Quote:
The New Front Line in the Abortion Wars
By JEREMY CAPLAN
Posted Sunday, Feb. 26, 2006
South Dakota isn't known as a hotbed of controversy. But the state took center stage in the abortion debate last week when lawmakers there passed one of the strongest bans on the procedure since the Supreme Court effectively legalized abortion nationwide in its 1973 ruling on Roe v. Wade. Passed by a 23-12 vote in the state senate and approved in the house, the bill prohibits abortions even in cases of rape or incest, the only exception being if the mother's life is endangered. Republican Governor Mike Rounds indicated that he supports the bill. "I believe we should protect human life," he said at a news conference. "If this bill accomplishes that, I am inclined to sign it."
Kate Looby, state director for Planned Parenthood of South Dakota, which runs the state's only abortion clinic, says her organization will seek an injunction if the bill becomes law. "Opponents of abortion see this as perfect timing," she told TIME, noting that with the Supreme Court tilting right after President Bush's appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, abortion foes seem emboldened to press for bans, hoping to fast-track direct challenges to Roe rather than just chip away at it.
Indeed, other states -- Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee -- have introduced bills this year to ban most abortions. The Supreme Court may soon reveal which way it's leaning. It has agreed to hear a case challenging late-term, or "partial birth," abortions. The court last weighed in on this topic in 2000, narrowly striking down a ban on the procedure. The swing vote: Sandra Day O'Connor.
With reporting by With reporting by Sarah Sturmon Dale
From the Mar. 06, 2006 issue of TIME magazine
Miss. Bill to Ban Most Abortions Advances
By EMILY WAGSTER PETTUS, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 58 minutes ago
JACKSON, Miss. - A state House committee voted to ban most abortions in Mississippi, which already has some of the strictest abortion laws in the nation.
The bill approved by the House Public Health Committee on Tuesday would allow abortion only to save the pregnant woman's life. It would make no exception in cases of rape or incest. The bill now goes to the full House, which could vote next week, and then to the Senate.
South Dakota lawmakers passed a similar bill last week that was intended to provoke a court showdown over the legality of abortion.
The Mississippi lawmaker who introduced the near-ban, Democrat Steve Holland, said he acted because he was tired of piecemeal attempts to add new abortion restrictions year after year.
Holland said he has voted for some abortion restrictions and against others in the past. "I have a strong dilemma within myself on this," Holland said. "I can only impregnate. I can't get pregnant myself."
Mississippi already requires a 24-hour waiting period and counseling for all abortions, plus the consent of both parents for minors who seek the procedure. Republican Gov. Haley Barbour favors restrictions on abortion, but he has not spoken about the current legislation.
The state has one abortion clinic, in Jackson, and its leaders plan to fight if more restrictions are imposed.
"We're realists. We know we're in a state where the Legislature is anti-choice," said Susan Hill, president of the National Women's Health Organization, which runs the clinic.
The South Dakota legislation went to Republican Gov. Mike Rounds on Tuesday, and he has 15 days to act. Rounds has said he's inclined to sign the bill into law.
Bush disagrees with South Dakota abortion ban
Tue Feb 28, 6:43 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush signalled his opposition to a South Dakota abortion ban that forbids the procedure even in cases of rape or incest, saying he favors such exceptions.
But Bush declined to predict the outcome of any legal challenges to the legislation, which would make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy except in rare cases when it may be necessary to save the life of the mother.
"That, of course, is a state law, but my position has always been three exceptions: Rape, incest, and the life of the mother," the US president told ABC news in an interview.
Asked whether he would include "health" of the mother, Bush replied: "I said life of the mother, and health is a very vague term, but my position has been clear on that ever since I started running for office."
The bill, which recently gained final approval from South Dakota's House of Representatives, directly contradicts the precedent set in 1973 when the US Supreme Court ruled that bans on abortion violate a woman's constitutional right to privacy.
The bill grants no allowances for women who have been raped or are victims of incest. Doctors who perform abortion would be charged with a crime. It also prohibits the sale of emergency contraception and asserts that life begins at fertilization.
The governor of South Dakota has indicated he is likely to sign the bill.
A leading pro-choice advocacy group has already vowed to challenge the ban in federal court. But that seems to be exactly what many promoters of the legislation seek.
