Abortion and the Religious Right
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
I think that women should have the right to any form of abortion. Women have fought hard for several years just to get equal rights, and opportunities. Taking away their chance to have an abortion is like taking away one of thier rights. [Not to mention raise the birth rate.] I want to know where these pro life people get thier morals from. [separation of church and state indeed!]
I can speak from an Islamic perspective:
Abortion should be allowed in 3 cases only:
1- the baby constitutes real danger on the life of the mother.
2- the baby was a result of rape.
3- the baby will be severly handicap or mentaly ill.
In case No.2 the abortion should take place within 12 weeks.
Abortion should be allowed in 3 cases only:
1- the baby constitutes real danger on the life of the mother.
2- the baby was a result of rape.
3- the baby will be severly handicap or mentaly ill.
In case No.2 the abortion should take place within 12 weeks.
Bet you didn’t know;
In the UK a woman does not have a right to an abortion. She goes to the doctor who then signs a paper stating that the abortion would damage her mental health. (To comply with the 1967 Abortion Act, two doctors must give their consent, stating that to continue with the pregnancy would present a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman or her existing children.)
They (pro-abortion) used this route because it let the law be changed faster.
In the UK a woman does not have a right to an abortion. She goes to the doctor who then signs a paper stating that the abortion would damage her mental health. (To comply with the 1967 Abortion Act, two doctors must give their consent, stating that to continue with the pregnancy would present a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman or her existing children.)
They (pro-abortion) used this route because it let the law be changed faster.
The article seems to presume that a person having a late abortion is doing so because they waited for the test results. Choosing to abort a genetically damaged foetus is not based on the feminist argument for equal choice or equal opportunity (as far as I can see).
I believe that any banning of abortion methods should only be done because they threaten the life of the woman. Partial-birth abortion only accounts for 1% of abortions, and I find saline amniocentesis a lot more terrible ( and I thought it was banned).
Saline Amniocentesis (Salt Poisoning)
This method, first used in Nazi concentration camps and now common in America, is performed during the second or early third trimester. A needle is injected into the abdomen, and 50-250ml of amniotic liquid is removed. This is replaced by a concentrated salt that burns away and deteriorates the baby's skin. Within three days the mother goes into labour and delivers a dead, burned baby. This concentrated salt may cause severe haemorrhage, cervical injuries, or side effects to the nervous system such as seizures or coma.
This, to me, sounds like a terrible experience. The US is supposed to be medically developed, could it not develop more humane ways?
I believe that any banning of abortion methods should only be done because they threaten the life of the woman. Partial-birth abortion only accounts for 1% of abortions, and I find saline amniocentesis a lot more terrible ( and I thought it was banned).
Saline Amniocentesis (Salt Poisoning)
This method, first used in Nazi concentration camps and now common in America, is performed during the second or early third trimester. A needle is injected into the abdomen, and 50-250ml of amniotic liquid is removed. This is replaced by a concentrated salt that burns away and deteriorates the baby's skin. Within three days the mother goes into labour and delivers a dead, burned baby. This concentrated salt may cause severe haemorrhage, cervical injuries, or side effects to the nervous system such as seizures or coma.
This, to me, sounds like a terrible experience. The US is supposed to be medically developed, could it not develop more humane ways?
----------okinrus said:
M*W: In Texas, there are laws that require abortus to be sent to be packaged up as a lab specimen and sent to a lab for diagnosis. The lab report is returned and filed in the patient's file. The Texas Department of Health requires this. Also, abortions are performed from 6 weeks through 25 weeks. It is illegal to perform an abortion in Texas beyond the 25th week of pregnancy. Clinics performing 30% or more abortions of their patient load are required to be inspected annually by the TDH. Every year these clinics must turn in a statistical record of all the abortions performed but without the patient's identity. Basically, in Texas children have no rights. If you kill an adult, it's considered murder. If you kill a child, it's considered injury to a child and not murder. There are stipulating cases though like the Andrea Yates case. Abortion is a better option. I firmly believe in the separation of state and uterus.
Children have no rights?
Abortion is a better option for whom? Not the mother or the fetus. I don't believe the separation of the state from the uterus is in the constitution. However, I'd be more inclined to believe that you'd believe in separation of the fetus from the mother. Otherwise, we could just as well say killing the fetus is killing the mother. But then the fetus is separate living entity who is indeed human. Abortionist will then argue that the fetus is human, but not a person. Yet then we could mandate killing all of those people who are unpersonable humans, namely all of the pro-choicers.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/PAS/PAS.asp
----------okinrus said:
M&W: This was a statement made by an attorney. It's a technicality. Under the age of 17 (legal age in Texas), the parent(s) are responsible for the child. Over 17 (and in some cases younger if the need is determined by the court), the child is considered an adult. Laws have become for "children friendly," but not when I was trying to collect child support! If, for example, the parents don't agree on an issue such as custody, visitation or child support, the court would order an ad litem attorney for the child to defend that child's "rights" if they were deemed by the court to have certain "rights" entitled to children. In reality, everyone has rights, but they are handled individually in the courts. For example, CPS (Children's Protective Services) fails terribly in protecting children's rights. More than a few times they intervene too late. They basically only focus on children under 10. You could basically starve your child to death, but they wouldn't get involved until the child is near death if even that early.
