PDA

View Full Version : Partial Birth Abortion Ban Upheld by Supreme Court


samsung101
Apr 18th, 2007, 03:51 PM
First, a partial birth abortion is allowed legally in order to save the
mother's life. This has been the case for years, and is so under
the law the Court upheld.

Second, over 91% of the over 1 million abortions in America are
not covered by this - and are in no way effected by the ruling.

Third, it is a victory for the Pro-Life movement which has fought
hard to get the procedure done with that allows a doctor to kill
a baby - whose body is already partially out in the open, and alive.

Personally, I am very happy with this ruling.

I am also surprised. No one is ever sure which way Justice Kennedy
will go on these issues - he is the infamous 'swing' vote on the court.

He has gone more left and middle of the road, than right in the past
decade.

Thank goodness for Alito and Roberts.

volley1
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:20 PM
Now if they would only overturn Roe v. Wade. It would insure a democractic president for the next twenty years.:) By the way, Sam why the need to reasure us that this decision does not apply to Roe. What are you worried about?:)

Kart
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:38 PM
Third, it is a victory for the Pro-Life movement which has fought
hard to get the procedure done with that allows a doctor to kill
a baby - whose body is already partially out in the open, and alive.

What does this sentence mean ?

Volcana
Apr 18th, 2007, 05:05 PM
So much for Roberts and Alito word, given during confirmation hearings, to be guided by stare decisis.

Infiniti2001
Apr 18th, 2007, 05:11 PM
Thousands if not millions living below the poverty line in the US, yet a bunch of old men are fixated on what women choose to do with their bodies :rolleyes:

gentenaire
Apr 18th, 2007, 05:19 PM
I'm very much pro-choice, but up to a point. I think the laws in most European countries are fair. Abortion is legal until the 3rd month (in some countries until 20 weeks) but not after that.
Partial birth abortions do seem pretty cruel.

samsung101
Apr 18th, 2007, 05:30 PM
States can, and will, still contest this with new laws looking to
overturn the partial birth ban.

California, New York, Mass., will probably lead the way on it.

The issue is not over.

But, a big victory for the Pro-Life / Anti-Abortion Movement.

volley1
Apr 18th, 2007, 05:36 PM
States can, and will, still contest this with new laws looking to
overturn the partial birth ban.

California, New York, Mass., will probably lead the way on it.

The issue is not over.

But, a big victory for the Pro-Life / Anti-Abortion Movement.

No it isn't Roe v. wade still stands.

ptkten
Apr 18th, 2007, 07:02 PM
I'm very much pro-choice, but up to a point. I think the laws in most European countries are fair. Abortion is legal until the 3rd month (in some countries until 20 weeks) but not after that.
Partial birth abortions do seem pretty cruel.

I agree completely, I'm not "pro-life" but I don't see a problem with banning partial-birth abortions. If you don't know by the third month that you don't want the baby, then I think you've lost your right to an abortion.

griffin
Apr 18th, 2007, 07:11 PM
I agree completely, I'm not "pro-life" but I don't see a problem with banning partial-birth abortions. If you don't know by the third month that you don't want the baby, then I think you've lost your right to an abortion.

Interesting sentiment, but the women who get this procedure do so for medical reasons. It's not a simple matter of "not wanting the baby" it's a matter of "being pregnant/giving birth may kill or seriously injure you."

Ginsburg nailed it - they may not have overturned Roe v. Wade with this, but this ruling "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court..."

Meesh
Apr 18th, 2007, 07:16 PM
First, a partial birth abortion is allowed legally in order to save the mother's life. This has been the case for years, and is so under the law the Court upheld.


I didn't know that. Pelosi just released her comments (court TV had he response) on this decision and made it seem like we were denying partial birth abortion to women in critical health.

CondiLicious
Apr 18th, 2007, 07:55 PM
I didn't know that. Pelosi just released her comments (court TV had he response) on this decision and made it seem like we were denying partial birth abortion to women in critical health.

This is because uber pro-lifers think that this is just opening the flood gates and it will eventually lead to Roe v. Wade being overturned. Which is pure bullshit if you ask me.

I am pro-choice to a point and that point is 12 weeks. I don't get my panties in a twist when I hear of people having abortions at before 12 weeks. I don't care. Isn't something I can ever imagine myself doing but you never know! And there are many instances and exceptions when a person could feel like they have no other choice. Who am I to judge? However, there does come a point when it is blatant, fucking selfish murder (as always there are exceptions and it's good that the law still takes this into account). As a procedure it's disgusting, especially seeing as just a couple of months ago there was the baby in Miami who survived after only 21 weeks and six days in the womb. If partial-birth abortions were commonplace then a "fetus" older than that baby could be aborted. (I think partial-birth abortions would be allowed up until the life of the fetus is viable outside the womb and that is set at around 28 weeks :eek:) It's a horrid thought.

griffin
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:01 PM
(as always there are exceptions and it's good that the law still takes this into account).

This law DOESN'T take medical exceptions into account. That's the point. Late-term abortions were already illegal pretty much everywhere unless the mother's health was at risk.

This law bans the procedure regardless.

Dementieva_Dude
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:35 PM
This law DOESN'T take medical exceptions into account. That's the point. Late-term abortions were already illegal pretty much everywhere unless the mother's health was at risk.

This law bans the procedure regardless.

Exactly....this new law does not provide any exceptions for the safety of the mother, which is why I have a problem with it. There are medical conditions which cannot be detected until later in the pregnancy (beyond the 20th week), and this new partial-birth abortion law does not allow for these exceptions either.

I feel as though this is another example of religion infiltrating the law in a way that it shouldn't be. I can understand there being some sort of abortion regualtions (since that is the standard worlwide....Canada is one of only 3 nations with no laws restricting abortions), but I feel this goes way too far.

Scotso
Apr 19th, 2007, 04:25 AM
Well, I think you need to protect the mother's health... but, and forgive me my ignorance, how could you get the baby out past its navel and then need to kill it to save the mother?

hablo
Apr 19th, 2007, 04:50 AM
Interesting sentiment, but the women who get this procedure do so for medical reasons. It's not a simple matter of "not wanting the baby" it's a matter of "being pregnant/giving birth may kill or seriously injure you."