Advocates of the ban do not deny they aim much higher than South Dakota, a rural and socially conservative state, which even today has only one abortion clinic.
Instead, they are hoping the bill will offer a full frontal assault on legal abortions now that the balance of power in the Supreme Court appears to have shifted with the confirmation of conservative jurists John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both of whom are seen as pro-life.
Looks like it's going to be an interesting year for the supreme court. It's the womans body so it's her right to choose is my opinion. Also if they are going to pass these bills they should include exceptions for Rape, Incest(especially, why would any sane person want this exception out of a similar bill is beyond me) and the Life and Health of the mother. Interesting to see Bush disagree with a anti abortion bill, thought I'd never see the day lol.
Debate but try to keep it clean and try not to attack each other because of your opposing views.
i say let those men experience the fear involved in an accidental pregnancy - or let their daughters have it happen - and THEN try to say how bad abortion really is.
those asshats need to realize a woman is fully capable of deciding what happens to her body...and if they really try to control women that much, they might as well start taking all our rights away.
another thing they need to realize: even if they banned abortions across the US, they would still happen...but it would be a lot more dangerous, and a lot more clandestine. women have been having abortions since women were cognizant enough to feel that the pregancy shouldn't happen. they will CONTINUE to happen, whether it's legal or not.
Oh man here we go again !! True its the womens body but to use / absue abortion as another means of birth control I am HIGHLY agaisnt. If its an accident then doctors can perscribe the morning after pill. If its rape or insest go get the pill. If its cause your a slut who can't keep her legs shut then sorry you should have to have the kid and then give it up for adoption. Yes I know the adoption laws are efed up but why should you ( not saying anyone in perticular ) not being able to keep your pants up mean that an innocent baby has to DIE for your mistakes. Thats just wrong. I've said my piece about this in another thread on here and am not going to be drug into it again. This is my opinion it will not change if thats a problem for anyone then its your problem not mine.
I do however think this law is a little too far out there. I'm sure it worded this way so that both sides can come to an agreement somewhere in the middle.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
I'm pro-life unless there was a rape or incest is involved. It sickens me that women use abortion as a form of contraception, killing another life because they got drunk one night and couldn't keep their pants on. I believe that life starts at conception, not at birth so I think that it's murder, they're killing a living individual. When you get into the health of the mother I think you're starting to get into a gray area. Some doctors can start preforming them because they feel that the "mental health" of the mother might be affected. Killing a baby shouldn't be done because the parents will be inconvenienced. This country needs to start seeing all life for the blessing it is, even a newborn baby. I'm amazed at the fact that most health care providers will pay for an abortion but not for infertility drugs. They'd rather get rid of them then have another person to cover.
i'm not saying that women should use it as a form of contraception, either - but the problem with laws like this is the lack of usable grey area. they CANNOT easily have a conditional law regarding this - it'll either be no abortions, or yes abortions. i say yes, let a woman have an abortion if she feels that she cannot bring the pregnancy to term. i also think that there should be a counselling requirement before the termination date - because some girls might decide, with counselling, that they can bring the child to term and give them up for adoption.
I wouldn't be against illegalizing abortion WHEN THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES FIRMLY IN PLACE.
And there are not. As said about, foster care and adoption is screwed up HARD in this country. So until every baby lover here is ready to take one of these children, I don't care what you think.
My wife and I are planning to adopt. We're going to put our mouth where our money is.
Are you?
---
was the are you question directed at me?
i am the product of adoption. i would readily adopt a child - frankly, i'd prefer that over giving birth. there are far too many parentless/unwanted kids in this world, so LET THE GIRLS STOP BEING BABY MACHINES!
...though education is an absolute must. so many kids are ridiculously uneducated about sex in this country.
Quote:
I believe that life starts at conception, not at birth so I think that it's murder, they're killing a living individual.
If the sperm cell from the father follows the biological definition of alive, and the ovum from the mother follows the same biological defintion, then explain to me how life began--as in started from nonlife, when there was preexisting life.
Life began on this planet approximately 3.5 billion years ago and it's a continual proccess. Most likely life exists elsewhere in the universe and began before then.
Further, does that mean every fertilized egg that fails to implanty in the mother's womb (which happens quite often, i might add) make every woman a murderer? And does that zygote manage to develop itself OUTSIDE the mother's body--or does it need a quasi-parasitic symbiosis in order to reach a point in which it can sustain itself on it's own?
