Roe vs. Wade Challenged again.

[LV426]

Roe vs. Wade 31 years later
By Alicia P. Stern
UPI Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 (UPI) -- Anti-abortion rights demonstrators gathered in front of the White House Thursday to call for an end to abortion, marking the 31st anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision to legalize birth control in Roe vs. Wade.

Legislators, church and school groups and activists -- estimated by some to total hundreds of thousands of people -- sang, prayed, listened speakers, and carried signs and banners with slogans such as "Support the life principles" and "Satan is pro-choice."

The Rev. Ed Martin of Florida led the group in prayer, telling them that as he looked out and saw all the young people in the crowd, he knew that in his lifetime "the abortion holocaust" would end.

Nelly Gray, a leader from the anti-abortion rights group March for Life, told the crowd, "Roe v. Wade must be overturned ... The Supreme Court does not understand that an unborn child is a person."

While President Bush was not physically present, his voice was broadcast to the anti-abortion rights demonstrators in a phone call from New Mexico, where he was meeting with military cadets, civic leaders, first responders and law enforcement officials.

"All life is sacred and worthy of protection," he said, adding it was important to "change hearts and minds, one person at a time."

One of the attending congressmen, Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J. told the crowd, "Americans have seen through the lies an dirty tricks of the abortion industry ... Abortion exploits women."

Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, whose birthday it was Thursday, said he had spoken at the March for Life event each year since he was elected to Congress in 1994. He acknowledged the work of anti-abortion rights constituents in petitioning the government "to stop the slaughter of innocent little babies," and thanked God that his parents "chose life."

"Many of us in Congress have worked hard to end abortion," he said, adding that for eight years "the Clintons blocked us at every turn. ... President Bush agrees with us that all life is sacred."

The crowd walked from the White House up Constitution Avenue to the Supreme Court, where they continued their demonstration. Near the Supreme Court, several people got into a heated discussion about Bush.

Marco and Michael Posillico, twins from Long Island, N.Y., said they thought Bush was not doing enough to end abortion.

Michael Posillico was disappointed that the president did not attend the event. His brother said "this president is 100 times better than the last president, but he's not 100 percent pro-life."

Rosaire Johnson, from Niagara Falls, N.Y., told them to "be grateful that he's pro-life."

"We have to be grateful," she said, " ... because of the uphill battle he has to fight in order to pass this legislation through Congress and in order for the legislation to survive the brutality of the judicial system."

Attendee Durwin Parks of Lancaster, Pa., said he came to join other Americans "to sound out with one voice to oppose killing unborn children."

Diane Bryant, who came from Pittsburgh with several members of the Walnut Grove Christian Church, said, "When a baby is in the womb, it's part of the mother, it is life, and this is what we believe in. And we're also Christians and that is one of the Ten Commandments -- thou shalt not kill."

Michael Harvey of the Butler, Pa., Westminster Presbyterian Church agreed. "I have strong convictions that life is one of our most precious values and if we can't support the value of life, then we lose any foundation for supporting the other values that we hold so dear -- liberty, happiness, health," he said.

However, pro-abortion rights activists spoke out as well. Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said in a statement Thursday, "George W. Bush and the right-wing led Congress are literally signing away women's reproductive rights. When Bush signed the so-called 'partial-birth' abortion ban into law on November 5, he was surrounded by a group of smiling men -- men who will never know what it means to be pregnant."

Meanwile, in an earlier statement NARAL Pro-Choice America President Kate Michelman said she "would have hoped that we would be a bit further along in recognizing at least one broadly-shared interest -- working toward a world of only wanted pregnancies."

Effort to reopen Roe v. Wade
Jane Roe: Something I've wanted since Day One
Thursday, February 19, 2004

DALLAS, Texas (AP) -- A federal appeals court has agreed to hear a request from the woman formerly known as "Jane Roe" to reconsider the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion.

Norma McCorvey, who joined with anti-abortion activists nearly 10 years ago, is seeking to have the decision overturned, citing what she says is more than 30 years of evidence that abortions are psychologically harmful to women.

A federal district judge threw out her initial request in June, saying it was not made within a reasonable time. But the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to hear McCorvey's arguments March 2.

"It's something that I've wanted ever since Day One, and it's happening," McCorvey said from her Dallas home.

Dallas County District Attorney Bill Hill, whose predecessor Henry Wade who was named in the original lawsuit, has not filed a response to McCorvey's appeal. That may put the appeals court in the unusual position of hearing arguments from only one side.