Ginsburg nailed it - they may not have overturned Roe v. Wade with this, but this ruling "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court..."

I wonder what will happen when such a case arise?
If being pregnant or giving birth may kill the mother, what will the anti-choice say (or do) ? :rolleyes:

Will the baby-to-be take precedence over the already living mother? :help:

Dementieva_Dude
Apr 19th, 2007, 04:54 AM
I wonder what will happen when such a case arise?
If being pregnant or giving birth may kill the mother, what will the anti-choice say (or do) ? :rolleyes:

Will the baby-to-be take precedence over the already living mother? :help:

Something along the lines of "It's the natural order of the universe" or "Pregnancy is a risk...think twice before being sexually active" will be spouted off in schools and in the right-wing media if such a case were to arise. :mad:

Scotso
Apr 19th, 2007, 04:58 AM
Will the baby-to-be take precedence over the already living mother? :help:[/FONT]

Isn't the baby already living?

Logically one could argue that the baby, who hasn't even had a chance at life, should be given the nod over the mother that has been able to live and experience things.

I'm not saying that that is my opinion, but it still makes sense.

I'm anti-abortion. I don't think that makes me a bad person. I just don't think that killing a human is a good idea, no matter how old.

I worry that in this country especially abortion is used far too often as birth control. There are instances where I feel that abortion is an acceptable evil, but those instances probably account for 5% or less of abortions.

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:03 AM
IT is such a tough choice... When does the baby gain a soul, in the wound or at birth?

Nonetheless... for society, it is more productive if the mother goes and makes 5 more babies, and both of them dying, or the person who would mantain him dies...

hablo
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:18 AM
Isn't the baby already living?

Logically one could argue that the baby, who hasn't even had a chance at life, should be given the nod over the mother that has been able to live and experience things.

I'm not saying that that is my opinion, but it still makes sense.

I'm anti-abortion. I don't think that makes me a bad person. I just don't think that killing a human is a good idea, no matter how old.

I worry that in this country especially abortion is used far too often as birth control. There are instances where I feel that abortion is an acceptable evil, but those instances probably account for 5% or less of abortions.

No it doesn't make sense to kill a mother for a baby-to-be unless it is the mother's choice herself. She should be allowed to decide what happens to her body and her life!

The stuff about abortion being used as birth control has no bearing as we are discussing the mother's life here.

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:26 AM
I would like to hear some opinions here of what makes abortion morally wrong?

Scotso
Apr 19th, 2007, 11:23 AM
No it doesn't make sense to kill a mother for a baby-to-be unless it is the mother's choice herself. She should be allowed to decide what happens to her body and her life!

The stuff about abortion being used as birth control has no bearing as we are discussing the mother's life here.



I was discussing abortions in general.

Wigglytuff
Apr 19th, 2007, 12:29 PM
now if only these "pro-lifers" spent 1/3 as much time energy and money on dealing with issues that address and prevent rape. i guess pro "life"ers dont care about the lives of woman and children (but they are usually quick to defend a rapist who wants to force a woman to carry "his" seed to term.

funny how that goes.

ptkten
Apr 19th, 2007, 01:34 PM
now if only these "pro-lifers" spent 1/3 as much time energy and money on dealing with issues that address and prevent rape. i guess pro "life"ers dont care about the lives of woman and children (but they are usually quick to defend a rapist who wants to force a woman to carry "his" seed to term.

funny how that goes.

I agree, where most pro-lifers lose sympathy is that they're only pro-life for the nine months of the pregnancy and not before and after it. If you were really pro-life then you should deal with the issue of women being raped, and social programs to help the baby once they are born.

griffin
Apr 19th, 2007, 01:39 PM
Well, I think you need to protect the mother's health... but, and forgive me my ignorance, how could you get the baby out past its navel and then need to kill it to save the mother?

At the stage we're talking about, the fetus (which is not viable at this point) is much smaller than it would be at full term, or even a month later. And "past the navel" only happens if they're removing the fetus feet-first, meaning the largest part of the fetus, the head and shoulders, are still within the womb. If the fetus is removed head-first, they collapse the skull before pulling it into the birth canal. Either way, they're not brining the entire body out intact, and the procedure has less physical impact than giving birth.

The other thing to consider is that for some medical conditions, it's not giving birth that creates serious risk to the mother's health, but just carrying the fetus to term. Pregnancy itself can be very dangerous for some women, and sometimes those problems don't arise until later in the process.

The irony of this decision is that while it's the idea of "abortion as birth control" that raises the most objections from not just the pro-lifers but the people in the middle, and even many people who oppose abortion want exceptions made when the mother's life or long-term health is at risk - this law doesn't touch those "easy access" abortions. This is not a procedure doctors will perform without compelling medical reasons. The law targets the very end of the spectrum where women are most at risk and people feel there is room for compromise.

Lord Nelson
Apr 19th, 2007, 01:47 PM
I support abortion due to overpopulation on Earth. I am with the libs on this one. But I also think that NGO's should stop helping developing nations to have more kids.

tterb
Apr 19th, 2007, 02:08 PM
The irony of this decision is that while it's the idea of "abortion as birth control" that raises the most objections from not just the pro-lifers but the people in the middle, and even many people who oppose abortion want exceptions made when the mother's life or long-term health is at risk - this law doesn't touch those "easy access" abortions. This is not a procedure doctors will perform without compelling medical reasons. The law targets the very end of the spectrum where women are most at risk and people feel there is room for compromise.

Spot on. I don't disagree with the procedure being banned, as long as exceptions can be made for the mother's health.

"In 2002, from data collected in those areas of the United States that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 86.7% of abortions were conducted at or prior to 12 weeks, 9.9% from 13 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks. 91.3% percent of these were classified as having been done by "curettage" (suction-aspiration, D&C, D&E), 5.2% by "medical" means (mifepristone), 0.8% by "intrauterine instillation" (saline or prostaglandin), and 1.5% by "other" (hysterotomy and hysterectomy).[3] The Guttmacher Institute estimated there were 2,200 intact dilation and extraction procedures in the U.S. during 2000; this accounts for 0.17% of the total number of abortions performed that year.[4]"

- taken from Wikipedia, which lists these sources:

[3] Strauss, Lilo T., Herndon, Joy, Chang, Jeani, Parker, Wilda Y., Bowens, Sonya V., Berg, Cynthia J. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2005-11-15). Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

[4] Finer, Lawrence B. & Henshaw, Stanley K. (2003). Abortion Incidence and Services in the United States in 2000. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 35 (1).

