Shhh! Don’t Tell Evangelical Supporters of Israel, but Abortion There Is Legal — and Often It’s Free

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  hallux  •  2 weeks ago  •  55 comments

By:   Allison Kaplan Sommer - Haaretz

Shhh! Don’t Tell Evangelical Supporters of Israel, but Abortion There Is Legal — and Often It’s Free
Neither religious conservatives nor liberal feminists are completely satisfied with the status quo in the Jewish state, but the current system allows some 40,000 women to have abortions annually

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



For Israelis, the affinity of President Donald Trump’s evangelical supporters for the Jewish state has been a bonanza. From the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the Golan Heights as being under Israeli sovereignty and refraining from condemnation of any Israeli military action, the White House has been the gift that keeps on giving. And credit for that is widely acknowledged to be his desire to please his staunchly pro-Israel Christian base.

However, while Israel and the Christian right may be in harmony on U.S. foreign policy, Israeli attitudes and the country’s laws radically diverge from evangelical beliefs on the issue that matters most to hard-line conservative Republicans: abortion.

Extremely restrictive new state laws have ignited a new firestorm of controversy over abortion in the United States . But in Israel — a country where almost everything is arguable, and argued about — abortion laws remain surprisingly, consistently liberal and uncontroversial.

Israeli abortion law has something for everyone: A semblance of regulation for conservatives, but a reality in which almost any woman who wants an abortion is able to have one — and an estimated 40,000 Israeli women annually have them.

For an Israeli woman who wishes to end a pregnancy, the process is not only legal but is usually heavily subsidized or free, covered under Israel’s national health care system.

The existing abortion law was passed in 1977. Under the law, the procedure is fully legal under any of the following conditions:

* The pregnant woman in question is under 18 or over 40
* The woman is not married

* The fetus has a serious mental or physical defect
* The pregnancy is the result of rape, incest or adultery
* If carrying the pregnancy to term “is liable to endanger the woman’s life or cause her physical or emotional damage”

A separate committee exists for late-term abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy.

For teenagers and soldiers serving in the Israel Defense Forces , abortions are fully funded by the state. And in a revision of the national health coverage law in 2014, abortions became free to all women between 20 and 33 regardless of their circumstances, in order to help young women who cannot afford to pay even a heavily subsidized fee for the procedure.

In practice, this means that legal abortion is easy to obtain at no cost except for those who are married and are of standard childbearing age — between 18 and 40.

But even though abortion is legal and often free, this does not mean the state gives all Israeli women the right to choose.

Any healthy married woman between 18-40 who wants a free or heavily subsidized abortion in a public facility must face a pregnancy termination committee — composed of social workers and doctors — giving them justifications for the decision in order to have the abortion approved.

Often, women resort to white lies in order to meet the official criteria, saying they are mentally unstable or that the husband is not the father of the child, even when it is not the case.

A study by the Central Bureau of Statistics examining all abortions in Israel in 2016  found that 9 percent of pregnancies in Israel are legally terminated. That year, 18,032 women applied for approval to abortion committees to end their pregnancies; of those, 92.3 percent were approved. Nearly half of these women told the committee they had been impregnated by a man they were not married to.

Longer-term studies have found that the approval rate is even higher than 92 percent, with more than 96 percent of women’s applications approved.

The 2016 study did not account for the women who opt for private abortions, thus avoiding the committee process. If a woman has several hundred dollars, obtaining a private abortion in a doctor’s clinic rather than a public hospital is the more efficient route. Though technically such physicians are breaking the law, the practice is common and widespread, allowing any woman — regardless of her marital status, age or personal situation — to obtain an abortion discreetly and far more quickly than the official process. No doctor has ever been prosecuted for doing so.

The strongest evidence that the Israeli public, and its political and religious leadership, is essentially content with the current arrangement is the fact that any  attempts to challenge or change it have met with widespread opposition.

Such attempts to rock the boat have been few and far between: The last time a serious attempt was made to change the status quo was in 2006, when a bill introduced by then-Meretz MK Zehava Galon — which would have eliminated the abortion termination committees — was soundly defeated by an overwhelming majority.

Then-Health Minister Jacob Edery said the government, led at the time by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, opposed the bill because it did not believe “now is the time to reopen this complicated and problematic discussion. We must remember that the termination of pregnancy is a complicated and sensitive social issue, and every change is a change in the status quo between different worldviews.”

