It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


NEWS: 30 States Ready to Outlaw Abortion

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:02 AM
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.
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.

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:14 AM
Great, I guess we have finally become civilized enough to look at banning murder. It only took us a couple hundred years to see slavery was wrong and now we're finally seeing killing children is wrong too. I just hope it doesn't take another civil war to get this one across but it likely will. Nice going America!

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:33 AM
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????????

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:45 AM
No, I don't think its wrong to spay animals or to use birth control. There may in fact be but I just haven't seen it. Not saying there isn't. My disagreement of abortion stems from your post that babies in the womb are developed beings which can feel the pain and experience death. I also think the rights of women carrying children have to be considered but there comes a point for all of us when our personal rights must meet our personal responsibilities. They go hand in hand. We are not here to what we want when we want at the expense of our fellow beings. In my opinion, many abortions done are the farther's fault more so than the mother's. Its nice to think we men can just go willy nilly and do whatever we please because we don't have to carry the child but we do have to carry the responsibility of the child just as much if not more so than the women. This isn't an issue about mere women's rights or the rights of the fetus. Its just as much an issue about the responsibilities of those who create it.

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:53 AM
One can legislate, outlaw, and create laws written to ban abortion, but the sad thing is, abortion will continue.

Abortion is like prostitution, it has always been around, and always will be, despite the laws on the books.

So, for those old enough on this site to remember, tell me how abortions were performed prior to legalization?

Do coat hangers, alleys, abandoned houses, un-sterile rooms, and dead mothers bring up any memories?

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 08:48 AM
I Don't have a coochie, so i can't comment on much of this topic, but i do know one of my friends who would have died if she tried to have her child...
so is it better to kill her and possibly the baby, or just kill the child and get it over with...
it is these kind of conflicts that make the subject a personal one, that should NEVER be brought into a political arena again. That is why it should always be legally available, so as not to stigmatize those that HAVE to have abortions for medical reasons...
it should however remain an ethical one....
in so far that if you know someone who uses abortions as a means of routine birth control, then let them know that they are murderers. and that they are abusing a right giving to women out of neccessity not conveinance...

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 09:01 AM
Yeah......lets go back to the coat hanger abortions again, leave women uterus in the hand of politicians and let them tell women how to use it.

If any of you think that making abortion illegal is going to stop abortion guess what? "ignorance is a bliss"

Welcome to under ground abortions and the death sentence of many women.

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 09:22 AM
Does anyone know of any scientific studies that deal with the point at which an embryo/fetus is able to feel pain? On one hand we have the idiots who claim that that a baby is not alive until it leaves the womb, which is an obvious fallicy, but on the other, the religious kooks who claim that an embryo with only a few cells should be considered a person. Certainly there must be some sort of compromise where we can give a woman a period of time to choose to abort a pregnancy before said act becomes the murder of an infant.

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 09:32 AM
*applause* It took mountains of deaths, debate, and scientific evidence to prove what we already knew was right, but hopefully it will come to pass.

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 09:50 AM
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.

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 10:01 AM
Imgnyc when the ban in abortion and making it illegal come from religious fundamentalist views and bs everybody paids the price.

Until it hits home them people wonder if it was the right thing.

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 10:14 AM
I had always been okay with people getting abortions, two years ago I got pregnant, and I'm sorry to all the people who don't know this- but you know there is somebody living inside you.

You can try to be distant or deny it, but it feels like life, it doesn't feel like gas or bloating, it doesn't feel like a flu- it is living in you.

I don't believe anybody should ever even be considering abortion unless their life is in danger or they were raped, and even then I think only the women who are willing to press charges should have that privledge so nobody is lying about it. 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.

Stop being so selfish and make your misfortune into the biggest blessing in somebody else's life. It is never that child's fault, it is only the mother and father who are to blame and they should live with their consequences.

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 10:31 AM
Babies are a blessing when you want them and love them.

Pregnancy can be a blessing for some but for others are not and that is a fact and perhaps that is why so many children are in this country abuse after they are born.

Perhaps we should ban sex and make it illegal until the couple is married or they can prove that they can handle a child.