People who think this procedure is common, or performed frivolously ("abortion-on-demand" is the common phrase), should rethink. Very few abortions are performed this way as is, and with no exceptions for the mother's health, there could be some serious ramifications in the future.

samsung101
Apr 19th, 2007, 04:58 PM
An unborn child is a life, it deserves to be treated as such.

It's not a thing or a blob, it is a life.

The death penalty is specifically for adults who are found guilty
of a heinous crime, with a jury, with multiple reviews and
appeals in place.

There is no comparison to the treatment an unborn child receives,
and the death penalty.


We should never look at taking a life as just a medical procedure.
Partial birth abortion is just what it says, the child is already
partially born, when it's head is crushed, brain destroyed,
body mangled, on purpose, to kill it.

Justice Ginsberg, the former ACLU lead lawyer, is consistent with
her views. She's wrong in my view. The particular laws in question
are trying to outlaw barbaric medical procedures - and the court
found that the law(s) are constitutional.

Scotso
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:49 PM
At the stage we're talking about, the fetus (which is not viable at this point) is much smaller than it would be at full term, or even a month later. And "past the navel" only happens if they're removing the fetus feet-first, meaning the largest part of the fetus, the head and shoulders, are still within the womb. If the fetus is removed head-first, they collapse the skull before pulling it into the birth canal. Either way, they're not brining the entire body out intact, and the procedure has less physical impact than giving birth.

The other thing to consider is that for some medical conditions, it's not giving birth that creates serious risk to the mother's health, but just carrying the fetus to term. Pregnancy itself can be very dangerous for some women, and sometimes those problems don't arise until later in the process.

The irony of this decision is that while it's the idea of "abortion as birth control" that raises the most objections from not just the pro-lifers but the people in the middle, and even many people who oppose abortion want exceptions made when the mother's life or long-term health is at risk - this law doesn't touch those "easy access" abortions. This is not a procedure doctors will perform without compelling medical reasons. The law targets the very end of the spectrum where women are most at risk and people feel there is room for compromise.

Thanks for the explanation.

Dementieva_Dude
Apr 19th, 2007, 06:00 PM
An unborn child is a life, it deserves to be treated as such.

It's not a thing or a blob, it is a life.

The death penalty is specifically for adults who are found guilty
of a heinous crime, with a jury, with multiple reviews and
appeals in place.

There is no comparison to the treatment an unborn child receives,
and the death penalty.


We should never look at taking a life as just a medical procedure.
Partial birth abortion is just what it says, the child is already
partially born, when it's head is crushed, brain destroyed,
body mangled, on purpose, to kill it.

Justice Ginsberg, the former ACLU lead lawyer, is consistent with
her views. She's wrong in my view. The particular laws in question
are trying to outlaw barbaric medical procedures - and the court
found that the law(s) are constitutional.

While I respect your view, I don't wholey agree with it. While you view the fetus as a life, equal to all others, some people don't. I don't understand why people who don't believe as you do cannot have the option to do as they choose with their bodies - especially in cases where the mother's health is at risk.

gentenaire
Apr 19th, 2007, 06:16 PM
At the stage we're talking about, the fetus (which is not viable at this point) is much smaller than it would be at full term, or even a month later. And "past the navel" only happens if they're removing the fetus feet-first, meaning the largest part of the fetus, the head and shoulders, are still within the womb. If the fetus is removed head-first, they collapse the skull before pulling it into the birth canal. Either way, they're not brining the entire body out intact, and the procedure has less physical impact than giving birth.

The other thing to consider is that for some medical conditions, it's not giving birth that creates serious risk to the mother's health, but just carrying the fetus to term. Pregnancy itself can be very dangerous for some women, and sometimes those problems don't arise until later in the process.

The irony of this decision is that while it's the idea of "abortion as birth control" that raises the most objections from not just the pro-lifers but the people in the middle, and even many people who oppose abortion want exceptions made when the mother's life or long-term health is at risk - this law doesn't touch those "easy access" abortions. This is not a procedure doctors will perform without compelling medical reasons. The law targets the very end of the spectrum where women are most at risk and people feel there is room for compromise.

I agree that these kind of abortions should be allowed.

Kart
Apr 19th, 2007, 08:40 PM
An unborn child is a life, it deserves to be treated as such.

It's not a thing or a blob, it is a life.

The death penalty is specifically for adults who are found guilty
of a heinous crime, with a jury, with multiple reviews and
appeals in place.

There is no comparison to the treatment an unborn child receives,
and the death penalty.


We should never look at taking a life as just a medical procedure.
Partial birth abortion is just what it says, the child is already
partially born, when it's head is crushed, brain destroyed,
body mangled, on purpose, to kill it.

Justice Ginsberg, the former ACLU lead lawyer, is consistent with
her views. She's wrong in my view. The particular laws in question
are trying to outlaw barbaric medical procedures - and the court
found that the law(s) are constitutional.

There is no such thing as 'partially born.'

Either you've been born or you haven't.

I still don't understand what a 'partial abortion' is - I'm off to google it.

Kart
Apr 19th, 2007, 09:24 PM
Ok I looked it up, it is pretty brutal sounding but frankly whatever.

I'm not an obstetrician and therefore it's not my place to say what the safest technique is for terminating a pregnancy.

Scotso
Apr 20th, 2007, 03:16 AM
Bottom line for me, if you can safely have the child, I think you should do it. Aborting a pregnancy simply because you don't want the child is just repulsive IMO.

Apoleb
Apr 20th, 2007, 03:23 AM
Bottom line for me, if you can safely have the child, I think you should do it. Aborting a pregnancy simply because you don't want the child is just repulsive IMO.

No sense of moral relativism at all, I guess. For many people, according to their beliefs, before a certain period the "baby" is nothing but a bunch of cells. I think the issue is far from being self-evident (on a moral level), so that's why I think it should come down to what people chose to do. After the main organs are formed and everything, I think then I'll have a problem, and I think most people do too.

