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.

 

SOCIAL: Abortion

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Abortion. One of the most heatedly debated subjects in America today, and for the last 30 years. In 1973 the landmark court decision of Rowe Vs. Wade has made abortion legal in the United States. People that are Pro-Choice, believe abortion is right and have fought to keep it legal. People that are Pro-Life find abortion abhorrent on religious grounds or other, and work to outlaw the practice. The Libertarian Party platform is Pro-Choice, a woman’s body is her own, and it’s her choice to have the child or not.

 


A Brief History:

Abortion Laws and Practices Prior to 1973: Abortion was practiced legally in the US until the 1800’s. In the early US abortions must be performed before the quickening, or the time when the mother can feel the fetus. Slowly, states began passing laws making abortion illegal. By the year 1880 abortion in almost any instance was against the law, except in the case of the mothers life being in danger. Abortions in this time, much like any surgical procedure was dangerous. In the early 1900’s women’s rights groups fought for the right for women to have abortion to little avail. Women that choose to get an abortion go to “back-alley” abortionists with often deadly consequences.

By the middle 1900’s laws begin to change towards the Pro-Choice side. In 1959 the American Legal Institute, (ALI) pushes to legalize abortion on grounds of rape, incest, or a deformation of the fetus. By the late 60’s some states have passed laws based on the ALI model. In 1967, Ronald Reagan (surprisingly) signs the most liberal abortion law for California, allowing for choice during the first 20 weeks. In 1970 New York, Alaska, and Hawaii allow abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy.

“Row Vs. Wade“: The U.S. Supreme Court, finds that a "right of privacy" it had earlier discovered was "broad enough to encompass" a right to abortion and adopting a trimester scheme of pregnancy. In the first trimester, a state could enact virtually no regulation. In the second trimester, the state could enact some regulation, but only for the purpose of protecting maternal "health." In the third trimester, after viability, a state could ostensibly "proscribe" abortion, provided it made exceptions to preserve the life and "health" of the woman seeking abortion. Issued on the same day, Doe v. Bolton defines "health" to mean "all factors" that affect the woman, including "physican, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age." [1]


Abortion Methods:

Chemical: A chemical abortion is a type of abortion in which a drug is used to induce the abortion, rather than a surgical procedure. Chemical abortions occur after the embryo has implanted itself in the uterus. The implantation in the uterus is when a fertilized egg becomes a pregnancy. The “morning after pill“, RU-486, is used for this method. Used correctly this is a highly effective method. Some however, contest that it’s dangerous.

Inducing Labor: Later term abortion can be administered simply by inducing labor.

Other methods include using a vacuum and surgical tools to remove the fetus from the uterus.


Arguments For and Against Abortion:

Pro-Choice: A woman can do what she wants with her body. Several other points are to be made of course. If abortion were to be outlawed again women would have to result to dangerous “back alley” abortions again. Another argument is that a child shouldn’t be brought up by an unfit mother, for example a crack-addict. A women that has been impregnated by a rapist or a family member shouldn’t be expected to raise that child.

Pro Life: Believe that life begins at conception. Thusly, ending any life prematurely would be murder. “The worth of a person is not determined by his value to society or parents' views. All humans have this dignity given by God, though men try to deny it.” [2] Above all most believe the bible forbids it. Recently President Bush signed the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act”, also known as “Laci and Conner’s Law”. Pro-Life advocates see this as a victory in getting Roe Vs. Wade overturned.

Abortion has, and will continue to be a hot-button issue among many Americans. Everyone has an opinion on it.

Sources:
1. www.nrlc.org...
2. www.biblequery.org...

Additional Reading:

www.abortionfacts.com...
National Right to Life
www.plannedparenthood.org...
www.morningafterpill.org/




posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 02:20 AM
link   
I stray from most Libertarians as I believe that the child has a right to life, rather then the mother having the right to choose. The child's life should be protected from coercive outside forces. Here's a good article on the subject: www.lewrockwell.com...



