(no message)
Link: https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2019/05/19/notre-dame-de-lourdes-church-abortion-rights-graffiti/
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Apparently Hitler wanted more babies. As long as they were German babies, natch.
Link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1972501?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
"In 1933, when the Nazi’s came to power, the law was changed to legalize abortion and make this a matter of decision for a medical review board. The development of Germany’s abortion policy was left to the county’s most vociferous abortion advocacy group, the Berlin Chamber of Physicians. This group, which advocated abortion on demand, determined that “The health of the mother – considered from all angles – is the decisive factor.” Then, just as now, health of the mother criterion was loosely understood to mean any economic or psychological affect on the woman’s total well being.
There were approximately 500,000 abortions annually in Germany under the Third Reich, a country of 60 to 70 million people. And, in Nazi Germany, racial stock was considered an aspect of the health of the mother. If she was from an “unhealthy” race, such as Polish, Czech or Jewish, then she was often forced to have an abortion against her will. However, race wasn’t the only consideration. Hitler actively promoted the destruction of the crippled, poor and unemployed classes, as did Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Abortion led to forced sterilization, which led to “euthanasia,” which led to Auschwitz."
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
But they will never grant that status to each other.
There is no issue that generates worse opinions of the other side in this country right now. It's incredibly poisonous.
the public at large.
Most favor the right during the first trimester, but don’t favor it after that. That is the European model. Most don’t favor it for things like gender selection. Most are against third trimester abortions. Most want an exception for rape and incest.
I have my own views, but I could accept this as it would save many lives.
Would be good if we could legislate the middle view as you outlined it.
The question is, why can't we? I guess it is our primary process for selecting candidates. The two-round election system does not seem to be amenable to letting moderates win elections.
They are fanatic. While I personally sympathize with the ends and motives of the pro lifers, have to say they are as bad in their tactics as the other side, if not worse sometimes. I’m talking the hardcore elements on both sides, not the Knights of Columbus rosary rallies.
These hardcore elements drive both political parties, although both are well out of the mainstream.
Die-hards on both sides dominate the debates (since they are the ones most inspired to take part in them). They think the absolute worst of the other side, which stops any possible compromises from happening.
(no message)