égalité
Apr 20th, 2007, 03:34 AM
If a woman isn't ready to be a mother and/or is in a risky pregnancy, then she shouldn't be forced to have the baby. That's it. The myth of women using abortion as birth control is crap. Abortions are very expensive. No one gets pregnant in anticipation of an abortion. And it's really dangerous to legislate morality when there's such a lack of a moral consensus on this issue.

Also, I don't know if the term "pro-life" is really fitting, since pro-life, pro-war, and pro-death penalty have all largely fallen under the same ticket.

lakeway11
Apr 20th, 2007, 04:24 AM
the Supreme Court did something right for a change...

Dementieva_Dude
Apr 20th, 2007, 04:38 AM
If a woman isn't ready to be a mother and/or is in a risky pregnancy, then she shouldn't be forced to have the baby. That's it. The myth of women using abortion as birth control is crap. Abortions are very expensive. No one gets pregnant in anticipation of an abortion. And it's really dangerous to legislate morality when there's such a lack of a moral consensus on this issue.

Also, I don't know if the term "pro-life" is really fitting, since pro-life, pro-war, and pro-death penalty have all largely fallen under the same ticket.

Excellent post.:worship:

To follow up...abortions (which are free in most provinces in Canada, and readily available for a small fee in the others) are not widely used as birth control here. Sure, they are completely allowed under the law, but they have not become the primary form of birth control - contrary to what some politicians and lawmakers in the States will have people believe.

~CANUCK~
Apr 20th, 2007, 04:51 AM
Bottom line for me, if you can safely have the child, I think you should do it. Aborting a pregnancy simply because you don't want the child is just repulsive IMO.

So if your sister or mother were raped and got pregnant you truly believe that they should bring this baby to full term? Or for the cases that we are talking here the 2000 or so fetuses that are aborted this way are done for purely medical reasons. Most of the time its because the mothers life is at risk and the other being that the baby is so malformed that it will die not long after birth anyways. Is there morality in letting a mother die, or in birthing a baby that will most likely be in great pain and live a very short life?

meyerpl
Apr 20th, 2007, 05:28 AM
If there was ever an item in the news that everyone could agree on, I thought this would be it.

Wigglytuff
Apr 20th, 2007, 05:36 AM
While I respect your view, I don't wholey agree with it. While you view the fetus as a life, equal to all others, some people don't. I don't understand why people who don't believe as you do cannot have the option to do as they choose with their bodies - especially in cases where the mother's health is at risk.

well, the answer to this is clear: for some women are not people. the life of the mother does not matter. for them its still the 1200's where a woman is nothing more than a tool to carry a man's baby (sons preferred). so with this mind set its very easy to see why the would not allow exceptions for the life of the mother.

Scotso
Apr 20th, 2007, 01:01 PM
No sense of moral relativism at all, I guess. For many people, according to their beliefs, before a certain period the "baby" is nothing but a bunch of cells. I think the issue is far from being self-evident (on a moral level), so that's why I think it should come down to what people chose to do. After the main organs are formed and everything, I think then I'll have a problem, and I think most people do too.

For the Nazis, Jews weren't really people. I guess it was okay for them to murder them, then?

I don't think morals are relative. At least, for me they aren't. Murder is murder. :shrug:

Scotso
Apr 20th, 2007, 01:03 PM
If a woman isn't ready to be a mother and/or is in a risky pregnancy, then she shouldn't be forced to have the baby. That's it. The myth of women using abortion as birth control is crap. Abortions are very expensive. No one gets pregnant in anticipation of an abortion. And it's really dangerous to legislate morality when there's such a lack of a moral consensus on this issue.

Also, I don't know if the term "pro-life" is really fitting, since pro-life, pro-war, and pro-death penalty have all largely fallen under the same ticket.

If you're not ready to be a mother, then don't have sex. And yes, abortions are expensive... and most of that cost is shouldered by taxpayers and people who pay for their health insurance.

I don't want money from my pocket used for abortions. :shrug:

Scotso
Apr 20th, 2007, 01:04 PM
So if your sister or mother were raped and got pregnant you truly believe that they should bring this baby to full term? Or for the cases that we are talking here the 2000 or so fetuses that are aborted this way are done for purely medical reasons. Most of the time its because the mothers life is at risk and the other being that the baby is so malformed that it will die not long after birth anyways. Is there morality in letting a mother die, or in birthing a baby that will most likely be in great pain and live a very short life?

If you had read my posts in this thread, you would know that I don't object to abortions in those cases.

égalité
Apr 20th, 2007, 01:10 PM
If you're not ready to be a mother, then don't have sex. And yes, abortions are expensive... and most of that cost is shouldered by taxpayers and people who pay for their health insurance.

I don't want money from my pocket used for abortions. :shrug:

Sex isn't a privelege for those who want children. People's bodies aren't under the jurisdiction of those who think sex is solely for procreation. It's really not good to look at pregnancy as a "punishment" or a "consequence" for sex. If two consenting adults have sex and the woman gets pregnant, she's not under any obligation to "carry out a punishment."

meyerpl
Apr 20th, 2007, 01:12 PM
If you're not ready to be a mother, then don't have sex. And yes, abortions are expensive... and most of that cost is shouldered by taxpayers and people who pay for their health insurance.

I don't want money from my pocket used for abortions. :shrug:
Wow, why hasn't somebody thought of that before? If only that message could somehow be delivered to people, it should put an end to unwanted pregnancy. But, just in case that doesn't work, how do you feel about money from your pockets being used to pay for birth control for young people and others who can't otherwise afford it?

~CANUCK~
Apr 20th, 2007, 01:20 PM
If you had read my posts in this thread, you would know that I don't object to abortions in those cases.

I did read your posts in the thread and no where does it say anything about you being ok with abortions for malformed fetuses. You did however state that if you could have the baby safely then you should have it, some mothers are clearly able to have these babies safely, so from what you said these abortions are "replusive".

samsung101
Apr 20th, 2007, 04:53 PM
I hope Bush gets one more Supreme Court nomination before he leaves
office.

Then, we'll see some real fireworks on Capital Hill. That will be fun.
John Paul Stevens, someone wake him up, give him a pill, and tell him
to retire already. Ginsberg wants to, but she's been waiting. With
a Democratic majority in place, even w/Bush in office, and no gurantee
the Dems will in 2008, or hold on to the Senate, either one may step
down now to give the Dem a shot at having a voice on the nomination.