Regardless of where life begins, it's not sacred--if it was, we wouldn't die.
Now, that being said, i'm not for abortion, but i think that every case has to be taken in it's own context and you can't generalize and say it's all wrong.
But i don't think it should be used as contraception. Morning after pill is fine because all it does is prevent implantation--which happens quite a bit.
But, consider this in a real-world scenario. Disallowing abortions legally will just make them happen illegally--think back to prohibition.
I say make this one a rights/responsibility issue. Unless it's rape/incest/life of mother at risk, or other scenario where a full-term pregnancy would bring disaster, and you want an abortion...fine. But after that, you AND the father are sterilized afterwards because you obviously can't handle the respnsibility of reproduction. And if they can't find the father, a paternity DNA tests is done, and once they do find him, bam, his bullet is bronzed.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
spikej wrote:Looks like it's going to be an interesting year for the supreme court.
Well, considering they replaced a conservative and a moderate (who supported women's rights) with a conservative and a hyper conservative, and considering previous reproductive rights issues were a 5-4 split, this could be an opportunity to see where the new justices (who repeatedly swore allegiance to letting precedent stand) take their position on one of many hot button issues.
How can politicians say they are for the little guy out there (which they all do) and then allow people to kill the littlest (i dont thk thats a word, but you get it) of us all, a unborn child. I think its a tad hypocritical of us to murder a baby, when we are alive.
i still say that if they're going to revoke that right - that HUMAN right - then they might as well force us to wear clothing covering every inch of our bodies, and prevent us from leaving our homes without chaperones.
...gee...i wonder what society that sounds like...
Well... it's going to be a very interesting year indeed. I'm still for women's rights since there are people out there who need it. If a slut can't keep her legs together then that's her money going down the drain.
*****************************************************
*
* Student of the University of Oklahoma. Go Sooners!
*
*****************************************************
Here's my views on abortion...
1. Abortion is killing a baby. It doesn't matter if you call it a zygote, embryo, fetus or a bun-in-the-oven.
2. Your faith / priest / rabbi / whoever should tell you abortion isn't an option.
Your government shouldn't make this decision for you.
3. Keeper and Lilbit are 100% right on the money about people having high-risk illegal abortions if legal abortions are gone. (prohibition, great example)
I would have to side against these new laws. Just because
"I" view abortion as killing a baby doesn't mean that's the only option for
"EVERYONE".
And Agustin, if you're serious about adopting that's effen awesome! Let us know when you've done it and I'll send you a case of diapers or something!
.
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
Abortion as contraception will not stop until we bake it taboo (to most it already is) or hold the "parents" responsible. Sadly this is almost impossible, all the mother has to do is claim that she was raped by a stranger. Making it illegal is a bad move, I think we need to spend more money educating young people about safe sex. Too many people believe that abstinence is the only way, teens WILL have sex no matter what. Adoption is the best "short-term" fix, but people want to have a child that biologically theirs and the adoption proses is screwed up. It would be nice if temporary sterilization was performed earlier in life and could be reversed when the individual wanted to have a baby, but this scares most people. People just seem to have NO morals now day, but who am I to judge.
i find it funny that i'm the only female posting in this thread.
lilbit01 wrote:i still say that if they're going to revoke that right - that HUMAN right - then they might as well force us to wear clothing covering every inch of our bodies, and prevent us from leaving our homes without chaperones.
...gee...i wonder what society that sounds like...
We discussed abortion on another forum and one person made a VERY good point.
In situations where it is used as birth control, the mother should not have the option of abortion. BOTH parents should be forced to take responsibility for their actions.
In other cases such as rape, incest, yada yada, it should be okay.
The other position that we argued was in a situation where the mother does not want the child and the father does. In a situation like this, I believe that unless there are health risk involved, the woman should be required to have the child and give sole custody to the father. reason for this is...
When a woman decides that she wants to have a child, the father doesn't want the child and chooses not to take care of it...he is seen in the eyes of society and the law as a deadbeat dad. The mother can file child support, and pretty much ruin this man's life with a child that he didn't want in the first place. If a woman can make the decision to abort in a case where the father wants the child and she doesn't, so should a father have the right to walk away from the responsibility of raising a child that he didn't want.