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Abortion is MURDER period. their are plenty of people out there who can no have kids that want to adopt. In my mind I see Abortion as a way to re leave a women or a man for that matter of the responceability that there Immature ,Irresponsible actions. A child should not suffer because of the Premisquiousness of the mother.Rape is a Different story but I still do not think an abortion should be performed even in this case the child committed no crime.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I'm going to side with pistol and truth here and agree that abortion is murder. Studies have shown that early in the pregnancy a fetus can laugh and has a heartbeat, this means that the fetus is alive.

Another residual effect of abortion is that if a girl can easily get an abortion, whats to stop her from having lots ofsex and raising the risk of getting something else called an STD.

If abortion was illegal people might think twice before they act



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   
No one has the right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body. Lets look at this:

Would abortion be ok if I was raped and became pregnant by my rapist?
Would abortion be ok if it was incest?

These are questions you have to ask yourself. You're talking about carrying a human life for 9 months. What if I couldn't afford to feed this child? You say adoption... well if you have ever given birth you would know that you form a bond with that child and you could NEVER give it away.

No one should be able to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body. It could cost her her life.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   
John Kerry believes in a womans right to choose!

Not partial choice, TOTAL choice. If they are carrying a fetus, John Kerry believes she should be able to abort it at any time. All the bans on partial birth abortion and other types of abortions will be lifted. A fetus does not gain life until it is born and fully out of the womb. Therefore the Woman is carrying a non living fetus that she has to feed, clothe, give it a place to stay, and totally take care of for the next ~16 years or so. What if she cant afford to keep it? Is she supposed to just dump it in some foster home after it has gained life by her? No!

If a woman wants to have an abortion she should be able to have one. John Kerry believes in this.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dreamlandmafia
A fetus does not gain life until it is born and fully out of the womb.


Could you please define "gain life".


Story
This article tells a much different story



At nine weeks, the embryo's ballooning brain allows it to bend its body, hiccup, and react to loud sounds. At week ten, it moves its arms, "breathes" amniotic fluid in and out, opens its jaw, and stretches. Before the first trimester is over, it yawns, sucks, and swallows, as well as feels and smells. By the end of the second trimester, it can hear; toward the end of pregnancy, it can see.


So, the baby has "gained life" long before it comes out of the mothers womb. It's not as if just magically it gains life when it comes out.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I'll pose this question to those that support late term abortions: What is the difference between a late term abortion and having your child outside of the hospital and throwing it away (you see this on the news from time to time)? Is my perception of this practice wrong?


To clear things up I think that in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother abortion should be allowed. I also approve of RU-486.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Hummmm, this is not an easy subject for me to voice my opionion on since I am Catholic and I know how hard it is for John Kerry too.
I, myself do not beleive in abortions mostly due to my Catholic up-bringing and because I can't see destroying something that gives so much unconditional love to it's parent(s) after it's birth and growth, but, we're not talking about "after" it's birth , are we .

I beleive whole-heartedly in "Women's Rights".

I feel that a woman has the right to decide what she wants or doesn't want done to her body, no one else has that right to decide for her, least of all........... a man , but there are men out there that think they have the "right" to just "take" from a woman what he has no right to,...... this would be RAPE and if the woman ends up pregnant from the "rape", she has the right to terminate if she so chooses to do so. Rape is a HORRID experience that no woman should ever have to endure, but it happens, and no one has the right to tell that rape victim that she has to carry the pregnancy to full term.

Teen pregnancy is becoming a bigger problem than it was before and this is where it's the parent(s) fault. Young girls that are raised in a very "strict" abusive family to where they are to scared to tell their parents that they are pregnant so the girl keeps quiet, wears baggy-clothes so as she grows bigger it's not noticed, then delievers the baby alone, kills it and discards the body, ....... "Baby Chelsea" is a prime example of this and this is happening all over the globe. It would have been better for the baby in the long run if "Baby Chelsea's 17 yr old mother had just gone to an abortion clinic. "I'll see if I can find a url on the artical and insert it later.