Support for a ban on partial birth abortions grew over many years, as
the public got to learn more about the procedure. It is killing a live
baby, that is partially out of the body of the mother.


Birth control is available to anyone in America for free.

Abortions are paid for, largely, by taxpapers in state and
federal funds. Planned Parenthood gets tax money, and
private money too. City, County, State hospitals get
tax money. It's available to anyone who wants it done.

A school can assist a female student - 10 to 18, whatever,
get an abortion w/o parental consent in almost every state.

A kid cannot get a tattoo w/o parental cosent, but she can
terminate the life of an unborn child w/o parental consent.

griffin
Apr 20th, 2007, 05:13 PM
Birth control is available to anyone in America for free.


This is a lie.


Abortions are paid for, largely, by taxpapers in state and
federal funds.

This is also a lie.

The rest of it is blather that deliberately seeks to mislead people about who and what circumstances this law deals with.

Women who undergo this procedure are not dealing with accidental pregnancies. They are dealing with pregnancies that due to medical developments have become a threat to their well-being.

hablo
Apr 20th, 2007, 05:35 PM
Sex isn't a privelege for those who want children. People's bodies aren't under the jurisdiction of those who think sex is solely for procreation. It's really not good to look at pregnancy as a "punishment" or a "consequence" for sex. If two consenting adults have sex and the woman gets pregnant, she's not under any obligation to "carry out a punishment."

Well said! :bowdown:

Reuchlin
Apr 20th, 2007, 05:37 PM
In Canada there are no law regulating abortion, abortion is free, and women can have abortions up until and including the 9th month of pregnancy for ANY reason. One in three pregnancies end in abortion here. Sick, I know.

Dementieva_Dude
Apr 20th, 2007, 05:54 PM
In Canada there are no law regulating abortion, abortion is free, and women can have abortions up until and including the 9th month of pregnancy for ANY reason. One in three pregnancies end in abortion here. Sick, I know.

I've never seen a number that high for the Canadian abortion rate (the number I heard was 24%), but regardless, I'm happy to live in a place where abortions are available for anyone who wishes to seek that option.

Pregnancy and childbirth are not things that women should be rushed into or forced to do. If a woman chooses to end a pregnancy for whatever reason, I support her ability to do as she chooses.

Kart
Apr 20th, 2007, 06:08 PM
If you're not ready to be a mother, then don't have sex. And yes, abortions are expensive... and most of that cost is shouldered by taxpayers and people who pay for their health insurance.

I don't want money from my pocket used for abortions. :shrug:

How do you feel about your tax money being used to treat smoking related illnesses and sexually transmitted disesases ?

~CANUCK~
Apr 20th, 2007, 06:14 PM
In Canada there are no law regulating abortion, abortion is free, and women can have abortions up until and including the 9th month of pregnancy for ANY reason. One in three pregnancies end in abortion here. Sick, I know.

Who told you abortion is free here? Someone close to me had an abortion done last year and it cost her 500$

Reuchlin
Apr 20th, 2007, 06:18 PM
now if only these "pro-lifers" spent 1/3 as much time energy and money on dealing with issues that address and prevent rape. i guess pro "life"ers dont care about the lives of woman and children (but they are usually quick to defend a rapist who wants to force a woman to carry "his" seed to term.

funny how that goes.

"...to remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all..." Elie Wiesel

Reuchlin
Apr 20th, 2007, 06:19 PM
Who told you abortion is free here? Someone close to me had an abortion done last year and it cost her 500$

It's covered by OHIP here.

~CANUCK~
Apr 20th, 2007, 06:20 PM
It's covered by OHIP here.

Im guessing that each province has its own rules then, since medical is a provincal matter.

Randy H
Apr 20th, 2007, 06:26 PM
Im guessing that each province has its own rules then, since medical is a provincal matter.

I think that's the case too - New Brunswick I don't think covers them at all, Quebec covers some, and the rest as far as I know have full coverage.

This ban seems like a wrong move IMO based on the fact that it doesn't make any exceptions to the rule - Disappointing ruling that will completely ignore the health, and well-being of the mother who had every intention to conceive and have a child until they realized it could be life-threatening.

Dementieva_Dude
Apr 20th, 2007, 06:30 PM
I think that's the case too - New Brunswick I don't think covers them at all, Quebec covers some, and the rest as far as I know have full coverage.

This ban seems like a wrong move IMO based on the fact that it doesn't make any exceptions to the rule - Disappointing ruling that will completely ignore the health, and well-being of the mother who had every intention to conceive and have a child until they realized it could be life-threatening.

Excellent post :worship:

And you're right...coverage varies from province to province. It's still cheaper than many places in the States.

gentenaire
Apr 20th, 2007, 07:33 PM
If you're not ready to be a mother, then don't have sex. And yes, abortions are expensive... and most of that cost is shouldered by taxpayers and people who pay for their health insurance.

I don't want money from my pocket used for abortions. :shrug:

So people who shouldn't be having children for health reasons are not allowed to have sex? That's quite unfair, don't you think?

Selah
Apr 20th, 2007, 07:57 PM
If you're not ready to be a mother, then don't have sex. And yes, abortions are expensive... and most of that cost is shouldered by taxpayers and people who pay for their health insurance.

I don't want money from my pocket used for abortions. :shrug:

People say the darndest things. I guess as a gay male you shouldn't have sex because you can't procreate with a man :retarded:

As many have said before, it is about choice, just as all of you here would like to have the option to do what you believe in, every woman should have that choice/right. The government has no business deciding. It should be that plain and simple.

Scotso
Apr 21st, 2007, 03:28 AM
So people who shouldn't be having children for health reasons are not allowed to have sex? That's quite unfair, don't you think?

My statement wasn't meant to be taken so seriously. My point is that there are ways other than abortion to avoid having children. It works quite well for most people.

Scotso
Apr 21st, 2007, 03:31 AM
People say the darndest things. I guess as a gay male you shouldn't have sex because you can't procreate with a man :retarded:

As many have said before, it is about choice, just as all of you here would like to have the option to do what you believe in, every woman should have that choice/right. The government has no business deciding. It should be that plain and simple.