Wade was named in the original case because he was charged with enforcing the Texas law that prevented McCorvey from having an abortion. Hill's office has argued that since that law no longer exists, Hill has no authority to prosecute and should not be sued.

More than 20 Texas law school professors concerned about an unbalanced hearing filed a brief Wednesday asking to be allowed to argue the other side of the case.

"It's important that the court hear from somebody representing the position that the district court took, which I think is clearly right," said David Schenck, a lawyer representing the professors. "At this point, the case is moot, and she's presenting at best a political question."

The Supreme Court decision came after McCorvey had her baby. The baby was the third child McCorvey put up for adoption; she was a 21-year-old carnival worker at the time.

She publicly identified herself as Jane Roe in 1980.

--------------------------------------------------------
ABC's Wehmyer: "McCorvey says she's been emotionally tormented by her role in the abortion movement, haunted by simple things like empty swings in a playground." McCorvey: "They were swinging back and forth but they were all empty. And I just totally lost it, and I thought 'Oh my God. are empty because there's no children, because they've all been aborted'" ("World News Tonight," 8/10/95).

From Norma McCorvey: "Abortion has been founded on lies and deception from the very beginning. All I did was lie about how I got pregnant. I was having an affair. It all started out as a little lie. I said what I needed to say. But, my little lie grew and grew and became more horrible with each telling. Sarah and Linda's (the pro-abortion attorneys in Roe) eyes seemed blinded to my obvious inability to tell the same story twice. It was good for the cause. It read well in the newspapers. With the help of willing media the credibility of well-known columnists, the lie became known as the truth these past 25 years."

"I did not go to the Supreme Court on behalf of a class of women. I wasn't pursuing any legal remedy to my unwanted pregnancy. I did not go to the federal courts for relief. I went to Sarah Weddington asking her if she knew how I could obtain an abortion. She and Linda Coffey said they didn't know where to get one. They lied to me just like I lied to them. Sarah already had an abortion. She knew where to get one. Sarah and Linda were just looking for somebody, anybody, to further their own agenda. I was their willing dupe. For this, I will forever be ashamed."

"But, my life has been restored to me, and I now have the privilege of speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves."

-----------------------------------------------------------------



Another topic for the politics forum that isn't here yet (hint hint), although I really think that until men are giving birth and every child is given a good and loving home, the government, the churches, and the anti-abortionists need to shut the fuck up.

[ANNUIT COEPTIS]

The 10 Commandments of God

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10. Thou shalt not covet.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
KILL
1:To deprive of life


Any Questions?

[kat]

Uh, I'd hazard that most people in the entire world aren't Christian, Annuit.

[Salahudeen]

Another topic for the politics forum that isn't here yet (hint hint), although I really think that until men are giving birth and every child is given a good and loving home, the government, the churches, and the anti-abortionists need to shut the fuck up.
What this boils down to is that people like you don't like to accept responsibility for your actions. If you have sex you know that there is a chance that you could get pregnent. Having an abortion is not a right. It is murder. You are killing an unborn child. When the Feminist movement started they where completly against abortion and saw it for what it is. It is really pathetic that people are so lame now that they don't use their heads. We have a brain and reason so we can think things through. Men have just as large if not a bigger responsibility to make sure that the woman that they are having sex with does not get pregnant. And the women being the ones that have to carry the baby to term have a huge responsibility as well. What this whole issue boils down to is people who do not own up to their responsibility for their actions. It is really lame. Thats like me saying "woops I was drinking and driving and I killed that guy, but its not my fault officer I was just exercising my right to drink. Can I go free. Thank you officer I knew you would understand." Accept responsibility for your own actions and stop killing children.

[kat]

Sala, the question is when it is a child, and when is it just a piece of biomass?

[Salahudeen]

Uh, I'd hazard that most people in the entire world aren't Christian, Annuit.This shows that you don't know what your talking about. 1 in 3 people in the world are Christian. 1 in 5 people are Muslims. And 98% of the worlds population is religious.

[ANNUIT COEPTIS]

So which nations laws are you talking about Kat? I thought this article was about the laws in the United States and, I thought I would give Gods' oppinion.

