NBER isn’t a clinic (from Abyssinia’s link):What else would supporters of abortion rights say? Who profits if there are less clinics? How can one predict less abortions resulting from less clinics by using clinic figures?
NBER info:
Did I say it was a clinic? I asked who profits if there are less clinics and how can clinic numbers tell us what will happen if there are less of them.
Unless one were to believe that 100% of the women considering an abortion are willing to break the law, travel to obtain one, etcetera, then it is logical to believe that abortion restrictions will restrict and decrease the number of abortions.
Thanks for the reference. It’s been my perception that statistics based on self-reporting are often problematic. In this case, I can easily imagine why a woman who became pregnant by a family member would not report that information. Rape is also a notoriously under-reported crime.
Presidents don’t elect SCOTUS justices, they nominate them, and those nominations must be approved by the Senate. If Romney nominates an individual who has expressed a strong opinion against *Roe * – or any other established precedent – that nominee will likely have a very tough time getting through the confirmation process. Senators seem to prefer nominees who have expressed a willingness to hear the facts of cases before making up their minds.
If exceptions are given for rape, what do think that will do to the number of women who claim that their pregnancies were the result of rape?
My point was that if a Democrat is interviewed on EWTN and is questioned about abortion – after giving Romney a complete pass on the subject – then EWTN will have been proven – beyond any doubt in my mind – to be a partisan organization. That you would think that even a prominent pro-life Democrat would have little chance of being interviewed reinforces my opinion of their partisanship.
From what I’ve seen, people are less disapproving of late term abortions when exceptions for the life of the mother are included. Also, as I’ve asked twice now, if Romney thinks that abortion can be justified in cases of rape and incest, on what grounds would he object if a resulting abortion was performed after the second trimester?
So, do you think it’s double - 2%? Triple - 3%? My math says that it is still a very small percentage of abortions.
Senators approved of the conservative/constructionalist judges currently on the bench, and they will approve of more. They can’t approve any, if the president doesn’t nominate them.
Possibly increase. What percentage increase in rape claims do you think is realistic?
That’s simple. You put a time restriction on such exceptions. Or, do you think it takes a couple trimesters for a woman to realize she was raped and/or had sex with a relative?
Many would say the problem is we just haven’t killed enough children yet.Oh wait…I know the answer…we need to increase government even more and spend even more. Brilliant!
Are polls on abortion use anonymous? If they are, what reason would women have to hide the reason for abortion. Many women who conceive of rape do keep the baby; there are many stories
Do not think position of a judge on roe will be a major factor in senators decision
Poland has exception for abortion when the baby is seriously malformed, pregnancy result of criminal act or when woman’s life is endangered by continuing pregnancy
If there are few of any group there is less chance they will be interviewed
Has not been asked to Romney. Assume it would be as rlg94086 said
I suppose it doesn’t make much difference if 10K or 30K abortions are being justified in cases of rape or incest. The question remains, however: In Catholic moral theology, may one choose a lesser evil over a greater one? Can the ends justify the means?
What a nominee professes to be during the confirmation process is not a perfect predictor of how they’ll perform on the bench. Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts are all regarded as conservatives, yet all four took a decidedly activist tack by ruling broadly in a case that could have been decided on very narrow grounds and overturning more than 100 years of precedent in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
I don’t know.
That’s a mechanism, not a justification. I’d still would want to know Romney’s moral argument for allowing abortions in those instances up to a certain point in time, but not beyond. Remember too that Romney would also allow abortion in cases where the life of the mother is endangered and, as far as I know, those types of threats can occur at any time during a pregnancy.
Take him at his word, and hold him accountable for choosing good justices. All he can do is make small changes to the laws at the margins - Mexico city policy, etc. - and use the bully pulpit. The real change will have to come from the supreme court.
That’s a fair point, but I still think, given the opportunity, that the average woman would rather claim any reason for terminating her pregnancy other than incest.
I think you’re dreaming.
This is what is so frustrating about the whole thing and why I was banging on the EWTN interview issue. Romney’s position on abortion differs significantly from that of the Catholic Church, but no one, as far as I can see, is asking him to justify his views. Does he justify his exemptions because he doesn’t consider those fetuses to be human; to not have souls; because he’s merely going along with public opinion or the LDS’s position? No one seems to care what his reasons are. It really does seem that all that matters is that he isn’t Barack Obama.
Historically, since the Roe V Wade decision in 1973, the justices that are more likely to vote to overturn Roe V Wade came when the senate was controlled by Republicans. Conversely, judges that would uphold Roe came when the Democrats had the power in the senate - think of what happened to Bork. The only way for a GOP president to get a justice approved by a Democrat senate is to nominate mystery justices and hope they end up being constructionist. The results of this situation are Anthony Kennedy and Souter, to name two. Those who say, " the GOP isn’t serious about abortion because they never outlawed it when they had the chance" don’t have a clue about political reality and what lengths the Democrats will stoop to ensure the survival of legal abortion. Have the Republicans been blameless? No. Have they made bad choices? Yes. But they often had very little power in those cases.
So which do you think would be worse? Voting for Romney only to find out he is insincere? or not voting for him, only to find out that he was sincere?
If he isn’t elected, how would anyone be able to know if he was sincere or not?
We’ll never know unless he is elected would we? But saying we could somehow know - say after we die. Which would be worse? Voting for him and he wins but was insincere. OR not voting for him, he loses, but he was sincere and we lost the opportunity to change things.
It isn’t an “ends justify the means” sort of question. It is voting for the candidate who will lessen evil, versus a pro-choice, pro-gay “marriage” president.
Simple. In the HHS controversy we are fighting for our freedom regarding a piece of legislation we can help to change. In the matter of an election, we are choosing the best candidate available.
That has nothing to do with my response.
However,We are more likely to have pro-life support from a constructionist candidate than a liberal, strongly pro-choice candidate, which is what Obama puts forward.I suspect it will be relatively insignificant. Another poster provided the result of such a change in Poland, and it was minor. You are throwing up a relatively meaningless objection,
Again, you are arguing over a very small percentage of abortions in order to discount a candidate that has a far superior stance to the president. The Church allows us to vote for perfection, if we want, or not vote, but she also allows us to use the brain God gave us to vote to lessen evil.
Right. You are hung up on him justifying his views on a very small percentage of abortions. Do I agree with him? Nope. Do I hope he comes to a fuller understanding of the value of a human life? Yep. Is he still far and away the better choice versus a person who favors complete, unrestricted abortion? Of course, he is. It is a no-brainer.
Fantastic! I hope he comes even further and recognizes the Catholic Church’s viewpoint on abortion. For now, I’m happy he’s come this far.