In 2013, when Israel’s two chief rabbis issued a letter in support of an antiabortion organization called Efrat, saying they wanted to make “the wider public aware of the extreme seriousness involved in killing fetuses, which is like actual murder,” the backlash was fierce — not only from feminists and the left, but from some of their fellow Orthodox rabbis. One leading rabbi, Benny Lau, sharply criticized the declaration

"The statement ‘Abortion is murder’ is not legitimate. I understand the motivation to fight against extreme liberalism, but a lack of balance is very dangerous to the social structure,” he said. “A religious society is obligated to take things in a balanced way. The Efrat association does not have this balance; there is no balance. Taking our Torah in the direction of Christian Catholic canon law is a terrible mistake.”

For the entire past decade of Prime Minister  Benjamin Netanyahu ’s domination of government, abortion laws have remained untouched. In 2017,  a proposal was floated  that would change the status quo and invite religious input into abortion committee decisions. The reaction was fierce: Female legislators denounced it in the Knesset, women took to social media calling for rabbis to be “kept out of our uterus!” and the proposal died a swift death.

To be sure, neither religious conservatives nor liberal feminists are completely satisfied with the status quo. Jewish and Muslim clerics don’t want abortion banned outright — neither religion forbids it — but they surely wish the committees weren’t so liberal in permitting abortions or that they weren’t so commonly obtained.

And women’s advocates who believe in autonomy over their own bodies would clearly prefer it if the abortion panels didn’t exist at all. Feminists regularly decry them: Back in 2017 Galon called them a “black, shameful stain on Israeli society.”

Dr. Adi Niv-Yagoda, an attorney specializing in medical law and health policy, told Haaretz last year  that the existing law requiring women to face abortion committees “provides for a draconian and unreasonable arrangement that creates the need to lie in order for a woman to have the right to autonomy over her own body.

In a 2015 New York Times opinion piece , Mairav Zonszein described her feelings as she anticipated appearing before such a committee.

“As I waited to register, it began to sink in,” she wrote. “I had no control, no privacy and no anonymity over this intimate, difficult matter pertaining strictly to my own body. The idea that anyone but me had the power to decide my family’s fate and mine was harrowing. Israel’s abortion policy, it hit me, was the opposite of liberal.”

Because Zonszein and her partner were not married, her request, as woman who was technically single, was easily granted.

“There were no medical questions or examinations, no offers of information or assistance. It was cold, efficient bureaucracy. A nurse administered the abortion medically the next day.”


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
1  seeder  Hallux    2 weeks ago

The next time you fund the Israeli gov. or an Israeli charity, you are helping Israel to pay for free abortions.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @1    2 weeks ago

Following the logic in that statement, does that mean when PP here receives federal tax dollars, we are funding abortions?

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Hallux  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    2 weeks ago

9 Things People Get Wrong About Planned Parenthood

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

Nice link.

Now, about my actual question...............any answer?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Hallux @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

Only 9 things?

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
1.1.4  seeder  Hallux  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

In a similar way ... indirectly.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @1.1.4    2 weeks ago
In a similar way ... indirectly.

I will say it is refreshing to see someone on the left actually admit that tax dollars ARE being used to fund abortions, even if it is indirectly. Many people won't admit it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Hallux @1    2 weeks ago
The next time you fund the Israeli gov. or an Israeli charity, you are helping Israel to pay for free abortions.

It's amazing that some countries are more socially advanced in such matters like abortion rights than the US. And instead of trying to advance ourselves, some here want to actually go backwards to greater social repression of rights. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2  JBB    2 weeks ago

Yes and over seventy five percent of American Jews voted Democratic in the 2020 Presidential election...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3  Kavika     2 weeks ago

OOOPPPSSS

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 weeks ago

And may I point out that this is consistent with how Rabbis read the OT, so all that stuff about it being against god, is apparently how you decide to read those texts. 

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
4.1  seeder  Hallux  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4    2 weeks ago

There is not a religion in this world that does not have cults whose 'ordained' leaders do all the 'proper' translations for their members to ascribe to.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
5  mocowgirl    2 weeks ago

It appears that Israel is taking a logical approach to abortion versus the emotional approach of the anti-choicers in the US.

There is no logical reason that anyone, besides the woman and her doctor, should be involved in the woman's medical decision.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1  Gordy327  replied to  mocowgirl @5    2 weeks ago
There is no logical reason that anyone, besides the woman and her doctor, should be involved in the woman's medical decision.

That's what I say too, and I have yet to see a logical argument put forth as to why anyone should be involved in that decision making or why abortions should be limited or prohibited.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2  Texan1211  replied to  mocowgirl @5    2 weeks ago
There is no logical reason that anyone, besides the woman and her doctor, should be involved in the woman's medical decision.

