It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New abortion law could mean death penalty for doctors

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I was startled to read this article in my morning paper. A new Texas law which takes effect this week could make it possible for doctors who perform abortions without parental consent or after the third trimester, liable to face capital murder charges.




AUSTIN - Texas doctors who perform abortions without parental approval or after the third trimester could face capital murder charges because of a new law that takes effect this week, a prosecutors group says.

The Texas District and County Attorneys Association has outlined that scenario in its new book updating the Texas penal code and in public presentations around the state. The group says such charges could occur under the new law because of the 2003 fetal protection law.


In Texas a capital murder conviction could result in the death penalty.
www.chron.com...

Now the article does state that legislators insist it is not the law's intent. However, with the abortion issue being a key platform of the neocon movement, I find it difficult to believe that was not an underlying strategy to boost their cause.

It brings to mind, Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaiden's Tale." Certain aspects of this book no longer seek so far-fetched.




posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Even if the doctor doesn't get the death penalty, one member in question already does.
About time someone is looking at this in a rational fashion. The "doctor" is the one who preys upon others, waiting for someone to come to him.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Is just another way to target abortion rights in this country when politicians fueled by religious groups lobbyist can not do it at a national level the state is usually targeted first in hopes to take it all the way to the top.

US ranks the highest nation with teen pregnancies of any industrialized country.

Girls as young as 13 and up become pregnant every year in this country at records levels.

Now who is at fault? the government? the Parents? Society?

I put the blame on the tabu that our nations hide under to avoid the proper teaching of facts of live in our schools.

The subject of pregnancy should be make aware to children as young as 10 years old.

But as usual religious groups and politicians are too full of BS to do anything about it but preaching morals and abstinence, never targeting the subject itself.

OUR Children ARE having SEX.!!!!!

But condemning those that seek abortion is better for their agendas.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   
It's important to keep this in perspective.

Very few abortions are performed in the third trimester to begin with; estimates vary between 1 and 3% of all abortions are performed later than 24 weeks.


Third-trimester abortions are extremely uncommon; fewer than 600 are performed per year. This irrefutable fact is documented by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), the institution acknowledged by the Centers for Disease Control as having the most complete information on abortion practice.



In 1997 the Alan Guttmacher Institute said that approximately four one-hundredths of one percent (.04%) are performed in the third trimester or after viability.


Source 1

Source 2

Also, it appears that the only acceptable reason for such a late term abortion is when the mother's health is placed in jeopardy. I realise this isn't comforting to anyone who is strictly against all forms of termination (for any reason), but it's still worth considering.

To penalise the doctors performing these procedures is simply illogical. More would be accomplished by spending the money on educating our 13 year olds and facing the reality that our kids will keep having sex, and they will keep conceiving if we keep drumming it into them that sex is somehow dirty, shameful and/or taboo.

Education is a far better option than abortion, but it still won't negate the necessity entirely - it'd be a start though.

Perhaps more importantly, I'd hate to see the return of backstreet abortions.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   


Even if the doctor doesn't get the death penalty, one member in question already does.
About time someone is looking at this in a rational fashion. The "doctor" is the one who preys upon others, waiting for someone to come to him.


I don't believe there is anything rational about this stance. First of all, doctors don't "prey" upon others, they dispense valuable medical services and advice.

You might also be surprised to learn that certain common (and medically necessary) procedures are considered abortions. For example, if a woman suffers a miscarriage, she is given the option of (A) passing the miscarriage on her own, which is painful and could take up to two weeks, or (B) receiving a D&C (dilation and curettage), in which the doctor clears out the uterus. Although this procedure is used for a host of other female conditions, when used in cases of miscarriage it is considered an abortion.

The issue at hand is whether or not a woman's health or life be placed in limbo, or worse yet, jeopordy, because doctors are being limited in what treatment or advice they can dispense to their patients. When the government starts interfering with the doctor/patient relationship, it is indeed a dire breach of personal civil liberties.

I am not surprised that the neocon morality movement has no problem stripping a woman of her autonomy. But I sure as hell bet that if a splinter morality group tried to get Viagra and other male enhancement drugs off the market, the men in the neocon department would be up in arms!



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Performing an abortion on a woman who has not consented to it, regardless of whether you are pro- or anti- abortion, is absolutely wrong. It is a violation of the woman's rights. Unless the woman is mentally unable to make the choice (coma, retarded, unconscious on an operating table, etc), there should never be a case where a doctor should ever have to do this without consent. Consequently, I agree with this law 100%.

Because of my Christian religious beliefs, I would like to see the scope of this law expanded even further, to ban all abortions except in pregnancies where the mother is experiencing severe health problems or where the mother was raped. Of course, not everyone will agree with me on that, and I don't expect them to. I would, however, be extremely surprised at someone who didn't agree with my first paragraph. (although you still have the right to, lol, I just don't see how you could disagree with it)

(edit begins here)


For example, if a woman suffers a miscarriage, she is given the option of (A) passing the miscarriage on her own, which is painful and could take up to two weeks, or (B) receiving a D&C (dilation and curettage), in which the doctor clears out the uterus. Although this procedure is used for a host of other female conditions, when used in cases of miscarriage it is considered an abortion.