I don't think people should have the right to abort child after child with no repercussions. :shrug:

I don't understand why people who are *against* killing babies are said to be the bad person in this debate. I'm sorry, but I think it's morally wrong to do so except in very specific cases.

I don't go out bombing abortion clinics or protesting doctors who perform abortions. But I can state my opinion on this. People here think it's okay, well, fine, but don't insult me because I don't agree with you. :rolleyes:

Scotso
Apr 21st, 2007, 03:34 AM
How do you feel about your tax money being used to treat smoking related illnesses and sexually transmitted disesases ?

I don't think my tax money should treat people with first-hand smoking related illnesses.

Sexually transmitted diseases is a bit different, it's impossible to fully protect yourself, even if you don't have sex.

Scotso
Apr 21st, 2007, 03:41 AM
Sex isn't a privelege for those who want children. People's bodies aren't under the jurisdiction of those who think sex is solely for procreation. It's really not good to look at pregnancy as a "punishment" or a "consequence" for sex. If two consenting adults have sex and the woman gets pregnant, she's not under any obligation to "carry out a punishment."

Look, I think most people here know me well enough to know that I'm not a heartless monster. I just made a statement that should not have been taken so seriously.

Still, I think it's funny that I'm the bad guy here, but so be it. I don't believe abortion is right, I'm not going to change my mind about that. :shrug:

I think people who get pregnant by mistake should have the child and give it up for adoption. And it's important to note that I'm not the one that views pregnancy as a "punishment" - that would seem to fall to the ones who think that it's a mistake and you should be able to terminate it whenever you want.

Scotso
Apr 21st, 2007, 03:43 AM
Wow, why hasn't somebody thought of that before? If only that message could somehow be delivered to people, it should put an end to unwanted pregnancy. But, just in case that doesn't work, how do you feel about money from your pockets being used to pay for birth control for young people and others who can't otherwise afford it?

Again, that was not a 100% serious statement.

I don't mind paying for birth control. It's not that I don't want my tax money helping people. I just don't want it used to murder them. I would think that would be understandable. :shrug:

Wigglytuff
Apr 21st, 2007, 04:15 AM
"...to remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all..." Elie Wiesel
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

dementieva's fan
Apr 21st, 2007, 04:54 AM
In Canada there are no law regulating abortion, abortion is free, and women can have abortions up until and including the 9th month of pregnancy for ANY reason. One in three pregnancies end in abortion here. Sick, I know.

You totally pulled that "1 in 3" number out of you ass, didn't you?

gentenaire
Apr 21st, 2007, 06:16 AM
My statement wasn't meant to be taken so seriously. My point is that there are ways other than abortion to avoid having children. It works quite well for most people.

People don't use abortion as a form of birth control. Abortion is not something women take lightly.

But no form of birth control is 100% effective. It's easy to forget taking one pill. Or a woman who's sick for a few days, has to throw up and out go the pills.

gentenaire
Apr 21st, 2007, 06:22 AM
I think people who get pregnant by mistake should have the child and give it up for adoption. And it's important to note that I'm not the one that views pregnancy as a "punishment" - that would seem to fall to the ones who think that it's a mistake and you should be able to terminate it whenever you want.

I know several people who would not surive a full pregnancy. In their case, getting pregnant really would be a punishment because they'd have no choice but to abort, even though they love children and would love to keep it.

A pregnancy can also come at most inconvenient times, completely jeopardising the woman's future. Taking care of a baby is expensive. A lot of women don't have the means to properly care for a baby.

Kart
Apr 21st, 2007, 09:01 AM
Sexually transmitted diseases is a bit different, it's impossible to fully protect yourself, even if you don't have sex.

In practical terms though, it's comparable though to your abortion argument.

Contraception doesn't protect 100% against pregnancy and to be honest the risk of getting an STD if you consider the number of sexually active people (and the numerous acts they get involved it) is probably higher.

If you took reasonable precautions and yet still got herpes or something - how would you feel being told by someone that they didn't want their tax money wasted on you because it was your 'carelessness' ?

Kart
Apr 21st, 2007, 09:05 AM
I don't think my tax money should treat people with first-hand smoking related illnesses.

Do you include passive smokers that choose to live with partners that smoke in that ?

Scotso
Apr 21st, 2007, 02:03 PM
In practical terms though, it's comparable though to your abortion argument.

Contraception doesn't protect 100% against pregnancy and to be honest the risk of getting an STD if you consider the number of sexually active people (and the numerous acts they get involved it) is probably higher.

If you took reasonable precautions and yet still got herpes or something - how would you feel being told by someone that they didn't want their tax money wasted on you because it was your 'carelessness' ?

Pregnancy is not a disease.

Again, I don't mind my tax money helping people. I don't want it used to kill them.

Scotso
Apr 21st, 2007, 02:06 PM
Do you include passive smokers that choose to live with partners that smoke in that ?

Yes.

They know better. I'm a libertarian, I think that people should be allowed to make their own choices, but that they should have to deal with the consequences of them.

I don't understand why I'm facing the inquisition here, though :p This isn't about me, it's about abortion. I think it's wrong. That's just my opinion, I don't prevent anyone from having an abortion, so I don't understand why I'm the bad guy here. :p

Scotso
Apr 21st, 2007, 02:07 PM
Texas is trying to pass a law that will give people who get pregnant and are considering an abortion a small amount of money to try to help them deal with the costs of pregnancy if they will agree to keep the child and give it up for adoption. I think something like that is a good idea.

Scotso
Apr 21st, 2007, 02:10 PM
People don't use abortion as a form of birth control. Abortion is not something women take lightly.

Some have in the past, especially young women. I didn't say they take it lightly, but we don't let people off for murdering someone because they "feel bad about it." And before you jump, I don't think abortion is as bad as "murder," but my point still stands.

I am sympathetic to teenagers who get pregnant and would "ruin their lives" by having the child. But that is a case where they really should NOT be having sex. And yes, it might ruin their lives to keep the child.... but it will definitely ruin the child's life if they abort it.

Scotso
Apr 21st, 2007, 02:12 PM
I have a friend who got pregnant in high school. She decided have the baby and give it up for adoption. She did so, and still went to college and is in a nice career now.