I agree, and that means that taxpayer money shouldn't be used.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
5.2.1  mocowgirl  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2    2 weeks ago
that means that taxpayer money shouldn't be used.

It should be paid for just like any other medical procedure performed for the well-being of the patient.

We don't restrict medical procedures for men that paid for with taxpayer money.

There is no reason that women should not be treated in the same way.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  mocowgirl @5.2.1    2 weeks ago
We don't restrict medical procedures for men that paid for with taxpayer money.

Which procedures are you talking about?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
5.2.3  mocowgirl  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.2    2 weeks ago
Which procedures are you talking about?

Any that are deemed necessary by doctor and patient.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  mocowgirl @5.2.3    2 weeks ago

Is there any evidence of taxpayer dollars paying for a medical procedure for a man that a woman is denied?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
5.2.5  mocowgirl  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.4    2 weeks ago
Is there any evidence of taxpayer dollars paying for a medical procedure for a man that a woman is denied?

When a man needs a hysterectomy let me know.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  mocowgirl @5.2.5    2 weeks ago
When a man needs a hysterectomy let me know.

I know you realize that isn't an answer to what I asked.

I am not against abortion at all, although personally I find it a rather crude method of birth control considering ALL the options available today.

I believe a woman should have any and all abortions she chooses to have and that she can afford.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
5.2.7  seeder  Hallux  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.6    2 weeks ago

Via PP:

men can visit clinics  for prostate, colon, and testicular cancer screenings, vasectomies, male infertility screenings, and sexual-health services, among other necessary health treatments. In 2014, Planned Parenthoods nationwide  provided vasectomies  to 3,445 men.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
5.2.8  mocowgirl  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.6    2 weeks ago
I believe a woman should have any and all abortions she chooses to have and that she can afford.

If she can't afford an abortion, then she can't afford a child.  The taxpayer will be footing a $10,000 to $30,000 hospital bill when the child is born.

So who is going to feed, clothe, and shelter the child for the next 18+ years?  The taxpayer?  At what cost?

Paying for abortions instead of $100,000+ a poverty ridden child would save the taxpayers enormous amounts of money that could be used to promote the health and safety of our society at large.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @5.2.7    2 weeks ago

Fantastic.

But like the other answer I received, it doesn't answer what was asked.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  mocowgirl @5.2.8    2 weeks ago
If she can't afford an abortion, then she can't afford a child.  The taxpayer will be footing a $10,000 to $30,000 hospital bill when the child is born.

So who is going to feed, clothe, and shelter the child for the next 18+ years?  The taxpayer?  At what cost?

Paying for abortions instead of $100,000+ a poverty ridden child would save the taxpayers enormous amounts of money that could be used to promote the health and safety of our society at large.

All things a woman and a man should consider before engaging in sexual relations.

But then again, we sometimes aren't dealing with mental giants when they can't figure out how to prevent pregnancy today.

I am just not of the mindset that we as taxpayers should provide everything to everyone because they want it.

Man or woman.

Isn't it rather amazing we have survived as a country for this long without providing free abortions on demand?

And BTW, taxpayers DO "pay" for others' children through the tax codes. Parents get tax breaks while childless people don't.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
5.2.11  mocowgirl  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.6    2 weeks ago
I know you realize that isn't an answer to what I asked.

The answer is that women have different medical needs than men.  This was pointed out by Hallux that men have procedures that women do not require.

If you need further information on the different medical needs of women and men, then maybe you should go to your trusted medical advisors.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  mocowgirl @5.2.11    2 weeks ago
If you need further information on the different medical needs of women and men, then maybe you should go to your trusted medical advisors.

So women are NOT denied any service that men get provided for free.

The majority of Americans do not wish their tax dollars pay for  abortions.

Which is why we have had the Hyde Amendment for so long.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
5.2.13  mocowgirl  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.10    2 weeks ago
I am just not of the mindset

Fortunately, for us women, we are not currently under your mindset in 2021.

Women, in the US, are effectively using birth control to the point that population growth has slowed to less than replacement rate.  

The religious zealots are putting out propaganda that the human race will go extinct because women (who have a choice) are intelligent enough to not have children they don't want and/or can't afford.  Throughout history, the religious zealots are some of the most controlling and destructive barbarians that women have ever had to fight in order to have control of our own lives.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  mocowgirl @5.2.13    2 weeks ago

One must learn that because you have a right doesn't mean I must pay for you to exercise it.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
5.2.15  mocowgirl  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.12    2 weeks ago
The majority of Americans do not wish their tax dollars pay for  abortion

Do the majority of Americans wish for their money to pay for fossil fuel subsidies?