[kat]

This shows that you don't know what your talking about. 1 in 3 people in the world are Christian. 1 in 5 people are Muslims. And 98% of the worlds population is religious.
Sala, 33% isn't most people, is it?

http://www.adherents.com/rel_pie.gif

[Salahudeen]

Sala, the question is when it is a child, and when is it just a piece of biomass?
Give me a break. The baby is alive. It is made up of living cells. You where a piece of biomass once. YOU where not ripped out however and where allowed to live. So here you are, debating about how nice it is to stop the growth of a child. No matter what your position is on the issue I'm glad your here, if not thrilled at your self-centerness. I would fight for your right to life and I will fight for the right of the unborn. And why don't you attack my argument about responsibility? I know, it is hard to fight logic, but try to make a decent response.

[kat]

Uh, I didn't attack your argument about responsibility because I didn't disagree with it. There are many cases where the fetus is aborted simply because the adults were irresponsible; however, that doesn't account for the other occasions where it would be just as irresponsible to give birth.

And, no, just because it's "made up of living cells" doesn't mean that it's on a human level. There is a point where it's just a parasite living off the mother, and a point where it's a mini-human. Are you one of those people that wears a mask over his mouth so that he doesn't kill aerialbacteria? No?

It's inane of you to assume that my opinions relative to abortion are going to be the same as any other's.

[Salahudeen]

Uh, I didn't attack your argument about responsibility because I didn't disagree with it. There are many cases where the fetus is aborted simply because the adults were irresponsible; however, that doesn't account for the other occasions where it would be just as irresponsible to give birth.

And, no, just because it's "made up of living cells" doesn't mean that it's on a human level. There is a point where it's just a parasite living off the mother, and a point where it's a mini-human. Are you one of those people that wears a mask over his mouth so that he doesn't kill aerialbacteria? No?

It's inane of you to assume that my opinions relative to abortion are going to be the same as any other's.
So It's the baby that gets killed because someone is irresponsible? A friend of mine in high school got his girlfriend pregnant. He was not responsibe at all. When the baby got here he totally changed and stepped up to the responsibility BECAUSE HE HAD TO. Something else that would help is if the liberals in the US would stop whining about everything and work to fix the country. Deadbeat dads should be made to pay for their children. All it takes is individual effort to fix the local communities and then work up.

No, I don't where a mask to save the bacteria. I bet your pretty happy your parents didn't abort you. It's nice of you to be alive and saying that others don't have that right.

[Salahudeen]

When I took my world religions class I seem to recall that Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus where agaisnt killing the innocent. I think that makes a majority of the world kat.

[kat]

Sala, you aren't responding to my initial question, which is when does the biomass become a baby? I don't agree with late-term abortion, so don't be the fool who assumes that I do. In doing so, you change the entire direction of this argument.

Once again, I didn't say a damn thing in disagreement over adults needing to be more responsible with their actions. are you blind?

So, you'll kill bacteria. What's the difference between the bacteria and a zygote? And the "I bet you're glad your parents didn't abort you" crap doesn't work on me. I've been exposed to too much death, and it really just doesn't fuck me up anymore, pansy.

Wow, you're pulling religious opinions of the entire world out of your bottom? You must have a magical ass.

[Klark]

Responsibility for our actions....plenty of us accept said responsibility and then there are those like me that accept another man's responsibility. I consider myself blessed because this other man's child calls me daddy. So, bugger off on resposibility, that is an individual concern, not a 'you people' concern. As for men having the same if not bigger part of the responsibility, you're partly wrong. We share the SAME amount period, nothing bigger. It takes two to tango. You have no right to drink, nobody does. It's not in the Bill of Rights as far as I can remember. However, you do have the right to free will, freedom of choice. The cancer that will grow in your asscrack is a living biomass, please don't remove it and kill it. You should take responsibility for your actions and stop killing your biomass. Sounds retarded, eh? Well it is. There is a point at which a doctor will NOT perform the abortion because the biomass has upgraded to having a spine, a brain, eyes, fingers, and whatever else we grow. That would be murder. It is not murder to remove a mass of cells. With all that said, I can honestly say that this is a point at which I am happy to be a man, this is a decision I won't have to make, as the decision is purely the woman's. But I can say that I am pro-life as well as pro-choice. As long as they don't cross the line where that mass has become more than cells as yet unrecognizable, I don't think it's murder. Besides, the female body does it's own abortions. There are plenty of times where the cells died before becoming what they were meant to be, not to mention miscarriages. Does that make women's bodies murderers? No, it's considered an act of god. So, I say Freedom of Choice reign supreme....because if those women really wanted to ditch those cells...they would find a way, trust me, I've heard stories in ER's about that crap. Better done by a professional than with a clotheshanger....... I don't like the idea of abortion, but it does fall under free choice and that's idea I will fight for.