I don't expect everyone who gets pregnant to have the baby, but I just hope that they consider all the options before they get an abortion. It should be an absolutely last resort.

gentenaire
Apr 21st, 2007, 04:57 PM
I am sympathetic to teenagers who get pregnant and would "ruin their lives" by having the child. But that is a case where they really should NOT be having sex. And yes, it might ruin their lives to keep the child.... but it will definitely ruin the child's life if they abort it.

At that moment, the fetus can't feel anything, can't feel pain, can't think, can't hear, etc. It is far more cruel to kill animals than it is to end a pregnancy in the early stages.

What about people who wouldn't survive a pregnancy? My late SIL (she died two weeks ago) would not have survived a pregnancy because of her heart condition. She loved children, but she knew that should she accidently get pregnant, she'd have to abort. Her life was hard enough with her condition, would you deny her the pleasure of a life partner as well?

gentenaire
Apr 21st, 2007, 04:59 PM
I don't expect everyone who gets pregnant to have the baby, but I just hope that they consider all the options before they get an abortion. It should be an absolutely last resort.

I agree with you on that. But a woman who wants an abortion can't just walk in a hospital, ask for it and walk back out again. She has to sit down and talk to doctors, psychologists. These things aren't taken lightly. Doctors will always make sure the woman is certain (and not pressured into it by others) before performing the procedure.

Kart
Apr 21st, 2007, 09:02 PM
I don't understand why I'm facing the inquisition here, though :p This isn't about me, it's about abortion. I think it's wrong. That's just my opinion, I don't prevent anyone from having an abortion, so I don't understand why I'm the bad guy here. :p

You're not the bad guy as far as I'm concerned.

I just think it's so easy to pass comment when - as a guy - you're never going to be in that situation.

I'll stop quizzing you.

*JR*
Apr 21st, 2007, 09:46 PM
At that moment, the fetus can't feel anything, can't feel pain, can't think, can't hear, etc. It is far more cruel to kill animals than it is to end a pregnancy in the early stages.

What about people who wouldn't survive a pregnancy? My late SIL (she died two weeks ago) would not have survived a pregnancy because of her heart condition. She loved children, but she knew that should she accidently get pregnant, she'd have to abort. Her life was hard enough with her condition, would you deny her the pleasure of a life partner as well?
True regarding the early stages and cognitive ability, but Roe vs. Wade essentially gives the woman sole discretion up to 6 months, which is past that point. (Yes, I realize that most abortions occur a lot earlier). And I'm very sorry about your SIL, but no ban that would ever become law in the US would deny a life of the mother exception. (South Dakota's total ban was written that way to see what limits the Supreme Court would accept, even its authors don't expect it to ever be enacted as written).

Scotso
Apr 22nd, 2007, 04:14 AM
You're not the bad guy as far as I'm concerned.

I just think it's so easy to pass comment when - as a guy - you're never going to be in that situation.

I'll stop quizzing you.

Well, yes, you're right. I'm a guy, and I'm gay, so I'll never face this. But that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion on it.

And I think that it isn't fair in our society that the women is given sole choice in the matter. The father has no say, and I don't think that's right, either. It takes two to tango, as they say. Yes, it's a woman's body... but as some point it becomes another one, as well.

I just think it's a very unfortunate situation. It would be nice if you could only get pregnant if you wanted to.

Scotso
Apr 22nd, 2007, 04:17 AM
At that moment, the fetus can't feel anything, can't feel pain, can't think, can't hear, etc. It is far more cruel to kill animals than it is to end a pregnancy in the early stages.

What about people who wouldn't survive a pregnancy? My late SIL (she died two weeks ago) would not have survived a pregnancy because of her heart condition. She loved children, but she knew that should she accidently get pregnant, she'd have to abort. Her life was hard enough with her condition, would you deny her the pleasure of a life partner as well?

No, but I would hope that she would do her best not to get pregnant.

I would also say that I'm not against the morning after pill, because as I understand it stops the egg from implanting.

But once the fetus starts forming, the likelihood is that it *will* become a human being. At that point, I just feel it's wrong to end the process. I'm not a religious person, but sometimes I wonder about things like souls and all of that. If they do exist, at what point do we get one?

Apoleb
Apr 22nd, 2007, 05:53 AM
At that point, I just feel it's wrong to end the process. I'm not a religious person, but sometimes I wonder about things like souls and all of that. If they do exist, at what point do we get one?

OK that's your own opinion, and if you or your gf or something had a baby that's what you do/recommend. But this is far from being self-evident and there's a lot of diversity of opinion on this in society, so you really have no right to force your opinion on any other person.

I personally don't buy the "woman should have control over their bodies" liberal argument. It's one of those cases where ideology (in this case feminism) is unreasonably taken too far. Should we have the right to sacrifice a human being put in the womb because people have the right to control their bodies? However, I am not going to think of the early fetus as a full human being. For me, it's just a bunch of cells, and I don't believe a soul comes in and takes its place. So when a person is faced between having an unwanted baby that will probably be not raised well and have a miserable life and abortion at an early stage, I think abortion is the right choice. Ofcourse, this issue is never easy and should never be taken lightly.

mc8114
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:17 PM
OK that's your own opinion, and if you or your gf or something had a baby that's what you do/recommend. But this is far from being self-evident and there's a lot of diversity of opinion on this in society, so you really have no right to force your opinion on any other person.

I personally don't buy the "woman should have control over their bodies" liberal argument. It's one of those cases where ideology (in this case feminism) is unreasonably taken too far. Should we have the right to sacrifice a human being put in the womb because people have the right to control their bodies? However, I am not going to think of the early fetus as a full human being. For me, it's just a bunch of cells, and I don't believe a soul comes in and takes its place. So when a person is faced between having an unwanted baby that will probably be not raised well and have a miserable life and abortion at an early stage, I think abortion is the right choice. Ofcourse, this issue is never easy and should never be taken lightly.
interesting

i used to be one of those women thinking "we should have control over our bodies". now i dont feel that way, i'm against abortion, at any stage of the pregnancy. the only excpetion will be the raping cases, where the woman, if pregant, should be in total control on deciding whether she wants or doesnt want the baby to grow inside of her.

