What government plans do you support to reduce abortions?

[JimR-OCDS]

You are choosing to believe crap that has already been debunked for the purpose of promoting an ungodly agenda.

Planned Parenthood has never been a for=profit business. It never sold fetal body parts. Abortions make up the smallest piece of pie in its annual budget.

I have experience with a friend's daughter who had an abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic.
She wanted the fetus that was aborted, but they refused to give it over to her. They sell the parts
to research clinics.

My cousin thought she might be pregnant and went to PP. She tested positive for being pregnant.
When she told them she was going to keep the child, they called her foolish and that she would
find life very difficult. Well, she had twins and they're adults now. One was in the Marines and the
other is an attorney.

Don't try and whitewash what PP does. They promote abortion and donate to proabortion political
candidates. PP could care less about the mother's they convince to kill their unborn children.

 

[Diamond72]

I was on Obamacare and have experience with it.
What experience do you have?

My experience with Obamacare is that my wife made me pay $800 for the privilege of NOT having insurance for my son. That was the only time in his whole life he went to the emergency room and the bill was $2600. I made her pay for it. I have good insurance though, so I have no room to complain.

 

[Diamond72]

My cousin thought she might be pregnant

That must have been before smart watches. Don't they have an app now you can just look at your watch to see if you are pregnant or not? Or is that just to monitor all of your female cycles so you know if you can get pregnant?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That must have been before smart watches. Don't they have an app now you can just look at your watch to see if you are pregnant or not? Or is that just to monitor all of your female cycles so you know if you can get pregnant?

Yes, the twins are now adults nearing 40 years of age

 

[JimR-OCDS]

My experience with Obamacare is that my wife made me pay $800 for the privilege of NOT having insurance for my son. That was the only time in his whole life he went to the emergency room and the bill was $2600. I made her pay for it. I have good insurance though, so I have no room to complain.

This doesn't make sense.

Pay for not having insurance?

 

[Diamond72]

Pay for not having insurance?

That is the way it was that year. My wife has spent tons of money on health insurance. But when she goes to file a claim it is as if nothing is covered. They are just about the richest insurance company with a value of $116 billion dollars. I told her, just take the money and put it in the bank and insure yourself. Even put it in a retirement fund and they will take it out for you. She would have like 30 or 40,000 in the bank if she had listened to me.

 

[Diamond72]

Yes, the twins are now adults nearing 40 years of age

My son died at 40. I think he had peter pan syndrome and he just did not want to have to grow up.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That is the way it was that year. My wife has spent tons of money on health insurance. But when she goes to file a claim it is as if nothing is covered. They are just about the richest insurance company with a value of $116 billion dollars. I told her, just take the money and put it in the bank and insure yourself. Even put it in a retirement fund and they will take it out for you. She would have like 30 or 40,000 in the bank if she had listened to me.

Well, for me it started on Romneycare. I had colon cancer and the insurance I purchased paid for everything, minus the deductible, which was less than $400.

They transitioned me to Obamacare when that became law. I kept the exact same insurance as I had under Romneycare.

In fact, when I turned 65, I had to go on Medicare, and it provides less than Obamacare did. Of course, the GOP and Trump trashed
much of Obamacare and the program went downhill some, but I was off it by then anyway.

 

[Darren Court]

The most frustrating part of discussing abortion with people who totally oppose it except to save the mother's life is when challenged, they never answer the title question. So I am putting it here hoping all abortion opponents will stop dancing around the extremely obvious and repeatedly proven fact that without a lot of help from the government, hundreds of thousands of pregnant girls and women need abortions for many justifiable reasons. It is literally impossible to oppose both abortion and all government programs that can prevent most of them unless you happen to be a misogynist whose real intention is to control women, which I am sure no Christians are because they believe in love.

One reason I am a Democrat is I want the number of abortions to drop. I want all of the reasons many girls and women suffer psychologically, physically, and socially during their unwanted pregnancies to nearly disappear. I also want the reasons women who wanted babies, but suddenly find themselves unable to care for them, to be gone. Only the federal and blue state governments can do that for them.