[Salahudeen]

How often have I referenced God or any religious book? The only thing that I have used concerning religion was population. The fact is that we really have no way of knowing when a baby has a soul. There is no way to scientificly tell this at our current scientific level. The opposite is also true however for the pro-choice side. They cannot say when it is NOT a baby. Do you go by limbs or a certain amount of cell division? In the end no agreement can be reached. Hence the default position must be taken to protect the baby-in-production since we can't say when it is alive. Are we killing it or not. In order to protect against the death of innocents we should protect it at ALL stages of its development. You may not agree with me but this is how I feel about it. My concern is for the children. I am happy that you agree with my point on responsibility and I got it the first time. It's to bad you have to resort to ad hominem attacks which take away from your credibility, you debate well.

[kat]

Well, I go by pain receptors and brain development. The fetus is presumed to feel pain at 14 weeks, and the baby's heart beats at 4. Meanwhile, large-scale neuron development doesn't happen until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy, but I'm inclined to set a limit at 10 weeks.

And yes, they can say it is NOT a baby, when you can easily compare it to a tumor (thanks Klark).

This isn't about souls. I don't believe in those, and there's no reason to assume that they exist. This is about tangibility, since you refute that your bringing religion into it. (And I'm aware that our opinions don't match, which is why we're in this great argument.)

Beware, you're arguing with a Biology major.

[Xzengrim]

I think that while abortion is a poor idea and morally repugnant, women DO have a right to it.

And this is why: I think it is incredibly irresponsible to create life and then destroy it merely because it is an inconvenience. It does not bode well for the behaviorisms of the society that we're trying to have here. But on the other hand, the last thing we need is another kid that no one wants and no one loves, leaching off the system because his parents would rather that he not be here. And who's going to pay taxes to send him to school? Who's going to have to stand behind him in line at the bank, and put up with his house, car, and job competing with everyone else's for space and attention? I will. ANd so will you. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather just be done with the bastard now than have him added to the rest of the herd that I have to compete with every day.

That, and while a fetus is alive, I think that it is alive in the way that a houseplant is alive. It cannot survive on its own. In that its existance depends solely on a provider organism, I feel that choices about the welfare of the creature should be left to the provider. I don't think an unborn child has any rights. They haven't really had a life to lose, they have no knowledge, no memories, no potential... nothing, really. They can only take, and do not give. They have no mind, no skills, nothing to lose. They don't even die so much as they have their existance terminated.

Or, that's what I think. And my motto is, whatever decreases the human population is good to me; or at least a source of cheap entertainment. Actually, my point is that in a perfect world there would be no abortion, but being as we're all stuck here, it's a technology that needs to exist.

[kat]

I don't entirely agree with that, Xzengrim. Just because an entity isn't able to fend for itself at a certain time doesn't mean that we should allow for it to die.

If you became sick with something debilitating, and it was beyond your capabilities to heal you, however someone else could, it would be a similar situation to just let you die. And "potential" is subjective. On my worst days of arrogance, I don't think anyone has potential except for resource consumption.

[Ender]

the question is when it is a child, and when is it just a piece of biomass? 18 years old

[kat]

Or as Chef from SouthPark says, "Seventeen."

[kaycee]

You guys do realize that a woman can protect herself from having children and still get pregnant. Nothing is 100% and it does happen. There are circumstances when a woman chooses to abort a fetus and that's her choice. Not anyone elses. It's her life, her body and her choice.

You can't expect people to just not have sex because that isn't an option. They can use precaution, but shit happens sometimes anyway. I personally would rather those who don't want children to not have them. Otherwise, the child might be resented.

Now, think of the movie (I forgot the title) where a mother becomes pregnant again, but has to choose aborting her unborn, or die herself leaving her other children motherless.

You can't judge people if you aren't in their position. Sometimes things have to be done. No one has to like it, not even those involved, but that doesn't matter. The circumstances are what counts.


I sure as hell don't go for those who get pregnant over and over and just keep aborting. These are those who don't protect themselves because they don't give a rip about anyone except themselves. But....that's just a percentage.

Consider those who really don't have a choice, or those who really, really don't want children but get pregnant anyway even though they used protection.

It's no one's busines what anyone does. Everyone has their reasons for doing what they do.

I'm not for abortion or against it. It's just that each individual abortion has it's own reasoning. It's not for us to say. It's for them.

[chriz]

And "potential" is subjective. On my worst days of arrogance, I don't think anyone has potential except for resource consumption.