"Speak the truth, and leave immediately after"
"The urge to save Humanity is almost ALWAYS a false front for the urge to rule"
"He who knoweth things as they are and not as they are said or seem to be, he truly is wise, and is taught of God more than of men."
see that? that i can fully support.
i do
NOT support total bannernation of the practice...just a modification of protocols regarding administering the drugs for a medical abortion, and a limitation on surgical abortions.
AGuSTiN wrote:I wouldn't be against illegalizing abortion WHEN THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES FIRMLY IN PLACE.
And there are not. As said about, foster care and adoption is screwed up HARD in this country. So until every baby lover here is ready to take one of these children, I don't care what you think.
My wife and I are planning to adopt. We're going to put our mouth where our money is.
Are you?
My wife and I looked into adoption, we REALLY wanted to adopt a child. But, it is VERY cost-prohibitive. To adopt a child can easily run into the 10's of thousands, almost like they only want rich, stupid movie stars to adopt, I guess money makes a good parent. We've accepted our lot in life, but that experience only strengthened my pro-life stance.
Quote:
i find it funny that i'm the only female posting in this thread.
This isn't supposed to sound mean but I'm not sure how it will come across. Abortion, adoption and children aren't solely a woman's situation. Men and women are both involved in having a baby. It affects men as much as women. Trust me, I felt as much pain as my wife did for the first 3 years of our marriage and I also felt all of her pain, not fun.
zero wrote:Quote:
i find it funny that i'm the only female posting in this thread.
This isn't supposed to sound mean but I'm not sure how it will come across. Abortion, adoption and children aren't solely a woman's situation. Men and women are both involved in having a baby. It affects men as much as women. Trust me, I felt as much pain as my wife did for the first 3 years of our marriage and I also felt all of her pain, not fun.
while i agree, i find it ridiculous that more women aren't willing to say what they think on this matter.
i have a little clue for you, however...the price of adoption hasn't done much but gone up since i was adopted - and they do it for a reason. they want to ensure people are financially secure enough to adopt. you might not be able to NOW, but this is an incentive for you two to save up. it took my parents 8 years to afford a child AND get approved for it...and they felt it was worth the wait. don't get discouraged just because you can't do this NOW. you will be able to in the future if you really want it.
While i agree with your stance, John W., about what's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander, I have to make a comment on this:
Quote:
1. Abortion is killing a baby. It doesn't matter if you call it a zygote, embryo, fetus or a bun-in-the-oven.
What about an omlette? Or disecting a fetal pig for High School biology? Right to lifers are just as hypocritical as the pro-choice ones, because when they rally behind the "sanctity of life" charade, it's not universal. If it's not right to kill a human or quasi-human life (remember at a point in embryonic development human embryos do have gills, a tail, and a notochord--none of which are human characteristics), then why should it be right to kill ANY form of life--except for food?
In other wordfs, like Agustin on abortion/adoption, if you're going to pull the sanctity of life card, you actually have to adhere to it. Not saying you don't, but throwing this out
Cham: I agree with the "if the father wants the child," partially. I will say that having a baby does wreak havoc with a woman's body, while the father's left pretty unscathed. But, if that were the case i think the mother would have to pay child support, too.
It's why i say if you're going to have an abortion as contraception, you're sterilized. IIf you can't handle the responsibilities of reproduction, you can't have the priveldge of reproducing. The fringe benefit to this is that it would help clean out the genepool a bit.
I will say that part of the problem lies in the lap of some groups that are against abortion--groups like the Catholic Church that demonize contraception as well. While i'm not about to stand here and get into a moral vs. biological debate over whether or not teens should be having sex and all that, I will say this--you're going to have teens and everyone else having sex, and trying to mandate moality is not only constitutionally illegal (Establishment clause), but also plain-oput won't work in this "question authority" society we live in. Thus, start promoting contraception and of course sex end and all that from a young age and all--make sex less of a taboo.
After all, it's not a taboo in europe, and yet they had a lot less problems per capita than we do.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
zero wrote:AGuSTiN wrote:I wouldn't be against illegalizing abortion WHEN THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES FIRMLY IN PLACE.
And there are not. As said about, foster care and adoption is screwed up HARD in this country. So until every baby lover here is ready to take one of these children, I don't care what you think.
My wife and I are planning to adopt. We're going to put our mouth where our money is.
