There are also no scientific grounds to denying people the right to kill their dog. But we do, because the law is nothing but the formalisation of society's belief system.
Interestingly, part of the pain many women feel after having a miscarriage is caused by the fact that so many people tell her it's not so bad because it was just a fetus. In fact, I would wager that if society normalized (with attendant rituals) mourning for a miscarriage as much as they do for...
Good question!
God can only redeem those who repent. God can't redeem Lucifer because Lucifer is wholly given to evil and can't repent, in the same way and to the same extent that God is wholly given to good and cannot regress and become evil.
Well that is precisely the point isn't it? America as a country has a long standing policy of not using tax money to fund or subsidize abortions. But it appears Obama had been side stepping this principle when it comes to international organisations. That fact that, without US money they would...
The question is why would it lead to "unsafe" abortions. Why wouldn't those organisations just provide the abortions for the women who need them as they had been doing before they got defunded?
You are not answering the question. This has nothing to do with a country's laws - these organisations would not be advising on or carrying out abortions in countries where it is illegal. These organisation are there providing abortion services - so if a woman needs abortion they can obtain it...
Why are we so casual in accepting abortions? This logic you are using is the same as saying men should have unfettered access to all women so that they will never find themselves needing to rape anyone. It's ridiculous - what happened to personal responsibility and respect for human life?
Even if the abortions go up there these same organisations are providing abortion services so they can continue to do so. The HP journo believes "unsafe abortions" will increase. The question is why? If these organisations are defunded from providing non-abortion services they should be able to...
The article in the OP is not talking about PP. It is talking about international organisations. Why does the author of the HP article assume women will turn to unsafe abortions when they are defunded from providing services that have nothing to do with abortion (or so they claim)? Is it maybe...
This question was directed at another poster - that poster claims PP would shut down without government funding.
As for you the question as I have asked of you is to confirm whether the HP journo is confused and irrational in her assessment of the impact of Trumps order.
You are not addressing the logical issue. You claim they don't because they're not allowed to and because they say they don't. And yet you claim they would not be able to provide abortion services if the government stopped funding them. How is this NOT a contradiction?
Okay so you would agree with me then that the HP journo's fears that "Trump’s executive order has severe implications and could be deadly for women and girls in developing countries and conflict zones, who often resort to dangerous methods of ending their pregnancies when they lack access to...
So clearly tax-payers are subsidizing abortions, no? If they weren't then they should not have a problem continuing to provide the 3% of their services once the funding for the 97% is gone.