Besides, you have potential Hitlers and Charles Mansons there, too.

[Wraywolf]

God can kiss my ass.

Anyway, that out of the way,

I really don’t give a shit about abortion, but this is because I am apathetic, selfish, and cruel. I’m also a homosexual, so that makes me marginally more evil in the eyes of Gawd. Yay!

Okay, here you have this potential thing. This thing is not a ‘being’ because the concept of being has not yet been developed in it’s puffy marshmallow head. Plus, I think the things are ugly, so getting rid of them sounds good to me.

Now, HOW abortion is carried out is just freaky and disgusting to me, I want no part of it, and frankly I think adoption would be less messy. But, fewer humans is good, I like that idea. So, hears my plan to make everyone happy.

We all turn gay!

I’m not talking Queer Eye gay, where you prance around redecorating and use the word “fabulous” like it’s the new fuck. I mean gay as in nothing but promiscuous, unprotected sex in the fuc- fabulous STREETS gay. Destroy civilized society and do nothing but fork the same gender! It will be awesome! Given this will probably wipe humanity out because of all the STD’s, but the first few weeks will be a blast!*

*For all you Darkwolf’s out there, yes, the last paragraph was a joke. Deal with it.

[Sorrowsong]

Now my stance on the abortion issue has already been mentioned by other people. That being, it's the woman's decision to abort the child, do it before it begins forming a spine and all that jazz...


But there's one more thing I would like to add. Abortion fought its way into the safety of hospitals. It was a pretty harsh battle, at least, that's what my mom told me. It was approximately 20-30 years ago(give or take) that it started/ended. Anyway, the point is that now that it's in the hospitals, it will intend on staying. Regardless to whether it's moral to remove a clump of cells or not, people are going to do it whether it's legal or not. If abortion becomes illegal in hospitals, it will go straight back into the alleys where it will start all over again. It is more dangerous to do it outside of the hospital, for both the mother and the fetus. But people will do it anyway, it's just the way things are. I prefer it to be legal, for the point above and for the fact that women get pregnant after getting raped. It should not be the woman's duty to suffer the agony due to the actions of a criminal. The child itself will most likely be discarded, even if it wasn't aborted. As much as I hate kids, it isn't fair for them to go through life without being loved by parents. Also, they could very well grow up and be messed up and cause more agony to society. The child could be adopted into a good home, that is always possible. However, people generally prefer making their own babies instead of taking in someone else's.

[Were-E-Wolf]

Wraywolf, I must totaly agree, lets all have same sex sex and have the worlds population die from all the damned STD's in the world (which some rampant bi's (like myself) will spread even more between both sexes.) This way, there won't be "human babies" or blobs also known as canser in the world. *Scarcasum for those who may not know this is all a joke*
Now let me see where to start, oh yes. I hate to attack anyone directly, but... Sala, never, ever, dis, Kat! I give her more credit than I will to you. You have not been on here for more than one day and you already asume she has no creditbility. She's a moderator boy, yes debate with her, but do not dis her. (Instead you can learn to be kiss ass, like I'm trying to do here :p It is much more fun that way ;) )
Now, I agree with the responisbility part, if you impregnate your girlfriend, by all mean, stick with her and take care of the child. Yet there is a point where this crosses the line between right and wrong.
I draw the line at the nerve development that Kat talked about. They feel nothing, they are nothing more than a germ in our body. Now you kill off germs when you get a cold right, that would make you a cold bloody killer. And don't even start the crapy debate that animals (which all of of here are, by the way), can't feel and that we should be allowed to kill them when ever. Yes the thing is alive, the "baby" is alive, yet it is nothing more than that. It can not feels it's death and is not in any pain when it dies.
Yet I must also draw the line at how they kill it. One way is when the mother choses to abort when the baby is being born. They take something to crush the skull of the child. I may be a sadistic person, but that is down right cruel.
Then here is another line we must draw, what happens if the person didn't want to partisipate in the act of consiving the child. We call this rape people. This happens everyday and people are forced to give bith to children they didn't even want to have in the first place. This is where women are forced to take responcibility for children that shouldn't have been consived in the first place. Yes everyone has a right to live, but shouldn't women be given the right to have an abortion when they didn't want to have it in the first place.
And one more ethics issue. If they find some way to tell you forehand that the child will live past birth, but will be in temendous pain for the rest of his life, which may even last a year, would you abort or not. Would you rather have it suffer though it's short life, or would you rather put it out of it's misury.
I call for a comprimise. Lets keep abortion as an option, yet let us set limits and rules on it as well:
No child that has nerve development shall be aborted.
Abortions shall be clean and sanitary. The abortion shall be as humane as possaible. Drugs that allow the mother to miscarriage should be availble in place of the abortion prossess.
If the child has nerve development then the mother shall be given a choice to put the child up for adoption, if she doesn't want to give the child up at birth after saying ealier she does, the mother may keep the child.
All children or abortions who were consived through rape will have their DNA tested. The DNA will be used to find out who the rapist/father was. When the rapist is found he will be arested will be forced to pay the mother of the child the exsact amount of money that she had lost from doctors bills over her full or aborted pregancy.