Mother vs. embryo life; There really should not be any question on whose life should be saved if it's a issue of life or death, period.

I would never choose to abort and that is my choice, but what I think would be the best way, may not be whats best for someone else, that's why it's the woman's right to choose.

Someone mentioned "adoption", that is a route that some women choose instead of abortion,.. it does give the baby a chance at a good life but it could also be a bad life , and I think that because of the fear of not knowing what type of a person would be adopting the baby ( if it was carried to term), is one of many reasons why a woman chooses to abort.

There are many different reasons why a woman chooses abortion over carrying to full term but that is her right of choice.

I do feel that some rule/law should be put in place, besides the ones that are already there when it concerns abortions. I feel that a woman should only be allowed to have one (1) abortion ( if the pregnancy was due to consentual sex), that she has a file number to where any hospital or clinic when registering the woman's name into the computer can pull up a medical record list of all women that has had an abortion already to see if the woman's name is on the list, if it is and if she tries for a second abortion she should be informed that the law only allows for one abortion per person and she' would have to carry to full term .

But it's still the woman's right to choose as the "Women's Rights" states.


[edit on 2-9-2004 by nanna_of_6]



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 12:41 AM
link   


Would abortion be ok if I was raped and became pregnant by my rapist?
Would abortion be ok if it was incest?


In My opinion NO in both cases the child committed no crime.Take it for what its worth I am not trying to be an ass about it bit its wrong no matter the circumstance.

[edit on 2-9-2004 by Truth_Hunter_1976]



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   
John Kerry's position is simple, straight forward and ideological. Even when polls disagreed on PBA's, his position remains clear.


Kerry staunchly resists restrictions on abortions
Kerry staunchly resisted restrictions on abortions, including a ban on the 'partial birth abortions
Source: Complete Biography By The Boston Globe, p.293 Apr 27, 2004


Agree or disagree. Nothing to really debate about where Kerry stands.

George Bush's position, however, is highly debatable...seemingly both ideological AND poll driven. Here's an excerpt of John McCain trying to pin it down:


Bush supports GOP abortion plank but disagrees on exceptions
McCAIN [to Bush]: Do you believe in the exemption, in the case of abortion, for rape, incest, and life of the mother?
BUSH: Yeah, I do.
McCain: [But you] support the pro-life plank [in the Republican Party platform]?
BUSH: I do.
McCAIN: So, in other words, your position is that you believe there’s an exemption for rape, incest and the life of the mother, but you want the platform that you’re supposed to be leading to have no exemption. Help me out there, will you?
BUSH: I will. The platform doesn’t talk about what specifically should be in the constitutional amendment. The platform speaks about a constitutional amendment. It doesn’t refer to how that constitutional amendment ought to be defined.
McCAIN: If you read the platform, it has no exceptions.
BUSH: John, I think we need to keep the platform the way it is. This is a pro-life party.
McCAIN: Then you are contradicting your platform.
Source: GOP Debate on the Larry King Show Feb 15, 2000


In the absence then of a Bush position or voting record, look to the GOP and Vice President for insight. Cheney falls completely in line with the Republican Party on the issue of a women's reproductive rights...she has none. Entirely unmoved by popular opinion, his voting record is consistent with the GOP Platform having in his career voted against safe access to ANY abortions even including circumstances of RAPE, INCEST and to save the LIFE of the WOMEN.
Cheney Defends Conservative Voting Record

Additional insights on candidate George W Bush (currently marketing the W as standing for women) can be found at The Truth About George.

