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."
#24. To: Artisan, FormerLurker, christine, Lod Horse, BTP Holdings (#20)
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.
Yeah, G_D wanted that woman to suffer a violent, life destroying rape and who is she to second guess The Almighty in such matters? A single sperm from an 85-IQ shitskin that doesn't end up in a down low ass is worth more than all of the women in the world, regardless of any specious assertion of a "woman's right to be free from forced pregnancy like a dairy cow."
She should be forced to carry a genetically predisposed to violence sperm to term even if she dies in childbirth lest she offend those who bury their secrets in Church and convent basements, and catacombs.
And, while they're at it why don't they force those women to breastfeed their unwanted near nig children? To deny those future ersatz Democrat-criminals the benefits of colostrum is racist! The children's health is paramount, at least until they begin injecting AIDS, HEP C, etc.,. And if a gifted kid makes the varsity football team then his mother should be available to feed him at half time, to improve his chances for the draft! Who cares what some Caucasian cow wants for her life?
And, former altar boys who bled from their rectums years ago should take the settlements and sign the non disclosure agreements, because that too is G_D's will. One Louisiana Archdiocese paid out a billion dollars in hush munny so The Church could continue to keep G_D's promise to the faithful.
well actually, justifying widespread legal abortion with an extremely rare 'hypothetical' of women who get pregnant from rape does not hold water, in my opinion.
It is up to each individual and their conscience what they would do in such a situation so I am not worried about it. I only replied since you asked. I do not believe in infanticide because it is murder. Murderers who do not repent will spend eternity in hell. That is not a good thing.
well actually, justifying widespread legal abortion with an extremely rare 'hypothetical' of women who get pregnant from rape does not hold water, in my opinion.
It is up to each individual and their conscience what they would do in such a situation so I am not worried about it. I only replied since you asked. I do not believe in infanticide because it is murder. Murderers who do not repent will spend eternity in hell. That is not a good thing.
Well, women and advocates need not justify it because it's an absolute privacy right. (If one had to justify the exercise of rights they'd be privileges).
And, your gratuitous use of the term "murder" only promotes moral confusion. CA has the best definition:
CA Penal Code Sec. 187: "The unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice."
A legal abortion is not murder. You may believe it to be the moral equivalent of murder, but your opinion stops at the edge of her right to privacy and the right to control her own reproductive system. (Some animal activists believe that "meat is murder" They find the word equally self serving in framing an otherwise losing argument)
There is no disputing that abortion has become the escape chute for millions of irresponsible people, but, strong govt breeds weak citizens, and nothing good can come from religious Jihadists in control of our country.
and nothing good can come from religious Jihadists in control of our country.
I wasn't advocating a theocracy, but I've read people who opine that a Catholic monarchy might be a good thing. :-)
I am not advocating that either, since I don't know much about it., and it occurred many centuries before I was on earth. Being an American citizen I can only go by what we have here, and prior to 1973 abortion was not widespread. I think going back to those days at least, would be better.
I will spare you the photos of aborted babies which clearly show it is an unjust killing, a grisly murder. I do not go by state law, especially California law. or U.S. law. "Thou shalt not kill" says it all.
I will spare you the photos of aborted babies which clearly show it is an unjust killing, a grisly murder. I do not go by state law, especially California law. or U.S. law. "Thou shalt not kill" says it all.
Thank you.
And what's this Gothic horror stuff about harvesting parts from fully developed, partially born babies? Profiteering ghouls must be writing the prevailing laws that allow such things. Although I don't advocate murder I can almost understand why some people's timing belts slip, causing them to harshly judge and punish others with the use of rifles or explosives.
In the words of a known ape kisser, Charlton Heston, "IT'S A MADHOUSE!"
And, the law aside, it's one thing to abort what is euphemistically termed "fetal tissue" in the first trimester. (Primitive tribes and ancient societies had ways of ending and preventing unwanted pregnancies)
But harvesting live infant parts is so offensive to the sensibilities of most that you'd think the courts could finally find an extreme upper limit to the right of privacy, even for young Jewish college girls who get knocked up from their obligatory affairs with nig...I mean, African Americans.