[Sorrowsong]

All children or abortions who were consived through rape will have their DNA tested. The DNA will be used to find out who the rapist/father was. When the rapist is found he will be arested will be forced to pay the mother of the child the exsact amount of money that she had lost from doctors bills over her full or aborted pregancy.


Lets add one more thing to that: Get the rapists neutered. It'll help keep down the human population, and scare men out of raping their girlfriends, or people off the street. He'll at least never be able to produce another unwanted child again.

I love being mean.

[LV426]

I really am surprised that most of the people that responded this time were pro-choice. Last time the abortion topic came up there were quite a few individuals that were 100% against abortion. Of course they may not have seen this topic yet or care not to get involved. Sorrow, your mother is quite right about the days before abortion, there are other countries not as fortunate as the U.S. where abortion is strictly forbidden but that doesn't stop the abortions from happening.

In Portugal the people with money go to other countries to clinics in London and Spain to have abortions but the poor end up having abortions in unsanitary and unsafe conditions.
Not only that but birth control is not taught to women and those who use birth control are looked down upon as promiscuous and those who are married and use it are thought to have committed infidelity.

Taken from a news article.

Abortion is banned in staunchly Roman Catholic Portugal except in cases involving rape or where there are serious health concerns, but each year family planning agencies estimate between 20,000 and 40,000 illegal abortions are carried out in the country.

Five women died last year and more than 11,000 required hospital treatment following clandestine abortions, according to health ministry figures.

One woman interviewed said that abortions in low income areas, especially where she grew up were horrible and many done by inexperianced people.

"I remember stories of women from my neighbourhood who had abortions done using knitting needles, parsley branches or medications. They did not have money to go to a doctor."

Portugal's teenage pregnancy rate is about 20 per 1,000, among the highest in the European Union.

In Germany, abortion is technically illegal but was decriminalized in 1995 for the first 12 weeks of pregnancy in cases of rape or a threat to the mother's health. In other cases, women seeking an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy must obtain a certificate showing they sought professional consultation. After that women have little choice and either seek to have an illegal abortion or end up abandoning their babies. 50 babies are abandoned annually on the streets of Germany. Babies that no one wants, and no one comes back to claim. They have now begun to open up Baby Hatches.

Baby Hatches are cubby holes with a blanket and a note explaining to the mother, what will happen to the baby. After a minute from the time the hatch is closed, an alarm sounds and hospital workers can safely remove the baby. After 8 weeks, if no one shows up to reclaim the infant then the child is put up for adoption.

In other news....

The House passed a bill Tuesday February 10th, that would outlaw most abortions in South Dakota, but opponents said it would do nothing but cost taxpayers money if it becomes law.

The bill, passed 54-15, would outlaw abortion unless a mother's life is in danger. It makes no exceptions for rape victims or women who could suffer permanent serious health problems by having babies.

Opponents argued that if the Senate approves the bill and it becomes law, it will be thrown out in court because it runs counter to U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have found abortion to be legal. They noted that courts have rejected state abortion restrictions twice in recent years.


I don't want to live in a country where I can't have control over my own body. Where I can't choose whether to have or not have children. Those people that are so against abortion are in some cases against birth control and the morning after pill. There is a recent case in which a paharmacist at an Eckerdts refused to fill a woman's prescription for the morning after pill because it was against his religious beliefs.
Eckerd Corp. said the pharmacist considered it a violation of morals to give a rape victim, with a valid prescription, a pill that would prevent her from getting pregnant due to the sexual assault.
No one asked him to take the pill and yet he refused to grant the right of choice to another individual, one that wasn't even abortion but a form of birth control to prevent an abortion from being neccesary.