Or perhaps is ok for a woman seeking the blessing of becoming a mother will abort fetuses until one stick to her womb and she can become a mother, now this is no call abortion because is for "fertility purposes and is OK." Society will forgive a woman for that, and the truth is that is nothing wrong with the embryos and then implanted fetuses is just that the women cannot hold to them.

Double standards as long as it satisfy the few.

I have two friends that became mothers to miracle of science through embryo fertilization and now they are the prow mothers of twin boys and a girl.

And I am happy for both of them because they had a choice without society manipulating their uterus but between both of them 12 fetuses were aborted to finally achieve the miracle of life, who I am to condemn them for their choice?

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 10:33 AM
I don't know why it has taken so long to get to this point. Knowingly abrting a fetus is equal to murdering a human being.

If you'll look at the states that has a low risk, most of them, not all, are pro-Kerry states. That should tell it all there!

I glad my state is in the states that are considering outlawing this "legal killing of babies."

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 10:37 AM
Right now I have to big issues with this that bother me. 1.) Victims of rape who want and quite possibly deserve the right to an abortion of the child and 2.) Parents who discover their child will be born with a terminal illness. Quite frankly I think rapists do not deserve to carry on their genetic code, and basically forcing women to live with a child concieved by rape just seems beyond disgusting to me. Could you as a parent and spouse live every day seeing a child that reminded you of one of the wost atrocities possible against a person being commited against you or your wife? As for terminal illness is it not cruel to tell the parents "You will have this child, and you will watch it wither and die before its 14th brithday?" Is that not undue suffering both to the child and the parents? Of course it is; unless you look at it from a fanatical position as many in our goverment do. I sinerely hope this does not come to pass as I believe it will be a step in the wrong direction.

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 10:53 AM

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.

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 10:56 AM
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.

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 11:21 AM

Originally posted by torque
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.

This is absolutely true. Problems such as teen pregnancy are not going to go away by preaching abstinence, limiting access to condoms, and banning abortions. This is just going to make the problem worse.

Teens need to have proper sex education, as well as be provided with moral guidance from their parents. The fact remains that somewhere during high school and college, most teenagers will be experimenting with sex and they should know about the consequences and sexually transmitted diseases. They should also have access to birth control if they are having sex. There are hundreds of years of evidence that preaching abstinence doesn't work--hormones are more powerful than the bible.

And abortion needs to remain a viable option for teens. While pregnant teens are no longer automatically expelled, they are "coaxed" out of the system by counselors or convinced to go to special "P-schools" that have lower academic standards than regular schools. Sure they can put the child up for adoption, but in many cases, the girl's academic career will lay in ruins--as will her future.

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 12:07 PM
Im not surprised by the list. Disapointed mind you, but not surprised. People will have to go to these states to get services they need. Scared teens may or may not be able too get tot hese states in any case. As I have argued frequently with my Pro-Life opponets, adoption is not the answer either. How many "minority" babies sit waiting? More than you would care to admit. Another blow (potentialy) to individual freedoms

I wonder though. What if say an Indian Reservation wanted to open up a clinic? They fall under federal law not state. Could be interesting.

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 04:06 PM

Originally posted by alternateheaven
Right now I have to big issues with this that bother me. 1.) Victims of rape who want and quite possibly deserve the right to an abortion of the child and 2.) Parents who discover their child will be born with a terminal illness.

1. I think that this should be a no-brainer, if it was rape, then there is no reason why a woman should be forced to carry the child. Almost all pro-lifers would agree with that exception.

2. I agree, why bring the child into a short lifetime of suffering? This is probably not popular with pro-lifers since many of them think god chooses when death occurs. Also there should definately be an opportunity for the procedure to be done to save the mother's life. Everyone can agree on that, I assume?

I don't see why there can't be some kind of compromise, where we can respect the humanity of a fetus without making it as valuable as a grown person. The fact is, the only thing that separates a fetus and a baby is being inside the womb. They fetus does not magically turn into a human being as it is born. What would you think about a short period of time, 2 weeks perhaps, or a month, for the woman to decide, while the embryo is relatively undeveloped? In this way, can we perhaps prevent unwanted children from being born, without having to kill them and convince ourselves that it was just another medical procedure?

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in