This is an industry that is responsible for literally killing our planet, but manages to stay out of the headlines most of the time.  Why?  

The abortion issue is an easy way to keep taxpayer's attention diverted from how our government wastes trillions of taxpayer dollars a years supporting the rich at the expense of the working class.

And when election year comes around, the politicians can talk about emotional issues instead of economic ones.

Fact Sheet | Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs | White Papers | EESI

Conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year; with 20 percent currently allocated to coal and 80 percent to natural gas and crude oil. 

There are many kinds of costs associated with fossil fuel use in the form of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution resulting from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. These negative externalities have adverse environmental, climate, and public health impacts, and are estimated to have totaled $5.3 trillion globally in 2015 alone.

Subsidizing an industry with such large, negative impacts is difficult to justify. Public subsidies should be consistent with an overarching, coordinated, and coherent energy policy that not only considers the supply of affordable, reliable power, but also public health impacts, climate change, and environmental degradation. While both Democratic and Republican administrations and lawmakers have discussed repealing fossil fuel subsidies, no significant action has been taken to-date.

But rather than being phased out, fossil fuel subsidies are actually increasing. The latest International Monetary Fund (IMF) report estimates 6.5 percent of global GDP ($5.2 trillion) was spent on fossil fuel subsidies (including negative externalities) in 2017, a half trillion dollar increase since 2015. The largest subsidizers are China ($1.4 trillion in 2015), the United States ($649 billion) and Russia ($551 billion). According to the IMF, "fossil fuels account for 85 percent of all global subsidies," and reducing these subsidies "would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP." An Overseas Development Institute study found that subsidies for coal-fired power increased almost three-fold, to $47.3 billion per year, from 2014 to 2017.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  mocowgirl @5.2.15    2 weeks ago

Now you are on an entirely different subject.

The Hyde Amendment was a good compromise.

Which is why it has lasted so long, and why it most likely will be included in the new spending bills.

Centrist Democrats will see to that.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
5.2.17  mocowgirl  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.16    2 weeks ago
Now you are on an entirely different subject.

Subsidies?  Really?

How many taxpayers have a clue who they are subsidizing and how much it is costing them?

How will they ever find out if those subsidies are not in the news and discussed?

Why aren't those subsidies in the news?

MSN has articles along partisan lines, but no details on where $3.7 trillion is needed or where it would be actually spent?

How could anyone actually oversee a $3.7 trillion budget?

It is a Hell of a lot easier to argue over the control zealots' emotional issues than answer questions over financial ones.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.18  Texan1211  replied to  mocowgirl @5.2.17    2 weeks ago

If you have some problem with control zealots, why not take it up with them?

And yes we subsidize many things, but some of us are opposed to many of them. Heck we also subsidize wind and solar power, along with electric cars.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
5.2.19  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.14    2 weeks ago

paying for abortions will save many more of your and my tax dollars than it costs,  abortion is a cost effective use of tax funds.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.2.20  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @5.2.19    2 weeks ago
paying for abortions will save many more of your and my tax dollars than it costs,  abortion is a cost effective use of tax funds.  

This is true. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
5.2.21  mocowgirl  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.18    2 weeks ago
If you have some problem with control zealots, why not take it up with them?

I live in the Bible Belt.  I have dealt with control zealots using religion as a tool ever since I was a toddler.    I didn't put up with their misogynist crap when I was a Christian, I damn well won't tolerate it in my life now.  As I mentioned earlier, our government has spent trillions of dollars fighting religious control zealots in the Middle East.  It is past time that we got the American version of the Taliban out of the US government.  

Most of the people I have ever loved (or liked) belonged to some sect of the Christian religion.  They worked on improving themselves instead of controlling or attempting to control the lives of other people.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.22  Texan1211  replied to  charger 383 @5.2.19    2 weeks ago
paying for abortions will save many more of your and my tax dollars than it costs,  abortion is a cost effective use of tax funds.

Yes, I know that.  My problem is with paying for what people should be paying for themselves.  Just because they wanted to have sex and got pregnant doesn't constitute an emergency on my part.

I just hate this idea that some people think they are entitled to have things they want paid for just because they want them.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
5.2.23  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.22    2 weeks ago

but it is cheaper in the long run and overpopulation is a big problem

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.2.24  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.6    2 weeks ago
"When a man needs a hysterectomy let me know."
"I know you realize that isn't an answer to what I asked."