There are plenty of women in the United States that are on birth control, you can go to Planned Parenthood on any day and see them lined up to get low cost and free birth control. But lately even places like Planned Parenthood have come under fire and funding has been cut. There are some activists that picket, protest, and prevent (although a law in 1994 was made to prevent protestors from preventing entry into abortion clinics), women from going into Planned Parenthood clinics to prevent abortions from even being discussed. And while condoms are handed out for free or low cost they are not 100% effective. In fact there is a 15% chance of failure, meaning 15 women of 100 whose partners use condoms will get pregnant in a given year.

[LV426]

Now there are abortion activists that claim that there are over 1 million couples wanting to adopt children, that they would take them and give them a loving home no matter who or what they are and yet the statistics of children that are in the foster care system and who need a home and don't have one are absolutely appaling. These are children who are of all racial backgrounds. Some of them have mental or physical problems, and some of them have been in the foster care system so long that they have no idea what a real home life is. And for those people who want a child so badly and who say that they will adopt all of the unwanted children to prevent abortions from taking place, then why are these children still in foster care. As of March 2003 this is what the statistics showed for the United States alone.

Children in Foster Care

Total 542,000
Ages
Under 1 year 4% 22,957
1–5 years 24 130,857
6–10 years 24 127,711
11–15 years 30 160,419
16–18 years 17 89,632
19 years and over 2 10,424

Gender
Male 52 283,854
Female 48 258,146

Race/ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic 37% 203,222
Black, non-Hispanic 38% 204,973
Hispanic1 17% 89,785
American Indian/Alaskan Native,
non-Hispanic 2% 10,106
Asian, non-Hispanic 1% 3,649
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander,
non-Hispanic 0% 1,551
Unknown/unable to determine
3% 17,235
Two or more races non-Hispanic
2% 11,479
Lengths of stay
Less than 1 month 4% 22,512
1–5 months 17% 91,533
6–11 months 15% 82,935
12–17 months 11% 60,915
18–23 months 9% 46,144
24–29 months 7% 38,340
30–35 months 5% 29,233
3–4 years 15% 79,171
5 years or more 17% 91,217

So where were these parents when these 542,000 children needed a home. Not to mention the child abuse that takes place in this country because someone had a child that they really didn't want, need, or were incapable of caring for.

From 1990 to 2000 there were 6,893,970 children abused in the United States. These children were between birth and 18 years of age and suffered such abuse as Neglect, Physical abuse, Sexual abuse, Emotional Maltreatment, and Medical Neglect. In most cases the child was subjected to more than one type of abuse.

Just a few little abortion facts for you:

Abortion in the United States

Incidence of Abortion

* 49% of pregnancies among American women are unintended; almost half of these are terminated by abortion.

* In 2000, 1.31 million abortions took place, down from an estimated 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2000, more than 39 million legal abortions occurred.

* Each year, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15–44 have an abortion; 48% of them have had at least one previous abortion and 61% have had a previous birth.

* An estimated 43% of women will have at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old.

* Each year, an estimated 46 million abortions occur worldwide. Of these, 20 million procedures are obtained illegally.

Who Has Abortions

* 52% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25: Women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 19%.

* Black women are more than three times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are two-and-a-half times as likely.

* 43% of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% identify themselves as Catholic.

* Two-thirds of all abortions are among never-married women.

* More than 60% of abortions are among women who have had one or more children.


* On average, women give at least three reasons for choosing abortion: three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school, or other responsibilities; about two-thirds say they cannot afford a child; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

* About 13,000 women have abortions each year following rape or incest.

Contraceptive Use

* 54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.

* 8% of women having abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, unmarried, poor, black, Hispanic, or poorly educated.

* Nine in ten women at risk of unintended pregnancy are using a contraceptive method.

* 49% of the 6.3 million pregnancies that occur each year are unplanned.

* As much as 43% of the decline in abortion between 1994 and 2000 can be attributed to the use of emergency contraception.

Providers and Services

* In September 2000, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the abortion drug mifepristone to be marketed in the U.S. as an alternative to surgical abortion.

* The number of abortion providers declined by 11% between 1996 and 2000 (from 2,042 to 1,819). 87% of all U.S. counties lacked an abortion provider in 2000. These counties were home to 34% of all 15–44-year-old women.

* 97% of abortion facilities provide abortion at eight weeks, and 86% provide services at 12 weeks, but provision drops off steeply after that, with only 13% of providers offering services at 24 weeks.

* A growing proportion of providers offers very early abortion (at four weeks gestation), an increase from 7% in 1993 to 37% in 2000.