If the woman has suffered a miscarriage, then that means the baby is dead. Removing the baby's corpse from the mother's womb, rather than wait for it to pass through on its own, doesn't bother me in the slightest. This might be considered an abortion in the medical community, but in my mind it isn't. To me, an abortion is any deliberate procedure where a living fetus becomes a dead one. I hope this law clearly defines just what is considered an abortion, or there's going to be trouble.

[edit on 30-8-2005 by DragonsDemesne]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
Because of my Christian religious beliefs, I would like to see the scope of this law expanded even further, to ban all abortions except in pregnancies where the mother is experiencing severe health problems or where the mother was raped. Of course, not everyone will agree with me on that, and I don't expect them to. [edit on 30-8-2005 by DragonsDemesne]


I would generally agree with your 'christian' beliefs if 'christians' gave some forthought and planning for the Mothers-to-be. You cannot on one hand say "Abortion is against God and should be illegal" without making a provision for the care and feeding of the swelling human population that your conscience creates. While having a belief system to lean on and place your faith in, it should behoove you to always properly question everything as all issues are two edged swords.

What if the 'soul' of the newborn cannot enter the body until the body is actually clear of the mothers energy field? What if all the actions of the child in the womb are mearly 'testing' manuevers to continue physical development?


*kick*

"Ow!"

"okay, left leg isworking better, check the right one again."

*kick*

"Honey! The baby is kickin the crap outta me."



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
Performing an abortion on a woman who has not consented to it, regardless of whether you are pro- or anti- abortion, is absolutely wrong. It is a violation of the woman's rights. Unless the woman is mentally unable to make the choice (coma, retarded, unconscious on an operating table, etc), there should never be a case where a doctor should ever have to do this without consent. Consequently, I agree with this law 100%.


Isn't the topic (where consent is concerned) about performing abortions without the parental consent of a minor?

Unless I'm reading it wrong?

I didn't see anything really connected to the concept of performing abortions without consent in as in Demesne's example.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Teens get pregnants as soon as 13 when you elect someone as Bush and that his policy against AIDS is to not make love....

He don't even publicies the use of condom...



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   


Performing an abortion on a woman who has not consented to it, regardless of whether you are pro- or anti- abortion, is absolutely wrong. It is a violation of the woman's rights. Unless the woman is mentally unable to make the choice (coma, retarded, unconscious on an operating table, etc), there should never be a case where a doctor should ever have to do this without consent. Consequently, I agree with this law 100%.


I sincerely doubt that a doctor would perform an abortion on a woman without her consent. (Although I don't doubt there are rare instances of this.) Rather it comes down to an issue of parental consent in the case of minors.

There are cases when a minor has reason to believe that approaching her parents about her pregnancy would place her in a potentially abusive situation. There are cases where the minor may be a ward of the state and permission must be granted by a legal guardian. And there are cases where the minor may have to obtain permission to receive an abortion from a judge (in cases where she fears her parents). At this point it doesn't matter if the minor became pregnant through consensual sex, sexual abuse or rape. The decision to grant the minor an abortion resides with the moral stance of her guardian, or in some cases, a judge.

There was a case in Houston within the past two years where a 15 or 16 year-old girl, apparently afraid of her parents reaction, obtained and presented a fake ID to a doctor in order to obtain an abortion. (I really doubt that this is an isolated incident, afterall kids get fake IDs to drink or enter 21+ clubs.) The point is, should doctors be held liable for providing abortions to minors without proper parental consent. And if so, should it be a capital offense that may be punishable by the death penalty.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Teens get pregnants as soon as 13 when you elect someone as Bush and that his policy against AIDS is to not make love....

He don't even publicies the use of condom...


I think you'll find teens have been getting pregnant since they first discovered their weewees and hoohoos back when Adam and Eve were kids.

We can't truly blame Bush for teen pregnancies.

And that thought itself is just too horrifying for me to contemplate without much more caffeine...



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Tinkleflower//



I think you'll find teens have been getting pregnant since they first discovered their weewees and hoohoos back when Adam and Eve were kids.


Adam and Eve were NEVER kids!


helen

ADAM...means "taken from the earth."....red earth.
Eve .....the mother of all living

helen



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by helen670
Adam and Eve were NEVER kids!


helen

ADAM...means "taken from the earth."....red earth.
Eve .....the mother of all living

helen


You get my point, helen


It's too late for me to edit, but I can easily take out those names and put "Joe and Josephine Cavedweller" instead. Whichever, it all works for me



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   


You get my point, helen

It's too late for me to edit, but I can easily take out those names and put "Joe and Josephine Cavedweller" instead. Whichever, it all works for me





I think you'll find teens have been getting pregnant since they first discovered their weewees and hoohoos back when Joe and Josephine Cavedweller were kids.