So, what do you want the federal government to do to help pregnant girls and women who lack the ability and resources to carry their unborn babies for nine months and take care of them for the next 20 years? What would be your plan if you were a politician? Would you prefer they get all their help from states or the federal government? Keep in mind we are not talking about crisis pregnancy centers here because they have very limited resources and, as Catholic Church-based organizations, will do nothing for non-Christians who need help. It truly is the government or nothing, no matter how she got pregnant or why she is considering abortion.

Herein lies the problem with the Christian pro-choice argument.

They focus on a small number of situations (mother's life at risk) in order to justify abortions in principle and then apply to situations where the mother's life isn't at risk!

So let me state unequivocally from the start.... if the mother's life is at risk, abortion is still absolutely without question wrong! However, if an unintended consequence of saving the mother's life, means the baby dies in the process, even knowing it was likely before hand, that it's not wrong. The purpose of the medical activities was to save a life not take a life.

So what do I want the federal government to do where mothers lack the means? That's simple... provide the infrastructure to ensure they can else the infrastructure to care for their babies outside of their care. This will almost certainly involve other agencies (like churches)

 

[GodLovesCats]

Herein lies the problem with the Christian pro-choice argument.

They focus on a small number of situations (mother's life at risk) in order to justify abortions in principle and then apply to situations where the mother's life isn't at risk!

So let me state unequivocally from the start.... if the mother's life is at risk, abortion is still absolutely without question wrong! However, if an unintended consequence of saving the mother's life, means the baby dies in the process, even knowing it was likely before hand, that it's not wrong. The purpose of the medical activities was to save a life not take a life.

So what do I want the federal government to do where mothers lack the means? That's simple... provide the infrastructure to ensure they can else the infrastructure to care for their babies outside of their care. This will almost certainly involve other agencies (like churches)

If the mother dies, so will the little one inside her. So there is zero justification for wanting to make no exceptions for life of the mother.

And if you do not care enough about the mother to save her life, you are violating the Second Commandment: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

The Christian pro-choice argument is not wrong at all when people are talking about rescuing the mother by aborting her offspring.

 

[Diamond72]

if the mother's life is at risk, abortion is still absolutely without question wrong!

If the mother's life is at risk, the baby is most likely dead and has no heartbeat. The real issue is Down syndrome. I have some friends at church who had their babies. Even though they were told to get an abortion. He was maybe 9 or 10 and look perfectly normal. So if he did have Down then it was very mild. My brother was actually a specialist on Downs and he ever wrote a text book on it for medical school students.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If the mother dies, so will the little one inside her. So there is zero justification for wanting to make no exceptions for life of the mother.

And if you do not care enough about the mother to save her life, you are violating the Second Commandment: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

The Christian pro-choice argument is not wrong at all when people are talking about rescuing the mother by aborting her offspring.

An indirect abortion can be performed in order to save the mother's life. This might mean inducing labor, despite
knowing the fetus will not survive birth.

This is not a direct abortion where the doctor directly kills the fetus in order to extract it in pieces.

 

[GodLovesCats]

An indirect abortion can be performed in order to save the mother's life. This might mean inducing labor, despite knowing the fetus will not survive birth.

This is not a direct abortion where the doctor directly kills the fetus in order to extract it in pieces.

No doctor kills a fetus for the purpose of breaking it into pieces. Whenever possible, they do it either vaginally or by doing a C-section operation. Abortionists are the ones who do what you described without any concern for whether a fetus feels pain or not.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

No doctor kills a fetus for the purpose of breaking it into pieces. Whenever possible, they do it either vaginally or by doing a C-section operation. Abortionists are the ones who do what you described without any concern for whether a fetus feels pain or not.

Yes they do, that's what a direct abortion is. The kill the fetus inside the mother and then dissect the
body of the fetus and remove the pieces. The body parts are placed into a petri dish in order for
the surgeon to know that everything was removed.

My aunt was a pro-choice surgical technician, until she assisted in her first abortion and
saw the body parts of the fetus in a petri dish. She saw a baby, and refused to assist in
any other routine abortions. She had the law on her side, but chose to retire rather than
go through the harassment the hospital administrators put her through.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The most frustrating part of discussing abortion with people who totally oppose it except to save the mother's life is when challenged, they never answer the title question. So I am putting it here hoping all abortion opponents will stop dancing around the extremely obvious and repeatedly proven fact that without a lot of help from the government, hundreds of thousands of pregnant girls and women need abortions for many justifiable reasons. It is literally impossible to oppose both abortion and all government programs that can prevent most of them unless you happen to be a misogynist whose real intention is to control women, which I am sure no Christians are because they believe in love.

