In my opinion, none. In reality, it is a factor if not the overriding reason in a majority of abortions.
In other words, you don’t know. “Financial reasons” could be money for a vacation trip, or food, but you don’t know which is sufficient for how many.
Why don’t you support a strong social safety net to reduce the number of abortions?
I certainly support a strong medical safety net. Whether that would reduce abortions is hard to know. Personally, though, I doubt it is sufficient. I am very familiar with the birthing homes of Catholic Charities in this diocese, and it takes a lot more than Medicaid to provide sufficient support to a woman who really is in danger of abortion for financial reasons. A lot more. I am also familiar with some of the Sisters of Life and their mission. Again, just providing welfare is not enough.
For those for whom (as Obama said of his children) a baby is merely a burden relative to the lifestyle wants to have, no “social safety net” will suffice, because finances aren’t the real reason.
The people that have opinions on it are called ‘scientists’ and the vast majority believe it is real.
I have seen the credentialling of huge numbers of them, and few are trained in anything remotely resembling “climate science”. But they write about it anyway. I have also seen contrary numbers that are just as large as the numbers cited as being the “overwhelming majority” of those who promote MMGW.
Pope John Paul II applied just war doctrine and determined it was not a just war.
We have visited that before. As you know, he premised his opposition to it on the belief that the UN could resolve Saddam’s intrnasigence. In any event, the statement of it as being unjust was from Pio Laghi who announced that the Vatican’s position was that the war could only be just if authorized by the UN. Conversely, if the UN sanctioned a war, it would be just. What “the Vatican” didn’t take into account was how deeply Saddam had bribed UN officials.
Oh, I think we both know that isn’t the torture we’re talking about.
Define it for us then, in a way that doesn’t include law enforcement as we know it or war.
That’s way less than the percentage of scientists (real scientists) think that climate change is real
No. We have seen repeatedly on here that a majority of actual scientists do NOT support the liberal position on “climate change”. When it comes to endorsement of the “orthodox” view, a small minority of published papers actually support it.
Ian Plimer: 97% Of Scientists Agree On Nothing - The Global Warming Policy Forum
But this debate could go on for thousands of posts and has in the past. It is not my intention to start that, but only to dispute your assertion that more than 2/3 of the scientists who write about MMGW hold the full position.