And it's not what you think. It's an excellent compilation of his own words as cited in credible sources. An example released by the White House:


Bush Addresses Anti-Abortion Protestors
On the 29th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Bush addressed anti-abortion rights marchers via cell phone, saying: "Everyone there believes, as I do, that every life is valuable; that our society has a responsibility to defend the vulnerable and weak, the imperfect and even the unwanted; and that our nation should set a great goal that unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected in law."
Source: The White House, "President's Phone Call to March for Life Participants," Jan. 22, 2002


As revealed in his own words then, the assumed postion of George Bush on the fundamentally important Women's Issue of reproductive rights is he's pro "unborn child"...for which the actual term is fetus.

I don't think it would be fair then to characterize Bush a flip flopper on this issue (as John McCain alluded in 2000), as I believe his pro fetus position is quite formulated. He just doesn't want moderates to know it. Though the Republican National Convention speaker line up may point further to the idea he'd like to decieve America on his abortion stand.

Moderates then or those with mixed feelings on abortion access should know that whoever becomes President gets to appoint Supreme Court Justices for life. They don't listen to polls either and they determine the legality of safe abortion. All the people get a say in is who appoints the Supreme Court. The only chance to do that until 2008 rolls around is November 2.

[edit on 2-9-2004 by RANT]



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   
if the child is had by accident or mistake, which is rare or by rape etc. Abortion should be allowed. but if it is because of persoanl mistakes or the mother cant look after the childs needs, then no, abortion is wrong thats why they have adoption agencies, stem cell research places, and even
underground human testing facilities lol. but you get my point.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 04:20 AM
link   
If the surpreme Court over turns the abortion laws to where abortions are illegal, they'll next take away "Women's Rights". I myself had never considered abortion with any of my four pregnancies because I feel it's wrong personally but it's still a womans body and her right alone to choose what to do. This issue should not even be a consideration during election time, it's important but it could wait till after the election to be debated on.
I will say that there is one good reason why it should stay legal and
This is one of the best reasons why abortion should remain legal, as I said in my last post that I would put the "URL" in if I found anything on "Baby Chelsea - Iowa). I will add another one if I'm able to find the one I'm looking for.

Students at STC react to murder charge against classmate


Students who spoke out were in consensus that what had happened was terrible and didn't understand how a person could do this type of thing. Students believed that there were many other options...abortion, adoption, or that the baby could have been left at a church or some safe place.



www.tamatoledonews.com...

Here's a better article.

www.tamatoledonews.com...

I took this from a different thread I posted on.


[edit on 3-9-2004 by nanna_of_6]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Regardless of the rulings this topic goes through legally, there will always be those that can be championed because of it, and others to be sad for for the same reason.

Therefore the conclusion of this debate, is which is more important:

- The Right to Life
or
-The Right to Choose

Both have consiquences and benifits.

Personally I think the most prudent policy would be the Right to Life. There is nothing more basic to humans, than to protect life. It is even the government's primary duty.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by deeprivergal
No one has the right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body. Lets look at this:

Would abortion be ok if I was raped and became pregnant by my rapist?
Would abortion be ok if it was incest?

These are questions you have to ask yourself. You're talking about carrying a human life for 9 months. What if I couldn't afford to feed this child? You say adoption... well if you have ever given birth you would know that you form a bond with that child and you could NEVER give it away.

No one should be able to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body. It could cost her her life.


You bring an interesting point here, and I agree with you in a sense. Abortion is something that has to be considered via the circumstances. For example if someone did get raped and became pregant, then fair enough abortion should be available, since it was not through will.

However in other sense's abortion is murder since, at the end of the day you are killing life, and how can you justify it. For example, if you got pregant by someone then you split, how can you justify ending someone else's life.

Final Verdict: Abortion is something that has to be considered for each circumstance.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Actually, this election is very important with regards to abortion.

Bush being re-elected would mean the posibility of replacing a justice during his 2nd term. This would be a serious blow to the pro-choice movement because the vote stands now as a 4-5 vote. One vote counts.

