NEWS: 30 States Ready to Outlaw Abortion, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 6-10-2004 @ 07:02 AM by deeprivergal
The 1973 ruling giving women the rights to have an abortion could be overturned. If this happens 30 states are preparing to make abortion illegal within one year. The landmark Roe vs Wade decision being overturned would open the doors for states to ban abortion and make it illegal.



foxnews.com
WASHINGTON — Thirty states are poised to make abortion illegal within a year if the Supreme Court reversed its 1973 ruling establishing a woman's legal right to an abortion, an advocacy group said Tuesday.

The pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights said some states have old laws on the books that would be triggered by the overturning of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. Others have language in their state constitutions or strongly anti-abortion legislatures that would act quickly if the federal protection for abortion was ended and the issue reverted to the states.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

9 justices support abortion rights, and it is believed that if President Bush is elected for a second term that the balance could be tipped towards abortion rights. Kerry is an anti-abortion supporter.

21 states considered at high risk for banning abortion are:

    Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin


9 at middle risk of banning abortion:

    Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.


And 20 at low risk of banning abortion:

    Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.



reply posted on 6-10-2004 @ 07:33 AM by radiant_obsidian
I saw a news snippet on early morning TV here in the UK about 3-5weeks ago, which showcased a new technology in baby scanning, which would let a 3-d picture of the baby possible to view at as little as the first few weeks of conception. My point is that the doctor presenting the technology has been using it to study thousands of babies, and he was deduced from his work that babies form coherent thoughts and have self-preservation skills form the age of 2-8 weeks old on average!!!!
Im probably not explaining this well, but it basically means that all previous abortions carried out on childeren in our country should be labbelled murder as in each case it has been scietifically proven that the children in the womb are self aware and fear there own mortality at a much earlier age than previously thought.
I could never deny a child his life when I hold my own so precious, I have long believed that abortion is an easy way out for a polite society who want evrything to fit into neat lil boxes they can control on a whim.
Im welcome to opinions to the contrary, but murder is simple, the delibrate killing of a sentient/self aware life, and we now have irrefutable proof that babies are sentient within their first few weeks.
Tho at the same time look to all areas of society, if we ban abortions, should we ban vets from spaying animals because this again interferes with nature and has us playing god for our own comfort????????



reply posted on 6-10-2004 @ 09:50 AM by lmgnyc
So if abortions are declared to be murder, are laws going to be enacted so that pregnant women are then held liable for any activities that result in harming the unborn fetus?

What happens if she stupidly slips down the steps and murders the baby?! There is always a risk of falling down the steps--she should know better than walking down the steps when she is pregnant! Murderer!

What happens if she has a hormonal imbalance and has a miscarriage? Woman with hormonal imbalances shouldn't try to get pregnant because the risk of fetal death is high--she should know better. Murderer!!

What happens if her birth control pills fail and the woman, not knowing that she is pregnant, continues to take them, causing the fetus to abort? The woman should know better than to have sex other than for procreative purposes AND taking birth control pills is even more of a high risk activity!! Homicidal maniac!!!

Okay, perhaps it is a bit harsh to call these women murders. But if a fetus is declared a person, some of these women are at least guilty of involuntary manslaughter, which carries a minimum prison sentence of 10 years and a maximum of 27 years. Look at the standard definition:

--In order for a person to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter the government must prove that someone was killed as a result of an act by the person;

--Second, in the circumstances existing at the time, the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life; and

--Third, the person either knew that such conduct was a threat to the lives of others or knew of circumstances that would reasonably cause the person to foresee that such conduct might be a threat to the lives of others.

It can be argued that a pregnant woman that loses her baby from falling down steps, slipping while walking on noticibly icy street, or even getting in a car accident where she is responsible, she could be charged with involuntary manslaughter and be thrown in jail. Even beyond manslaughter--if an unborn fetus is declared to be a person, I foresee all kinds of frivolous lawsuits brought by hysterical families that sue the mother of the lost child for punitive damages if they feel she is responsible. Are we prepared for these consequences?

Do you see how problematic it is to declare the unborn fetus a person? There is a point when the fetus does begin to take on human characteristics, but to call a fetus a person is not accurate. A potential person, perhaps, but not a person.