* In 2000, the cost of a nonhospital abortion with local anesthesia at ten weeks of gestation ranged from $150 to $4,000, and the average amount paid was $372.

* Approximately 600 providers offered medical abortion in the first half of 2001.

* About 37,000 medical abortions were performed in the first half of 2001; these procedures involved the use of mifepristone and methotrexate.

* In nonhospital facilities offering mifepristone for use in medical abortion in 2000, the average cost of medical abortion was $490.

Safety of Abortion

* The risk of abortion complications is minimal; less than one percent of all abortion patients experience a major complication, such as serious pelvic infection, hemorrhage requiring a blood transfusion or unintended major surgery.

* There is no evidence of childbearing problems among women who have had a vacuum aspiration abortion, the most common procedure, within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

* The risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from one death for every 500,000 abortions at 8 or fewer weeks to one per 27,000 at 16–20 weeks and 1 per 8,000 at 21 or more weeks.

* The risk of death associated with childbirth is about ten times as high as that associated with abortion.

* Almost half of the women having abortions beyond 15 weeks of gestation say they were delayed because of problems in affording, finding or getting to abortion services.

* Teens are more likely than older women to delay having an abortion until after 15 weeks of pregnancy, when medical risks associated with abortion increase significantly.

Some of these statistics may be slightly incorrect due to rounding of numbers of individuals. This information is as accurate and as unbiased as I could possibly find. Just think about all the children that have been abused, neglected, and unwanted the next time you think you need to condemn a person for having an abortion.

Sources-Info Please (http://infoplease.com) PP (http://www.plannedparenthoo d.org)
YahooNews (http://www.yahoo.com/news)

[Salahudeen]

Not having sex is 100%. And it is the only way. So if your going to have sex, which is a responsible adult action, then take the results from those actions and be responsible for them.

[Wraywolf]

Why?

[MorganaFang]

Not having sex is 100%. And it is the only way. So if your going to have sex, which is a responsible adult action, then take the results from those actions and be responsible for them.

Don't be a lazy asshole, read the damn post. And are you females cause if not, blah to you.

[LV426]

Not having sex is 100%. And it is the only way. So if your going to have sex, which is a responsible adult action, then take the results from those actions and be responsible for them.
Now let's try for a more realistic approach.

[kat]

Sala, how come you decided to ignore my responses to your posts?

[Darth Cluich]

Because he's horribly outmatched, kat. ;)

Okay, I'm going to throw the constitutional question into play, rather than continue going back and forth over morality, which is really going to get nowhere. The so-called constitutional right to choice, which even the Supreme Court justices writing in the majority in Roe v. Wade called a "shadow of a penumbra of rights" (for those of you without dictionaries, that basically means a shadow of a shadow), can be found nowhere explicitly stated in the Constitution. Therefore, the federal government, including the Supreme Court, really has no business getting involved in the question. The "right to choose" is not in the Constitution, and all those questions not addressed by the Constitution are, under the Tenth Amendment, the purview of the States. Opponents of abortion makes the same mistake in pushing a Constituional Amendment banning abortion. The issue simply should not fall under the authority of the federal government.

That said, I find it interesting that certain places allow abortion, which implies to me that the fetus is not viewed as a person yet. However, some States -- California, for example -- allow for an additional murder charge to be slapped on someone who kills a pregnant woman. If the fetus isn't a person, how do you justify an extra murder charge (in addition to the one for the murder of the mother).

Frankly, I don't believe this issue is cut-and-dry enough that we can legislate on it, so...well, we shouldn't -- not on the federal level (ever) or on the State level. But if we are, we should at least be consistent in our reasoning. That shouldn't be too much to ask

[kaycee]

I don't remember where, but I do recall anti-abortionist blowing up abortion clinics...killing people.

Irony much?

[kat]

Salahudeen is a pansy!

[Darth Cluich]

Salahudeen is a pansy!

C'mon, now, kat...tell us how you really feel. (And yes, I quoted the post because I wanted it repeated in the thread.) ;)

[chriz]

Cluich, I'm not really suggesting anything, but this is more like giving feedback. You could be posting the most salient and brilliant points this site has ever known, but I wouldn't know it because I can't read your text. Italics on the web are bad, serif fonts on the web are bad, combining them in complete paragraphs is a good way to limit how many people are going to read what you're saying.

Now, that may be fine. You may want to limit how many people are reading your posts. I'm just letting you know how it affects my eyes. ;)