Are you?
My wife and I looked into adoption, we REALLY wanted to adopt a child. But, it is VERY cost-prohibitive.
That's exactly freakin right, man. Like I said, it's all screwed up.
There are programs to make it more affordable, but not affordable enough. So we can't illegalize abortion until the alternatives are accessible and we have more demand for children than children, otherwise we're just populating our ghettos for the next decade.
BTW, here's a some stats for you all since my wife and I are into fixing the foster care system (it's our little cause)..
About a quarter of the people raised in foster care will be homeless within four years
There are more than half a million children and youth in the U.S. foster care system today. Studies reveal that children are 11 times more likely to be abused in state care than they are in their own homes, and 7 times more likely to die as a result of abuse in the foster care system. -John Walsh Show 4-16-2003
83.7% of the 1,972 children exiting foster care in Nebraska were reported to the federal government as "missing"?
A recent study has found that 12-18 months after leaving foster care:
27% of the males and 10% of the females had been incarcerated
33% were receiving public assistance
37% had not finished high school
50% were unemployed
So like I've said, if we don't fix the alternatives before illegalizing abortion, we're only going to make our country worse. So far, one state, is taking this problem seriously..
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/03/01/EDGU9GJEIN1.DTL
---
[quote=Keeper of the Light™]While i agree with your stance, John W., about what's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander, I have to make a comment on this:
Quote:
1. Abortion is killing a baby. It doesn't matter if you call it a zygote, embryo, fetus or a bun-in-the-oven.
What about an omlette? Or disecting a fetal pig for High School biology? Right to lifers are just as hypocritical as the pro-choice ones, because when they rally behind the "sanctity of life" charade, it's not universal. If it's not right to kill a human or quasi-human life (remember at a point in embryonic development human embryos do have gills, a tail, and a notochord--none of which are human characteristics), then why should it be right to kill ANY form of life--except for food?
"Pro-choice" people use the terms I listed to make abortion sound less offensive. My point is that if it can grow into a baby, it's a baby.
[quote=Keeper of the Light™]In other wordfs, like Agustin on abortion/adoption, if you're going to pull the sanctity of life card, you actually have to adhere to it. Not saying you don't, but throwing this out
Nope, this isn't my position at all. Killing my unborn child isn't an option for me or my wife, but I don't want the government to make it illegal for everyone based on my beliefs. As far as the "sanctity of life", I was in favor of the Tookie execution, I'm not a vegetarian and if dead animals are used for the education of mankind, that's fine with me too.
[quote=Keeper of the Light™]It's why i say if you're going to have an abortion as contraception, you're sterilized. IIf you can't handle the responsibilities of reproduction, you can't have the priveldge of reproducing. The fringe benefit to this is that it would help clean out the genepool a bit.
I agree completely with this, but then I'm the author of
this thread last December that suggested everyone should be sterilized at birth until they can prove they're able to raise a child.
[quote=Keeper of the Light™]I will say that part of the problem lies in the lap of some groups that are against abortion--groups like the Catholic Church that demonize contraception as well. While i'm not about to stand here and get into a moral vs. biological debate over whether or not teens should be having sex and all that, I will say this--you're going to have teens and everyone else having sex, and trying to mandate moality is not only constitutionally illegal (Establishment clause), but also plain-oput won't work in this "question authority" society we live in. Thus, start promoting contraception and of course sex end and all that from a young age and all--make sex less of a taboo.
After all, it's not a taboo in europe, and yet they had a lot less problems per capita than we do.
Education is the key, but please don't use "sex" and "Europe" in the same sentence. I got this visual of a very hairy British girl in my head now... yuck!
.
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
lilbit01 wrote:
i have a little clue for you, however...the price of adoption hasn't done much but gone up since i was adopted - and they do it for a reason. they want to ensure people are financially secure enough to adopt. you might not be able to NOW, but this is an incentive for you two to save up. it took my parents 8 years to afford a child AND get approved for it...and they felt it was worth the wait. don't get discouraged just because you can't do this NOW. you will be able to in the future if you really want it.
My wife and I are in a good place now, it was hard getting here and it sucked but now that we're here we're happy. We have a cat that we spoil and a niece and nephew to are two really great kids. Plus, any system that would think that Michael Jackson or is more secure then I am is too screwed up anyway.
