News & Politics - The abortion debate

fetch · 10-10-2007, 06:15 AM

Okay, so we had a thread - "Should doctors be able to oppose abortion on religous grounds?"
Throughtout the thread the topic went in all directions, like is the bible really against abortion, when is abortion right or wrong, etc.

The thread reached 300 posts, was closed and wasn't re-opened. I thought I'd give it a shot again, to see if people could discuss it in a polite manner

Some things to dicuss:

-Is the Bible really against abortion? What evidence is there for that? And can we use the Bible to create new laws today?
-When is abortion "moral" and when is it not? [link http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html]
- Could people who oppose abortion laws want in some way to "punish" young girls who choose to have sex? [http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archive...hat-they-say/]
- Should abortion become illegal? If so, what should be the pentalty for women who have abortions? Doctors who preform them? []Quindlen: How Much Jail Time for Women Who Have Abortions? - Newsweek Anna Quindlen - MSNBC.com

migamoo · 10-10-2007, 07:56 AM

This is a sensitive topic for some, so let's all be respectful, okay.

ceilirose · 10-10-2007, 08:11 AM

These thread always get heated. But for the record - abortion should be safe, legal and rare. People should pay more attention to living children as they do to a fetus.

I fear that with the current leanings of the Supreme Court that reproductive rights of women could be in danger. Let's just hope that none of the Supreme Court Justices retire before there's a more reasoned attitude in the WH.

lizzie2000 · 10-10-2007, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceilirose (View Post)

I fear that with the current leanings of the Supreme Court that reproductive rights of women could be in danger. Let's just hope that none of the Supreme Court Justices retire before there's a more reasoned attitude in the WH.

I have a feeling that before anyone on this Supreme Court retires we are going to see a new ruling on Roe v. Wade and it is definitely going to be moving into the much more conservative area, aka making abortions illegal. The country has already made partial birth abortions illegal so it is the next step away from making all abortions illegal.

I do agree that we need to pay more attention to children that are here and maybe help those who are abused and suffering from neglect but also reproductive rights are a big issue. By banning abortion (if the Supreme Court decides to) would affect many different people that might decide to have an abortion for many different reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court finds a way to make a ban on the morning after pill as well.

fetch · 10-10-2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lizzie2000 (View Post)

I have a feeling that before anyone on this Supreme Court retires we are going to see a new ruling on Roe v. Wade and it is definitely going to be moving into the much more conservative area, aka making abortions illegal. The country has already made partial birth abortions illegal so it is the next step away from making all abortions illegal.

I do agree that we need to pay more attention to children that are here and maybe help those who are abused and suffering from neglect but also reproductive rights are a big issue. By banning abortion (if the Supreme Court decides to) would affect many different people that might decide to have an abortion for many different reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court finds a way to make a ban on the morning after pill as well.

Didn't the morning after pill need a prescription until recently? I live in Israel where you can buy it over the counter. A friend of mine asked me, a few years back, to send her the pill "just in case". I went to visit her a few weeks ago and she said it was now available over the counter - but she ended up using it before the law was changed.

Also, is the law in Utah that says a girl's parents have to be notified before she gets an abortion still relevent? I remember an uproar when a sentator said their would be no exceptions for incest victims. Which is competly crazy - what if the father decides he wants to keep the baby?

A senate ban in South Dakota is willing to have abortions only when the mother's life is in danger... S.D. Abortion Bill Takes Aim at 'Roe' - washingtonpost.com

I'm not sure I understand American law 100%. Does that mean that now women can't get abortions in South Dakota? Or does the laws have to pass through "higher powers"?

And even if you say abortion is acceptable in cases of rape and incest - that would mean you would have to prove there was rape or incest before the abortion. These things are often very hard to prove, a case of word vs. word, and take a lot of time. Then it can be too late to have an abortion.

edit:
From here: Utah Preps for Abortion Battle | Christianpost.com

Utah's lawmakers believe sex education should occur at the home. Ray contends there is no evidence sex education reduces unintended pregnancies. He equates abortion with murder and says pregnant women who don't want to be mothers should give up their babies for adoption.