Everyone has the right to their own beliefs, and if you don't believe in sex for reasons other than procreation, birth control, or abortions, you are not forced to engage in these activities. However, people that do not hold those same beliefs should not be subject to them.

There are a variety of reasons why women have abortions--no one but these women should have the right to determine whether or not they are necessary. Everybody can cite anecdotal examples of women who need them for medical reasons to women who are told that their child will be born with severe genetic deformities and chose to end the pregnancy to women who use them as a form of birth control--but to outlaw them will only have serious consequences for everyone.


reply posted on 6-10-2004 @ 10:53 AM by lmgnyc
Originally posted by blanketgirl
If you can't handle the child- either you shouldn't have gotten pregnant or you should give it up for adoption to one of the millions of couples who can't have their own kids.


Your personal experience is the reason why choice should remain in place--you don't know how you will feel when you are faced with the situation. Many women may also feel different than you do--I don't think that it is fair to project your beliefs on anyone else.

"You shouldn't have gotten pregnant"--in many circumstances, pregnancy isn't because of reckless behavior, or is all sex that isn't for procreative reasons reckless?

Perhaps more women should give their unwanted babies up for adoption, but in many circumstances, carrying a child to term will have serious consequences on the woman's life--her career, her reputation... Giving a baby up for adoption isn't a viable option in many circumstances.

So in essence, a woman should only have sex unless she is prepared for motherhood?

The attitude that premarital sex is taboo and unwanted pregnancy is the punishment is so hypocritical. Where in the United States are people just having sex for procreation? WHERE??? Every single Catholic/Christian I know has had sex just for fun. And not reckless unprotected sex, but condoms break. Birth control pills fail. Its a fact of life. Premarital sex is happening everywhere and has been going on for thousands of years--it isn't going to stop. Christians and Catholics can beat their bibles and push abstinance all they want, but the great majority of people in America are having sex before marriage and they aren't doing it to make babies. Isn't something wrong here if everyone in America is doing it, yet the church says it is a sin?

The other argument that abortions should only be in cases of rape is also flawed. Do you know how long it takes to convict someone of rape in this country? Longer than the first trimester, that's for sure. Perhaps even the second trimester--six months in today's legal system is nothing. To first prove that the pregnancy was from rape or incest before having an abortion is not a viable solution, not to mention the humiliation the victim must face standing up and describing the situation over and over again in public.

What about cases where amnio in the 16th week finds that the baby will be born with severe genetic defects? What about cases where the mother's health may be in danger? There are too many "what ifs" to put restrictions in place, besides the fact that it shouldn't be left up to the government to decide when it is right and when it is wrong.


reply posted on 6-10-2004 @ 10:56 AM by torque
But of course the rape victim can put the child up for adoption. That's what the pro-life people will say. Nevermind that while trying to get over the rape the woman is carrying the evidence of it for 9 months. Possibly going to trial pregnant with the rapist's baby. Possibly infected and therefor able to pass HIV or something else onto the baby. So she gets raped, has to go through pregnancy and give birth, then give the baby up for adoption. Maybe she can try to put her life back together after a year or two. Right.

They can outlaw abortion if they put a few other laws in place.

1) Mandatory paternity test to prove who the father is for the purpose of gaining support.

2) Mandatory child support from the father.

3) Mandatory co-responsibility for the father. (e.g. missing work when the child is sick, doctor appointments, school appointments, etc.)

4) Mandatory jail time if these conditions are not met.

For too long this has been a "women must pay the consequences" issue. If a baby is going to be seen as a punishment for having sex, then it's time for it to be shared by the man who planted a seed. No arguments about how he thought she was on the pill, blah, blah. Mandatory responsibility or jail. Let's see the bright future of adults who were raised as a sentence to their "wayward parents".

This issue needs to be handled through education and in cooperation with the medical community. Not through making abortion illegal. The social causes of unwanted pregnancy need to be addressed. Simply making safe, medically supervised abortion illegal isn't going to solve the problem.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 6 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 7 days ago with 72 member flags
Renowned Geophysicist Says Strange Sky Sounds Are Real
  Posted 1 days ago with 68 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 19 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 7 days ago with 49 member flags