Obama reverses abortion policy

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
:applaud::applaud::applaud::applaud::applaud::applaud::applaud::applaud:


Finally some more freedom for women around the world!!!

... not to mention saving *some freedom for women Roe V Wade here in the USA via Supreme Court picks by President Obama !!! :applaud: YES!!!

*
noting that ANTI-choice groups have whittled down access etc for poor & some of the teenagers over these 8 years :mad:


Elections DO have CONSEQUENCES!!!
 
You've got to think that many more women would actually take the adoption route if it we made realistic attempts to alleviate the shame and guilt and made it more socially acceptable.

Adoption is like abortion in that it is not a reality until it is a reality. How many women suddenly realise they could never abort when they see the heartbeat for the first time? How many women realise they cannot actually hand over their baby when they've given birth and look into the scrunched up little face for the first time? We cannot base laws solely on informed or uninformed human emotion. Laws must be based on a practical societal need for control of the issue. There cannot be the choice of only safe sex or adoption. It is simply insufficient. The options must be there so that each individual can make her choice if and when the time arises.
 
Adoption is like abortion in that it is not a reality until it is a reality. How many women suddenly realise they could never abort when they see the heartbeat for the first time? How many women realise they cannot actually hand over their baby when they've given birth and look into the scrunched up little face for the first time?

Exactly. How do you choose between the lesser of two evils? Every woman in that situation has to freely decide that for herself. What I'm suggesting is, perhaps there are ways to encourage (not enforce!) adoption as an option.
 
What I also don't get is how people automatically assume when you're pro abortion it means you're pro abortion anytime during the pregnancy.
In Europe it's legal the first.. 32?weeks? That's the time it takes for a bunch of cells to grow into a foetus who has functions like a human being.
Ofcourse I don't think a full grown baby should be aborted.

I agree. Unfortunately, the law in america you can get an abortion at any time you want for any reason, even if it's a day before when the baby would be born. :huh:

Plus, if they were raped, they wouldn't want to keep the child.

thats not always true, and adoption is still an option...regardless of whether they have the right to abort or not, I think its heroic when mother have their children when most people would have otherwise aborted. My friend whose 15 gave birth to a healthy boy a while ago. :)

Or if that baby was shown to have some sort of birth defect.

To be honest, I think it's really sick when someone gets an abortion because they find out the baby has something like say Down Syndrome.

One of my cousins got pregnant at age 12, and because their parents don't believe in abortion, she was forced to keep the baby. She had to drop out of school and raise it by herself. Because she was forced to keep it, she'll never go to college, much less finish middle school.

That is pretty sad. However what was she doing having sex at age 12?? :huh:
 
CITE
A
SOURCE

just one.

haha ok, I just though everyone knew that :cute:

since I don't want to look to far, I cite wikipedia :D

Legend:
Yes - Legal
No - Illegal
1st - Legal during 1st trimester only (exact date – e.g. number of weeks – may vary)
2nd - Legal during 1st and 2nd trimester only (exact date may vary)
Restricted - Legal but subject to significant restrictions
Varies - Varies by region
? - Information is unavailable or the law is too ambiguous

[Categories]
To protect woman's life, Physical health, Mental health, Rape, Fetal defects, Socio-economic factors, On request

United States (details): Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

key words, "on request," you don't need a reason, and you can get it any time you want.

Abortion law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most countries have "on request" as illegal, or only 1st trimester, not us though
 
I agree. Unfortunately, the law in america you can get an abortion at any time you want for any reason, even if it's a day before when the baby would be born. :huh:
You may want to research this a little and not just take the "facts" they give you at these marches, those people are notorious for lying and not knowing the facts.

That being said, what if the fetus is threatening the woman's life? Wouldn't late term be acceptable?


To be honest, I think it's really sick when someone gets an abortion because they find out the baby has something like say Down Syndrome.

But what if it's something else, something that will cause the child extreme pain for a short few months of life?
 
thats not always true, and adoption is still an option...regardless of whether they have the right to abort or not, I think its heroic when mother have their children when most people would have otherwise aborted. My friend whose 15 gave birth to a healthy boy a while ago. :)

Who gives a damn if you think it's heroic? Do you realize how much effort it takes to carry around a child for nine months? That's something people choose to do. If it's not chosen, and is forced upon you, most, if not all women, would choose an abortion in that case.