....what? WHAT?! No evidence that sexual education reduces unintented pregnancies? Then, what, people are born knowing how to use condoms? and it means nothing that STDs are higher in numbers where their is abstince-only programs?

As for the "giving unwanted babies up for adoption" excuse... I have never seen one person who says that and has actually adopted a baby. There are way more unwanted babies than there are willing, capable parents who are looking to adopt.

lizzie2000 · 10-10-2007, 01:23 PM

The morning after pill is available over the counter in the United States and a lot of college campuses also have it available at their health centers for students that need it; however it was a big fight to get it over the country. A lot of people felt that it should be used only in extreme emergencies such as rapes and incest.

**sunnykerr** · 10-10-2007, 04:49 PM

Here's the reality of the abortion debate, though. The laws governing abortion do no decide whether or not abortions occur. We all know of the history of illegal, ill-equipped and, quite frankly, dangerous abortion practices that have existed for years and years.

Women have resorted to different means, from taking certain herbs and teas to doing themselve violence, in order to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.

I understand that some people have moral/religious objections to any and all types of abortion.

But I also understand that other people do not necessarily share those objections. And laws against abortion have never stopped anyone who was desperate enough to get rid of a fetus. Not to mention that there is a long, historically proven, psychiatrical tradition of "prescribing" abortions to women traumatized by either the circumstances under which they became pregnant or the fact that they find themselves pregnant at all. Of course, psychiatry isn't available to every person in every part of the world in every financial strata of society.

So, essentially, if there ever comes a day where abortion is outlawed, my sole fear is that we won't be preventing anyone from getting an abortion. But we will make it more dangerous for the poorer and the more remote segments of society. And to me that's appalling. We all have equal rights.

Jen Jaree · 10-10-2007, 09:58 PM

In Canada the Morning After Pill is over the counter. I am not against birth-control or the morning after pil. It's not techinally abortion it just prevents the eggs from being hatched.

My views on abortion. I am pro-choice under extreme circumstances eg. Rape, Incest, or Endangerment to the mother and the fetus. Mixed feeling for teenage mothers or those who shouldn't have children. Luckily I live in Canada so far there is no talk of making abortion illegal.

JohannafromIHJ · 10-11-2007, 05:12 AM

Something else to ponder: if doctor's should be allowed to refuse to perform abortions (or even send a patient on to someone who can perform the abortion) for religious reasons, should the same be true in reverse?

ceilirose · 10-11-2007, 08:31 AM

What's the benchmark for "allowing" a woman to have an abortion in the case of rape or incest? Would she have to wait for the outcome of a trial which in the US would most likely happen 9 months or later after conception? In which case the woman would have already given birth. In any case it's someone other than the woman deciding what should be done to her body. The Government shouldn't have a say in it.

Can you imagine the uproar if the Government demanded vasectemies for dead beat fathers so they wouldn't have any more children running around?

I've never understood the distinction that some make in regards to abortion being ok depending on the method of conception. Consensual sex? Oh no..the woman has to be responsible and give birth. Rape or incest? Ok..she can have the abortion. Talk about making moral judgments.

If people say they care so much about the fetus or unborn child in all of this then what's the difference?

I agree with sunnykerr. Even if abortion is outlawed in the US women will still have them. The rich will go to countries where it is allowed and have it done there. Otherwise will come up with the money and have it done "under the table." Others will have it done and be butchered by those who take money from the desperate. People are naive if they think it will just stop.

fetch · 10-11-2007, 11:35 AM

I agree about the exceptions - if you wait to prove the rape has taken place, it may already be too late.

And what about everyone else? Is it "their fault" they had sex, so they must keep the baby?
What if they used birth control that failed?
What if they thought they were ready for a kid, but something happened to change the situation [fired from job, major car accident, death, etc].

lizzie2000 · 10-11-2007, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceilirose (View Post)

I agree with sunnykerr. Even if abortion is outlawed in the US women will still have them. The rich will go to countries where it is allowed and have it done there. Otherwise will come up with the money and have it done "under the table." Others will have it done and be butchered by those who take money from the desperate. People are naive if they think it will just stop.