I get your point!

helen



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
Performing an abortion on a woman who has not consented to it, regardless of whether you are pro- or anti- abortion, is absolutely wrong.




This law will simply result in teens running away from home to the next state and those who desire a late-term abortion to have to travel to get it.



Because of my Christian religious beliefs, I would like to see the scope of this law expanded even further, to ban all abortions except in pregnancies where the mother is experiencing severe health problems or where the mother was raped.


And there we have it. Religion in government, more clearly than I could have stated.

I have known very few minors (and I used to be one) who could safely approach their parents with the issue of an unwanted pregnancy. This law is simply hiding the problem or pushing it off onto another state. This sounds like a great way to lower abortions in Texas so they can claim lower pregnancy rates because of abstinance taught in schools or some crap.

The answer is education. Not only education on how people get pregnant and birth control, but a real life education on what taking care of a baby is like. A real out-in-the-open education about being pregnant, abortion, adoption, changing a stinky diaper (7 times a day), childbirth, the stress and responsibilities of having a child, all of it. Only when the teen sees the full picture are they going to decide for themselves not to get pregnant. If we continue to hide the issue under cloak of embarrassment, shame and 'sin' the status quo will continue.

Shame on Texas!



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

The answer is education. Not only education on how people get pregnant and birth control, but a real life education on what taking care of a baby is like. A real out-in-the-open education about being pregnant, abortion, adoption, changing a stinky diaper (7 times a day), childbirth, the stress and responsibilities of having a child, all of it. Only when the teen sees the full picture are they going to decide for themselves not to get pregnant. If we continue to hide the issue under cloak of embarrassment, shame and 'sin' the status quo will continue.

Shame on Texas!


That will be the ideal target and one I advocate for it, but the sad part is that religious groups and religious backed politicians will never go for it, because is not "Morally right" or It will exposed "Innocent children" to the facts of life.

Well the rates of teens pregnancies in this country can tell you that our children has been "EXPOSED" already and most of them "ARE" experimenting with "SEX".

I went through the hard teen ages years with my two kids with success, how I did it?

Very simple, I told them the truth, the good of it, the bad of it and the ugly part of it "Unwanted pregnancies"

People needs to wake up and smell the rotten reality.

Innocence has been lost a long time ago people needs to get up their fantacy worlds and remember when they were teens and experimented too.

Most of the parents that try to keep their children from the facts of life are mostly parents that were experimenting with sex early in life too.

Targeting doctors is NOT going to stop abortions in this country.





[edit on 31-8-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Very simple, I told them the truth, the good of it, the bad of it and the ugly part of it "Unwanted pregnancies"

People needs to wait up and smell the rotten reality.

Innocence has been lost a long time ago people needs to get up their fantacy worlds and remember when they were teens and experimented too.

Most of the parents that try to keep their children from the facts of life are mostly parents that were experimenting with sex early in life too.

Targeting doctors is NOT going to stop abortions in this country.

[edit on 31-8-2005 by marg6043]


I wish I could do a WATS, marg.

For all of your post, but for that part in particular.

It's ignorance that's actually causing much of the problem; and aren't we all meant to be denying ignorance?

We can't do that if we've still got our heads up our respective backsides when it comes to realistic sex education.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

US ranks the highest nation with teen pregnancies of any industrialized country.

Girls as young as 13 and up become pregnant every year in this country at records levels.

Now who is at fault? the government? the Parents? Society?

I put the blame on the tabu that our nations hide under to avoid the proper teaching of facts of live in our schools.




Gee, Marg, again, look at the problem in terms of when and why it became a problem, and who's solution you think is proper.
The teen pregnancy problem took off when? Was it when the country's historically-rooted morals were in tact, or did teen pregnancy start increasing with the Liberal-driven attack on Christian morals? Uh, yeah, after, Marg. So, rather than repairing the damaged nation, it is your contention that butchering children and teaching teens how to be immoral is the way to go?
One thing is for sure, my solution is a fact, and worked for a long time. The solution you espouse is part of the Liberal nation-deconstruction, to be followed by the Right's military march. I can think of nothing more dangerous than an extremely powerful country with a nation who tries to invent their own "morals". You are playing into their game, Marg, wake up.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Targeting doctors is NOT going to stop abortions in this country.


Exactly. But some will try anything to serve their agenda, even if it means pushing it in a round-about way :

Terri Schaivo? 'Err on the side of life' (Pro-life)
Can't teach Creation in schools? How about ID?
Gay people want to get married? Marriage is a religious institution!
Kids getting pregnant? Abortion's legal? Let's force them by law to have those babies! Let's target the doctors!


I saved one WATS for today, tink.
And that's the perfect place for it, I agree.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
One thing is for sure, my solution is a fact, and worked for a long time.


I missed your solution. Won't you share?




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join