Thus, your argument holds absolutely no value in this discussion over the law.
 
To be honest, I think it's really sick when someone gets an abortion because they find out the baby has something like say Down Syndrome.

But there's a whole range of genetic disorders to consider. I would deliver a child with Down syndrome. I don't think I could deliver a baby with something like Tay-Sachs (assuming I knew with prenatal testing...though I'd bet all my material possessions I don't carry Tay-Sachs). I can't really say either way having never been IN these situations (funny how that works....) but I've told my husband I'd like to think that I would have the strength NOT to put an infant through an excruciating, and yes certain death.
 
thats not always true, and adoption is still an option...regardless of whether they have the right to abort or not, I think its heroic when mother have their children when most people would have otherwise aborted. My friend whose 15 gave birth to a healthy boy a while ago. :)
It will be even more heroic when she has no choice in the matter.
 
You may want to research this a little and not just take the "facts" they give you at these marches, those people are notorious for lying and not knowing the facts.

That being said, what if the fetus is threatening the woman's life? Wouldn't late term be acceptable?

you can get an abortion at any time you want, there isnt really any laws that restrict it at all. I've looked up these facts. If the mother is threatened sure, but as the law is right now anyone can get an abortion in the third trimester for any reason. :huh:

But what if it's something else, something that will cause the child extreme pain for a short few months of life?
thats true, but I'm referring to disorders that don't cause the child to suffer per say. But with your point then I guess theres nothing we can do to make laws. :sigh:

Who gives a damn if you think it's heroic? Do you realize how much effort it takes to carry around a child for nine months? That's something people choose to do. If it's not chosen, and is forced upon you, most, if not all women, would choose an abortion in that case.

Thus, your argument holds absolutely no value in this discussion over the law.

yes of course its hard to bear a child, but I wasn't making an argument, I was simply telling about a teen who chose to have her child. I don't want everyone to try and counterargue it, because theres nothing to counterargue.
 
OMG, please stop posting the word heroic!

For me this is not even about this situation or that situation or what is the lesser of two evils....this is about a private, confidential, medical decision that should be made between a patient and a doctor, period. What's next? No more tubals or hysterectomies because women can't be reproductive slaves?

If someone wants to abort their baby that's between her and her doctor and that's on HER conscience. Let it go already...
 
yes of course its hard to bear a child, but I wasn't making an argument, I was simply telling about a teen who chose to have her child. I don't want everyone to try and counterargue it, because theres nothing to counterargue.

Then what you're saying supports it being a choice, doesn't it?
 
To be honest, I think it's really sick when someone gets an abortion because they find out the baby has something like say Down Syndrome.

While I respect people to make decisions based on their own circumstances and ability to raise a special needs child, I was also disturbed that a few people in my life did not respect my decision not to have amniocentesis and treated that decision as irresponsible.

However what was she doing having sex at age 12?? :huh:

Take your pick -

* It feels good
* Male attention and affirmation she may not be getting at home
* Acting out against parents
* Curiosity
* Peer pressure
* Confusing sex and love
* Fear of rejection
 
Just to be clear, when I said I was anti-abortion, I didn't say that it should be banned. I am also pro-choice.

Um, the idea is to provide more adoptive parents in committed relationships with babies. Not ideal, but better than abortion due to shame and inconvenience.
Yes, but I was explicitly referring to promoting that option in the broader context of abortion being illegal, since that's what nathan to whom you were responding advocates. I agree that relinquishing your infant to an infertile couple who are better-placed than you to provide for it materially is a wonderfully generous choice to make, but I doubt we'd succeed in effecting willingness to make that choice on any significant scale in a context of banning abortion altogether, unless we were to somehow first reframe pregnancy as a casual, thoroughly unremarkable endeavor, one for which it supposedly makes no difference at all when and in what circumstances it happens (and therefore, no motivation to seek to terminate it). Which seems wildly unrealistic, both in the sense that I can't imagine any woman experiencing pregnancy that way, and in the sense that it seems like the broader social consequences of that reframing wouldn't justify whatever increase in the number of women choosing relinquishment might result. But in a pro-choice context, you're right, being pro-choice should mean supporting the individual woman in whichever choice she makes--having an abortion, keeping and raising the child herself, or relinquishing it for adoption--without any shaming or looking askance either way.
 