If Roe. V Wade was ever overturned people would still get abortions. They would just find another way to do it. It is happening right now even for people who can't afford an abortion they are either doing it themselves or going down to Mexico and having a "back alley" abortion as they are called. These people that do need to resort to having an abortion that is not done by trained medical professionals usually but their lives at risk. Does the Supreme Court and the United States really want to put even more people's lives at risk. Just because it becomes illegal doesn't mean that people will stop doing it.In fact the ways that abortions are done might just change and become more and more unsafe.

I think that a woman has the right to chose what she wants to do. It doesn't affect anyone else besides the father what her choice is, why should the Supreme Court and the rest of the population have a say in whether or not she wants to keep her baby and should be able to legally terminate it. It is a personal choice that a person has to make and should stay that way. No one should dictate what they do with their reproductive life.

JohannafromIHJ · 10-12-2007, 04:20 AM

Thing is, right now there are a lot more ways to have abortions than back when women had to resort of back alley ones. So good luck for anyone trying to stem that particular flow. So in the end, it's not about whether women should havbe abortion or not, because that particular decision is always going to made by individuals, no some big beehive-mind-thing, but rather whether women should be allowed to have safe abortions. I don't understand how anyone could say no on that, and still claim all life is sacred.

GrhmLz · 10-12-2007, 03:49 PM

Quote:

I'm not sure I understand American law 100%. Does that mean that now women can't get abortions in South Dakota? Or does the laws have to pass through "higher powers"?

Well, in the United States there is State law and Federal law. Roe vs. Wade was fought/won on the federal level (through U.S. Supreme Court). Generally, and this gets confusing even to American citizens, but state law supercedes within it's own state and is still free to enact its own laws. South Dakota state law appears to be attempting to challenge the federal ruling of Roe vs. wade by first passing anti-abortion legislation in its own state. Which from a liberalist perspective, can pose a serious threat to women's freedom of choice nationally. It's possible that South Dakota may be hoping to get women from their state to challenge the law on the federal level with a conservative bench intact? Then, the possibility of reversing the Roe v. Wade decision is more probable.

Personally, I'm torn on the abortion issue. I like to consider myself "prolife" b/c I do support life but how does one determine whether the woman/fetus' life is of more value? Especially when the debate centers around whether or not a "fetus" is viable life to begin with. B/c, in essence, that's what the pro-life/pro-choice debate seems to come down to in my eyes. Obviously, each one of us is going to answer that question differently.

Although I was raised Catholic, I've come to view the anti-abortion sentiment more as church-established law rather than biblical . The Bible addresses the concept of murder in general but it never addresses the direct connection between a mother/fetus; therefore, it can be interpreted as debatable. I'm going to garner a guess and speculate that it wasn't a prominent issue in biblical times otherwise it probably would have been addressed in some form. This isn't to say that maybe women didn't attempt to end their pregnancies or that miscarriages didn't occur. However, men appeared to dominate the times which makes it hard to decipher.

Therefore, I have come to see abortion as an issue of responsibilty when consensual sex is involved. However, rape and incest are an exception to me when it violates "will!". Especially when biblically speaking, these are ungodly acts to begin with! So, I guess to some degree, I take a pro-life stance but... sometimes I'm not so sure I can call it that. There are times I get jaded by the pro-life movement's agenda because sometimes their message comes across as simply "pro-baby" to me rather than "pro-life!" I don't like the idea of women being viewed as "Baby incubators" for rent during a nine month period b/c a fetus' life takes precedent over the woman's. And honestly, as a woman, that possibility frightens me b/c the reversal of Roe vs. Wade might lead to more than ending abortions. If fetus' become viewed as separate, indepent lives (which I'm sorry, I don't agree with that being biologically factual) inside the womb, how is this going to interfere with a woman's right to conduct herself during pregnancy? What's next... everytime there's a miscarriage is a woman going to be arrested for negligence (an assumption/perception she did something to cause it)? Manslaughter charges b/c the fetus has rights? Granted, I'm jumping the gun here but i really don't believe that reality is that far-fetched.

*Ledi* · 10-12-2007, 10:53 PM

GrhmLz, I don't agree with a lot of your views/opinions (I'm thinking older topics/threads), but that post was great and it made me respect you that much more. Thank you for posting it.