Kart
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:20 PM
interesting

i used to be one of those women thinking "we should have control over our bodies". now i dont feel that way, i'm against abortion, at any stage of the pregnancy. the only excpetion will be the raping cases, where the woman, if pregant, should be in total control on deciding whether she wants or doesnt want the baby to grow inside of her.

I don't understand that - an accidental pregnancy or a child or rape can be an equally unwanted pregnancy so why is one more acceptable to you than the other ?

Kart
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:28 PM
Well, yes, you're right. I'm a guy, and I'm gay, so I'll never face this. But that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion on it.

And I think that it isn't fair in our society that the women is given sole choice in the matter. The father has no say, and I don't think that's right, either. It takes two to tango, as they say. Yes, it's a woman's body... but as some point it becomes another one, as well.

I just think it's a very unfortunate situation. It would be nice if you could only get pregnant if you wanted to.

As a gay man I'm sure you'll have encountered judgement from others on the way you live your life and decisions you make. Abortion is not the same thing but there are parallels - particularly in terms of the guilt and judgement that people tend to receive.

To me the bottom line is that having an abortion is generally not a decision that is taken lightly. Women don't deserve observers telling them that their decision is 'repulsive.' By all means support them - provide them with alternative options, try to convince them otherwise but don't make them feel any worse than they probably are already.

You are however, correct on re: fathers' rights and the 'at some point it's another person's body' arguments and though I disagree you have a right to your opinion which I respect BTW.

Wigglytuff
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:37 PM
just curious, how many posters who believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases have adopted children? particularly older and disabled children which are the hardest to place?

Wigglytuff
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:42 PM
there seem to be a great deal of anti choice people here so there should be no shortage of adoption stories.

and its clear that pro lifers would want to save lives and thus adopt children who would otherwise be aborted and thus have many adopted chilren. tell you story.

mc8114
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:51 PM
I don't understand that - an accidental pregnancy or a child or rape can be an equally unwanted pregnancy so why is one more acceptable to you than the other ? the difference, for me, is that in one of them you agreed to have sex in the other one you were brutally forced to. in the first case you should be mature enough to take responsability over your actions.

Kart
Apr 23rd, 2007, 03:49 PM
I don't disagree on the issue of taking responsibility for you actions but loads of sexually active young women (and men) aren't mature enough to take responsibility for their actions.

Would you force a pregnant 14 year-old girl to have her baby because her partner's condom broke ?

Kart
Apr 23rd, 2007, 03:50 PM
BTW Wigglytuff, give it up - you know the answer to your question :p.

samsung101
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:13 PM
Who is saying a 14 year old can't have an abortion?
She can get a federally or state funded abortion free of
charge in the USA, in any state.

She can have it w/o telling her parents or guardian as well.
Have it in the morning, go back to class, and then home, and
Mom and Dad can be none the wiser. School staff can and
do legally assist minor girls do this all the time, and it's
legal.

Most abortions in America are for convenience

Not rape or incest or health of the mother.
A baby would just not fit into the life style the mother
has or wants. Young or old.

Over one million a year is rather sick, considering that
birth control is free, that schools teach birth control
starting in elementary school, and our media and culture
encourage birth control and sexual lifestyles daily.

Unless you're at Brigham Young or Bob Jones University,
not likely you're having trouble getting birth control information
or materials. Most teens in America find a way to sneak out or
hide out or at home, have sex w/o Mom or Dad knowing. They
can sure figure out a way to go to the school nurse, any Planned
Parenthood, or any Target, and get some birth control.

Helen Lawson
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:20 PM
I have this hardcore, far-left radical friend. She's in the adoption business, well, sort of. Anyway, I asked her about South Dakota wanting to ban abortion, expecting a left-wing rant from her. Quite the opposite, she said she wishes abortion would be banned nationwide because "I'd get rich from all the adoptions." Man, what a sell-out turn around!

star
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:34 PM
there seem to be a great deal of anti choice people here so there should be no shortage of adoption stories.

and its clear that pro lifers would want to save lives and thus adopt children who would otherwise be aborted and thus have many adopted chilren. tell you story.

Actually, in really right wing, Christian type groups, there ARE a large amount of people who have adopted (and also have 90357016 of their own kids :lol:).

If someone isn't responsible enough to use birth control, then they're hardly responsible enough to have sex. In cases of rape or when having the baby could seriously hurt the mother, I think abortion is okay. I just don't think it should be used to fix someone's own stupid mistakes. And if they do, they should DEFINITELY be paying for it.

mc8114
Apr 26th, 2007, 12:02 AM
Who is saying a 14 year old can't have an abortion?
She can get a federally or state funded abortion free of
charge in the USA, in any state.

She can have it w/o telling her parents or guardian as well.
Have it in the morning, go back to class, and then home, and
Mom and Dad can be none the wiser. School staff can and
do legally assist minor girls do this all the time, and it's
legal.

Most abortions in America are for convenience

Not rape or incest or health of the mother.
A baby would just not fit into the life style the mother
has or wants. Young or old.

Over one million a year is rather sick, considering that
birth control is free, that schools teach birth control
starting in elementary school, and our media and culture
encourage birth control and sexual lifestyles daily.

Unless you're at Brigham Young or Bob Jones University,
not likely you're having trouble getting birth control information
or materials. Most teens in America find a way to sneak out or
hide out or at home, have sex w/o Mom or Dad knowing. They
can sure figure out a way to go to the school nurse, any Planned
Parenthood, or any Target, and get some birth control. i believe that also applies to the rest of the world as well :help:

I don't disagree on the issue of taking responsibility for you actions but loads of sexually active young women (and men) aren't mature enough to take responsibility for their actions.

Would you force a pregnant 14 year-old girl to have her baby because her partner's condom broke ? those are the risks of having sex, even if you use protection things can go wrong.

if she was 'mature' enough to be having sex at 14, she also has to be mature enough to face the consecuences that came after. I know she's just a kid and that she probably wont see it, but that's where the parents need to come in and help her :shrug:

gotthebend
Apr 26th, 2007, 07:00 PM
So this ruling can put some obstetricians and gynecologists into very difficult situations. What are they gonna do? Obeying the law and watching those women suffer from certain diseases? Maybe they can only hope for miracles/ deus ex machina.