I agree. Unfortunately, the law in america you can get an abortion at any time you want for any reason, even if it's a day before when the baby would be born. :huh:

haha ok, I just though everyone knew that :cute:

since I don't want to look to far, I cite wikipedia :D



Abortion law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm seriously starting to question your ability to discuss anything intelligently. :eyebrow:


Your wikipedia "source" doesn't back up your first claim that a woman can have an abortion up to a "day before the baby would be born" at all. I'd say that perhaps I missed it, and could you quote it, but we both know you could easily change the wiki page to make it say that.

And secondly, your ridiculous assumption that "everyone knows it" is just lame. By your own previous admission, most people posting in this thread know more than you do about this.

So if you want to be taken seriously at any time ever again here in FYM, you should be much more careful about what you post, both as opinions and as sources.

And one more thing. Wikipedia isn't all that reliable a source. I thought everyone knew that.
 
Legal restrictions on later abortion

See also: Late-term abortion
As of 1998, among the 152 most populous countries, 54 either banned abortion entirely or permitted it only to save the life of the pregnant woman.[6] In contrast, another 44 of the 152 most populous countries generally banned late-term abortions after a particular gestational age: 12 weeks (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Rep., Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Rep., Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Norway, Russian Fed., Slovak Rep., Slovenia, South Africa, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Yugoslavia), 13 weeks (Italy), 14 weeks (Austria, Belgium, Cambodia, Germany, Hungary, and Romania), 18 weeks (Sweden), viability (Netherlands and to some extent the United States), and 24 weeks (Singapore and the United Kingdom [Northern Ireland excluded]).[6]
[edit]Case law

Or is this the paragraph you think backs you up? :scratch:
 
you can get an abortion at any time you want, there isnt really any laws that restrict it at all. I've looked up these facts. If the mother is threatened sure, but as the law is right now anyone can get an abortion in the third trimester for any reason.
There are many states that ban it. But the reason it's still legal is for those cases of a mother's life being in danger and other extreme cases. Trust me most doctors wouldn't perform an abortion the "day before she was due", but the option is there to protect women's lives.

But with your point then I guess theres nothing we can do to make laws. :sigh:
I have no idea what this even means...
 
unless we were to somehow first reframe pregnancy as a casual, thoroughly unremarkable endeavor, one for which it supposedly makes no difference at all when and in what circumstances it happens (and therefore, no motivation to seek to terminate it). Which seems wildly unrealistic,

If you frame it as an absolute then of course it's unrealistic. There are some circumstances where it happens that call for compassion and accountability, not blame and punishment.

both in the sense that I can't imagine any woman experiencing pregnancy that way, and in the sense that it seems like the broader social consequences of that reframing wouldn't justify whatever increase in the number of women choosing relinquishment might result.

Can you elaborate on the consequences?

But in a pro-choice context, you're right, being pro-choice should mean supporting the individual woman in whichever choice she makes--having an abortion, keeping and raising the child herself, or relinquishing it for adoption--without any shaming or looking askance either way.

Right. Equally important is to respect other people's views on the value of life and taking proactive measures to minimize unwanted pregnancy and otherwise enabling women wherever possible to choose life - without coercion.
 
Pac_Mule, here is a link detailing the various state restrictions on late-term abortions as of January 2009. What federal law hypothetically permits is not the same thing as what individual states are required to permit.

State Policies on Later-Term Abortions (.pdf)


And martha, quit it with the ridicule. Countering his evidence is plenty adequate to make your point.
 
Last edited:
ok, so I was somewhat wrong, and I can live with that. But little old vermont has no restrictions...not suprised..:wink:

I have no idea what this even means...

I was suggesting perhaps creating a law somehow that would restrict abortions just because of mild genetic disorders. I realize now that most people would find that silly so never mind.
 
The problem with that is there would be no way to define "mild genetic disorders"...

Exactly. And thats the problem. So you have to leave it up to people. And people don't always make the right decisions :down: You can't use the "He wouldn't have had a good life" argument with babies who have something like down syndrome or autism..most of them are quite happy! :)
 
Back
Top Bottom