Personally I embrase it, if it does happen. Pro-life and the Libertarian Party go hand in hand, although the platform doesn't mention it either way except to say that the states should rule on it.

The right to life is stand alone, the most basic and most important right there is. Whether it be a chance at life even if you didn't ask for it and it will be hard, to cruel and unusual punishment, and even the 2nd Amendment.

It is far reaching and is primary to all others considering you need to be alive to excersize any other rights.

The current system of measure of death, is brain activity. Should it not also be for the initiation of life as well? This could easily clear up much of the confussion and convolution the begining of life debate.

In cases of rape or incest, well, that's a tough one. But they do need to be addressed independantly. If the brain is active and it is terminated, that is called murder. Murder is a crime. I know of no other crime on the law books, that gives victims the right to commit a crime against a third party if one is committed against them by some first party.

So although it is quite possibly the worst thing in the world, she must live with it either way.

Personal Freedom comes with Personal Responcibility. Fail to excersize the latter, and the former aids you very little.

We can't control people's mistakes and/or actions.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   
This has always been a tough one for me

I am personally against it

BUT I am also against telling a woman what to do with her own body.

To me there is NO good answer to this question

I think the Federal Government should stay out of it and let the states decide much like the drug laws, that way if you dont like the law in your state move or go to the next state for the abortion. But if the feds MUST rule on it they should allow it. It is much to important to be left to the desk jockeys.

The only exception I see would be the states should allow it at ANY time for the health of the mother

[edit on 5-9-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 01:16 PM
link   
It has been said, and I will say it again.

Abortion is murder.

It's the same as killing a baby after birth.

It is inhumane, and should be outlawed.

Period.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
We can't control people's mistakes and/or actions.


I think that's more of a bottom line to this issue than anything else said in this thread. Whenever government gets involved in regulating our personal decisions its bound to get messy. And are we prepared to dedicate the resources to women forced to give birth to children they don't want and can't afford? Its the same people pushing for an end to abortion that want to end programs like welfare and medicaid.

In a way this issue is also about oppression because womens liberation can be marked by control of her own uterus whether it be through contraceptives or abortion--the use of both were hard fought and now we are free to decide whether we want children or not. Sometimes America walks a thin line between our government becoming more dictorial than democratic. It seems republican ideas stand more on the side of you can't, you can't, you can't because we are--when in democracy it is you can because you are. You can decide what you want to do with your body and you can control your own mistakes. No "we" can do it for you, or decide what you should do afterwards to fix it. There is no we in the delivery room and we aren't breast feeding or changing diapers. It is a personal choice to do what is required to bare and raise a child.

[edit on 5-9-2004 by Saphronia]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by deeprivergal
No one has the right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body. Lets look at this:

Would abortion be ok if I was raped and became pregnant by my rapist?
Would abortion be ok if it was incest?



Abortion is never ok this is one of the few areas that I split with many Libertarians on.

I do feel bad for a woman who gets raped, I think the only things worse are child molestation and killing babies, but "Let’s look at this:"

Would it be ok, if it would remove all the pain of the raped woman, to go to an orphanage and kill a 2 day old infant?

Is it ok to kill a baby just because he is born retarded? (I assume mental retardation was the reason for your incest question.)

This is not a question of a woman’s right to choose! This is a case of legal murder. It is very easy to say you support a woman’s right to choose. Ask your self this: are you prepared to make the statement that "A woman has the right to murder her unborn child?" Replace right to choose with the word murder and it changes everything.

I believe in a person’s right to do whatever they want with their body, from piercing all the way up to suicide, so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.

Can you support cannibalism by saying you have a right to choose what goes into your body? You cant do whatever you want if hurts someone else.

If there was a chance that a fetus may exit the womb as a cat or horse, then you could make the argument that it is not human life. Because we know that the thing in there is carrying the DNA of a human being, its OWN, INDIVIDUAL DNA CODE, it is a separate human life form, and killing another human is called murder.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join