Okay, enough about that. There was a time when I was a Pro-Lifer. I went to the meetings. I passed out the gruesome pictures of mutilated fetuses. I protested at abortion clinics. But I was young then and hadn't finished my medical training. Then I was on the other side of the fence, and I saw there was a need for it. I know this sounds crass, and I truly don't like abortion. Nobody likes abortion. Nobody should like abortion, but it is needed. If you could see some of the women coming into the clinics for abortions, you'd understand what I mean. They're young, they're old, 95% are Afro-Americans. I don't mean to be racist here, but that's the same percentage of Blacks in Texas prisons - 95%. Afro-Americans tend to use abortion as "birth control." Every three months the same women would be back in for another abortion! I refus to perform more than two abortions on one woman within the same year. It's a dangerous procedure, and once in a while, someone doesn't make it. Abortion isn't the answer, but it's a solution but not for everyone. I never had one nor would I have. I wanted my children. Not every woman can say that. Those showing up at abortion clinics are the one's who don't want that child nor should they be made to carry that child, give birth to it, and then give it a tough lousy life in a ghetto with no hope for a bright future. We don't need anymore hopelessness. However, I do respect your Pro-Life stance.
95% is a little bit high for the national average, though African Americans have signficant portion of the abortions.
Yes, studies show that abortion does not help the women, because of the psychological stress that they must endure.
<blockquote>
Women who have one abortion are at increased risk of having additional abortions in the future. Women with a prior abortion experience are four times more likely to abort a current pregnancy than those with no prior abortion history.
This increased risk is associated with the prior abortion due to lowered self esteem, a conscious or unconscious desire for a replacement pregnancy, and increased sexual activity post-abortion. Subsequent abortions may occur because of conflicted desires to become pregnant and have a child and continued pressures to abort, such as abandonment by the new male partner. Aspects of self-punishment through repeated abortions are also reported.
Approximately 45% of all abortions are now repeat abortions. The risk of falling into a repeat abortion pattern should be discussed with a patient considering her first abortion. Furthermore, since women who have more than one abortion are at a significantly increased risk of suffering physical and psychological sequelae, these heightened risks should be thoroughly discussed with women seeking abortions.
</blockquote>
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/post_abortion_syndrome_character.asp
Hitler and Stalen also had solutions. Abortion isn't even helping these women get their life back on track.
What we consider a bright future is highly dependent on what were fed by the media and our current situation. It's not necesssary to have money in order to be happy.
-Demosthenes-
Registered Member
It's sad want some people will do.
I don't like the slant of the extract above. I haven't looked at the site, but I'm guessing it is pushing a pro-life stance. (Am I right?)
Perhaps so. One possible reason might be that somebody who has had one abortion is obviously open to the precedure, and will go through it a second time if necessary. Some people with no prior abortion history may be pro-lifers, for example, and of course they will never have an abortion voluntarily.
Sorry, but I just don't buy this. Show me the studies.
Perhaps so. One possible reason might be that somebody who has had one abortion is obviously open to the precedure, and will go through it a second time if necessary. Some people with no prior abortion history may be pro-lifers, for example, and of course they will never have an abortion voluntarily.
Sorry, but I just don't buy this. Show me the studies.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
I find the phrase "pro choice" disingenuous marketing. If one is claiming the right to kill, do so openly and honestly.
Bells
Staff member
The State should not have the right over a person's body and what they decide to do to it. If a woman decides to have an abortion, the State should not have the right to tell her no, just as the State should not have the right to refuse a dying person their right to die (seperate issue I know). A woman's body is her own and not the State's. Her rights over her body are her own and not the State's.
By the Government doing this, it is only opening the floodgates to women seeking backyard abortions or self abortions which can and will result in the woman's health being jeapodised or even killed. This is no longer only a right to choose anymore, but woman's health issue.
By the Government doing this, it is only opening the floodgates to women seeking backyard abortions or self abortions which can and will result in the woman's health being jeapodised or even killed. This is no longer only a right to choose anymore, but woman's health issue.
It's clear to me that the fetus and mother are not just one person's body. If they were one automous being, then the women would feel or own flesh being soaked in acid, stabbed, and mutilated. Thus, while your point about women's body being their own may be valid, if the fetus is female, and the fetus is usually is, the fetus would have just as much rights as the mother.
The State does have the right to stop someone from commiting suicide.
What she does with her body is tempered by the State, however. A women can't with her own body kill someone. A women can't with her own body steal. And a women can't with her own lips commit perjury.
Well, do you have <em>valid</em> statistics of the "floodgates" of women seeking backyard abortions?