Maybe so, Texan1211, but I'm having a hard time trying to stop laughing.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
5.2.25  charger 383  replied to  mocowgirl @5.2.8    2 weeks ago

Cheaper in the long run and breaks cycle of generational poverty

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
5.2.26  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.14    2 weeks ago

But some say tax money must be spent to provide ID to voters who do not have ID

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.27  Texan1211  replied to  charger 383 @5.2.26    2 weeks ago
But some say tax money must be spent to provide ID to voters who do not have ID

Yes, SCOTUS ruled that states requiring voter ID must provide them free to those who can't afford them.

In this day and age, just about everyone has ID already, and I don't think it too burdensome to get one for free.

Hey, I wonder if they'll give you a free ID to buy a gun?

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
5.2.28  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2    2 weeks ago

Oh just stop it.

Regardless of whether the Hyde Amendment is in force you will still assert, as you have for years, that the PPP

will still be benefitting from Title X $$ should the PPP elect to receive Title X dollars for education and all of the other

services they provide to men & women.

This is in spite of the fact that PPP charges women, or their insurance companies between 800 to 2,100 dollars per

surgical abortion procedure with co-pays like any other medical office.

In my opinion, no one should have any knowledge of anyone's medical procedures be it a wisdom tooth removal,

a penile implant ( certainly not a medical emergency IMHO ) or prescriptions for Viagra like compounds 

or a D&C or a chemical abortion.

and that means that taxpayer money shouldn't be used.

BS, that's your opinion.

We have no more say about how the Fed spends our dollars than the Feds allow us to know.

PP has regularly received in excess of $500 million dollars for predominantly women's  healthcare

( one could say to save lives and the maintain the quality of women's lives )

while the Fed spends in excess of $700 Billion in Defense and sells $51 Billion in military arms to other countries.

( designed to take lives, or in their opinions to save the buyer's own lives )

Religious beliefs are supposed to be separate from government decisions

and religious people choose to keep their unexpected pregnancies' and the consequences every day

which is their right to do.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

I hope people will realize that having a right, such as abortion, doesn't mean that others must pay for you to exercise that right.

We don't supply guns to people who want them, and I dare say that the idea that we should is preposterous and would be met with much deserved ridicule.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
6.1  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @6    2 weeks ago

What I find interesting about the abortion debate in the US is how Pro Choicers try to frame abortion law in the US to be more restrictive than the rest of the world when generally speaking  nothing could be further from the truth.

In actuality, US gestation limits tend to be more liberal than much of the developed world.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sparty On @6.1    2 weeks ago

The topic of this article was Israel.  Do you consider Israel to be undeveloped - a third world country?

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
6.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.1.1    2 weeks ago

Not sure how you would arrive at that question from that link.    It includes many countries, developed or otherwise.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.3  JBB  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.2    2 weeks ago

Regardless of where, abortions still happen.

The only way to stop most abortions is to stop the incidence of unwanted pregnancy.

Sex education and easier access to family planning and birth control accomplishes it.

Making laws against abortions doesn't do it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
6.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @6.1.3    2 weeks ago

Which has precisely nothing to do with the comment I made or the link I included.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
6.1.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.2    2 weeks ago

Sorry, but I'm unable to open your link - the source is blocked here.  I can only read Washington Post articles if they're included in the MSN News compilation, where I can access many sources that are blocked here.  I go through the MSN compilations for both US and World news every day, besides Bing news, USA Today news, and Canada Television News web sites, without a VPN, so nobody in China is blocked from all those sites and many more western ones such as NPR, The Hill, and even Fox News all of which can be accessed directly.  Now, how many other members of NT check out BOTH sides of the stories like I do before they proffer opinions?  I guess I'm ranting....LOL.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

The only thing evangelical Christians care about in Israel are the locations where the biblical Armageddon will occur.  Does anyone think they actually care about the Jews? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @7    2 weeks ago
The only thing evangelical Christians care about in Israel are the locations where the biblical Armageddon will occur.  Does anyone think they actually care about the Jews? 

They probably care as much for the Jews as the Catholic Church "cares" for children.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.1.1  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1    2 weeks ago

Not even saying how dumb I find that comment.

Everyone knows you're just gigging JohnRussell.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @7.1.1    2 weeks ago
Not even saying how dumb I find that comment.

Not even going to say how little I care what you personally find.

It is called a comparison

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

r.t..b...
JohnRussell
GregTx
zuksam
Jack_TX
Ender


38 visitors