not cut and dried. (see below.) The short answer is yes, I oppose RU486. Because catholics are not against 'contraception' depending on whether or not conception has occurred, they are against contraception because it is inserting human will and interest in place of God's. I should note that I am referring to the actual catholic teaching, not what a large majority of cafeteria catholics spout or practice.
Natural family planning which involves abstinence at times is actually accepted and taught by parishes worldwide. imagine that! having to abstain periodically instead of using a rubber or death pills! :-)
How long does a typical RU486/PG abortion take and how many steps does it involve?
An RU486/PG induced abortion can take days, weeks, or never happen at all. It typically involves three (or more) visits to the doctor's office over a two week period.
In her first visit, a woman is "counseled," given a physical examination, perhaps an ultrasound, and if there are no obvious contraindications (common red flags such as high blood pressure, diabetes, heavy smoking, allergies, etc. that could make taking the drug deadly or dangerous for her), she is given the RU486 pills, which she takes in the presence of the abortionist.
Two days later, during a second visit to the doctor's office, she is given the prostaglandin, which she takes orally or has inserted vaginally. Gradually, as the drug begins to take effect, she experiences powerful, painful uterine contractions which begin to work to expel the baby.
In U.S. trials, about half (49%) aborted during the four hours they spent waiting in the doctor's office following the administration of the prostaglandin. An additional 26 % aborted sometime over the next 20 hours, on the bus ride home, at work, in the shower, etc. The rest who aborted did so at some point during the following two weeks. Between 8% and 23% (depending on how many weeks pregnant the mother was) never completely aborted or didn't abort at all using the drugs.
A third visit some 14 days from the woman's initial visit allows the doctor to confirm whether or not the abortion has been completed. If it hasn't, the abortionist will encourage the woman to undergo a surgical abortion to guard against the possibility that she will give birth to a child who may have been injured by the drugs.
A recent study appearing in the August 16 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine reports that the abortion drug RU486 is as safe as having a surgical abortion. However, the study is being spun in favor of the abortion industry by the mainstream media.
The study has concluded that the risk to future pregnancies after a RU486 abortion versus a surgical abortion is equal. Journalists have interpreted the finding to mean that the abortion drug is safe, when in fact, neither is ever safe.
It is a leap in logic to say that both methods are safe, says Operation Rescue Senior Policy Advisor Cheryl Sullenger.
"Women are dying at an alarming rate from RU486 abortions and its widespread misuse in the abortion industry,” she told LifeSiteNews.com.
"Women who have had abortions have greater risks of miscarriage and infertility than women who have not had abortions,” she added.
Sullenger noted that the study did not compare women who had RU486 abortions with women who did not have any abortions.
“It is no accident that the study refused to compare these two groups of women, because we know they would have found that abortion hurts women, and that is obviously a conclusion that they did not want to reach," Sullenger was quoted as saying.
RU486 is a drug approved for aborting children who are at six weeks or less in their development. Three office visits are usually required for this kind of abortion. Some reports indicate that RU486 has a 15% failure rate, and that many women who receive the drug must also have a surgical abortion to completely remove the pre-born baby and other pregnancy tissue.
"Hiding the possibility of RU486's life-threatening dangers from women really shows that there is more concern [among the media] for selling abortions than for protecting and informing women,” Sullenger continued. “This misinformation campaign is really a horrific thing when you think about it that could needlessly cost women's lives."
Well, If The Church becomes the overriding authority on such legislation, then what about "the wall of separation"?
Actually, in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, President Jefferson wrote that "....there ought to be a wall of separation between church and state". Perhaps so, but his words only confirmed that no such wall existed. The first amendment bound the govt from "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." It did not prevent men of moral strength (or excessive zeal) from agitating for whatever changes they could effect by terrifying politicians-for-life seeking re-election. But, federal judges don't fear the electorate, and they have decided that a woman's body is first and foremost her own private property, and not subject to legislation from politicians who are terrified by religious voting blocs.
And I happen to believe that with the current state of immorality in Washington, S.G. (Sodom & Gomorrah) that "If men got pregnant then abortion would be a sacrament". The voices of religion would have no more success at trying to outlaw abortion than they would at trying to impose term limits on congress.
If a little bit of religion in govt is good, then a lot is better, right? If by some act of Allah (pbuh) the US becomes a majority Muslim country, could you as a minority Catholic oppose sharia law and demand that your Church remain the de facto prevailing religious authority?
Congress is already overreaching as it expands govt oversight and authority into our lives. Do we really need moral relativists, Rasputins and self styled Lotharios-serial rapist Clinton types probing our lifestyles to determine if we're safe from eternal damnation? (Penetration is sin but a BJ in the Oval Office is Heavenly!")
Even the guillotining of doctors who perform abortions would never close the door for powerful people in the Beltway (or Wall Street or Hollywood) who require discreet terminations. (Picture an alternate history where Denise Rich called Bill Clinton for "a favor for a friend")
Even if they're performed in a Capitol clinic (to assure the privacy of full figured govt secretaries and teenaged house and senate pages. For the rich and powerful there's no difference between an abortion and a D&C) the legal proscription would only affect and oppress the poor and powerless, just as the laws did before Roe v Wade.
The same religious voices that agitated for those laws never seemed to object to the escape chutes built in for the politicians who passed those laws. Now, why was that? I believe that politicians who do the bidding of activist Churchians are free to sin like Hell, as are the pontificating hypocrites whose empires would be flattened by exposure of their sins.
But, let some poor jigaboo or white trash topless dancer seek an abortion and, Hellfire and Damnation!