One reason I am a Democrat is I want the number of abortions to drop. I want all of the reasons many girls and women suffer psychologically, physically, and socially during their unwanted pregnancies to nearly disappear. I also want the reasons women who wanted babies, but suddenly find themselves unable to care for them, to be gone. Only the federal and blue state governments can do that for them.

So, what do you want the federal government to do to help pregnant girls and women who lack the ability and resources to carry their unborn babies for nine months and take care of them for the next 20 years? What would be your plan if you were a politician? Would you prefer they get all their help from states or the federal government? Keep in mind we are not talking about crisis pregnancy centers here because they have very limited resources and, as Catholic Church-based organizations, will do nothing for non-Christians who need help. It truly is the government or nothing, no matter how she got pregnant or why she is considering abortion.

As an adult human, I do not see why one would believe it is the role of government to make plans to reduce the number of abortions, but I am always open to new ideas. Perhaps if you would tell me the government plans being proposed by those that declare they want abortion to be safe but rare, I could tell you which ones I would support? My thought is that if one does not want to have abortion , one doesn't get pregnant unless one wants to have children. I would encourage everyone to take that decision rather than to wait for some plans from the government. Why would those in government that are well funded by special interests which rely on abortions for their business model ever consider making plans to reduce them? Additionally, I am convinced that there is big difference between the meaning of the words "need" and "want". I question your assertion that there are hundreds of thousands of pregnant persons that need an abortion.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I don't know, cannot tell, if this is positive or negative.

Any government might "do that for them" - it is a daily. individual, and corporate choice.

However, it is very very sad to say that only government, any government, can do that for them.

I am specifically talking about the United States government with its abilities (unlike those of nonprofit organizations) to provide free health insurance, free pregnancy and maternity counseling, free professional childcare, tax breaks and discounts on two-bedroom apartments, and work-at-home education and job training. among other things. Nonprofit organizations are able to provide objects people donate to them, but they can't pay for all of her obstetrics appointments, online college classes (which require applying to become a student), her monthly rent, or a NICU baby's medical care if her baby is born prematurely. Only the government can mandate sex education at every non-religious school in America. Only the government can help pregnant women get tax breaks on employment and housing. Only the government can help every rape victim in America make the right decision for herself and her family, whether it is abortion, adoption, or keeping the baby. Some of it is simple math (too many pregnancies and not enough money), while other issues can't be fixed privately because only the government has certain powers.

But note that already, for thousands of years, the Almighty, the Creator,The Giver of all life, from Whom all things flow, has made provision for them.

Nobody kills a baby in an abortion, but God kills potential babies every day before and after women know they are pregnant. Why should we make a big deal about keeping every new human life alive when there is only a 1/3 chance it would become a baby naturally anyway? Since science has proven most pregnancies end in miscarriages, we should only be worried about abortions of fetuses, the "unborn babies" that are least likely to die either naturally or artificially before birth. It is stupid to get mad at a woman who had a miscarriage and that, not abortion, can be the most likely cause of her own embryo's death. That is why my deadline for abortions has always been based on the word "viability."

If My people . . . remember that? If His people DO what is right, DO what He says, no one will ever even say they need to kill a baby.

So you are saying even abortions to save the mother's life are always wrong? I will forever refuse to accept that opinion because only the mother is a person with any legal rights, including the right to life.

 

[StillGods]

adoption programmes for unwanted or unable to be cared for babies

 

[StillGods]

a friends daughter was going to have an abortion, I offered to take the baby and adopt it, but she had the abortion anyway. that was a very sad time for me.
but I would again offer to adopt a baby that was going to be aborted if I heard of another situation like that personally in my life.

 

[Fantine]

adoption programmes for unwanted or unable to be cared for babies

Haven't we tried that? How do you incentivize people to make a lifelong commitment to a hard to adopt child? Only unselfish unconditional love moves people's hearts, and there simply aren't enough people with those qualities.

 

[Lost Witness]

Haven't we tried that? How do you incentivize people to make a lifelong commitment to a hard to adopt child? Only unselfish unconditional love moves people's hearts, and there simply aren't enough people with those qualities.

Or it's just those people can't afford to adopt