while i agree that the law should include health exemptions....This was a horrible, horrible ruling. and actually, a woman has been charged, in South Carolina for child neglect when they found cocaine in the baby's body. How we can have laws that can charge somoene with a wrongful death of an unborn baby but the mothers cant be charged with child abuse is completely inconsistant.
Arguing about whether abortion should be legal or not is a moot point. It is legal. No one here is going to convince anyone else to change their beliefs. The problem isn't the fact of abortion being legal. The problem lies in why there must be abortions. Why women feel like it is the only alternative. Why, in our society, parents are not teaching their children to not have sex. Or at least, teaching them how to do it safely. People don't want abortions to be legal. Some of these same people, don't want condoms to be given to teenagers. Some of these same people look down on young women who DO have babies. Some of these same people say "Why don't you just keep your legs shut?" Well, tell your boys to keep their dicks in their pants, too. Our society is fucked up. Kids are having sex, doing drugs younger and younger. My daughters' babysitter goes to school with a girl who is 17 with 2 kids!!! The high school has special classes for girls to bring their babies with them! All this passion that is being thrown into arguing whether abortion is right or not, should be put to better use.
i agree except on one point. Many people disagree with abortion and they have the right to challenge it. If we took the logic of "its legal" so challenging it is 'moot,' we'd also have slavery. Women wouldnt be allowed to vote. People in this country are allowed to protest anything they want. I dont think its fair to say its 'moot' when some people see it as an injustice. Most of our revolutionary changes in this country have occured because people didnt stop when they heard "thats the law." Law isnt immutable. Oh, also, the ultimate responsibility of someone becoming pregnant has to lie with the ladies, not the men. I agree we need to teach women AND men about not having sex at 12 so we dont have pregnancies at 12. I dont agree with young women being hounded or looked down upon for having a kid at 16. Women used to run households at 16, why do we keep infantilizing our kids? Not that i want women to have kids at 16. However, all this bit about telling guys to 'keep their dicks in their pants' seems very demeaning to women. Are women unable to control themselves when guys dont 'keep their dicks in their pants?' Are women forced to have sex with men who dont 'keep their dick in their pants?" If abortion is to fall only as a womans choice, then it needs to be a womans responsibility if she gets pregnant, not a males. If there is a joint responsibility men should have a say in abortion. Although, america teaches people not to take responsibility for their actions anymore, so *sighs*.
I just meant, here on these forums, we won't be changing anyones mind. The responsibility should fall on both people involved in sex. Yes, when two conceive, both should be involved in the decisions about the pregnancy. But, it doesn't work that way. Men and Women should not have sex if they are worried about having a baby. Women have to carry the burden, though. men can shirk their responsibilities (if they want) and do nothing unless the courts intervene. women have to deal with having the baby or not if her partner takes off. What a sad world we live in.
This is sexist nonsense. "Responsibility of someone becoming pregnant" is exactly half and half. It takes a male gamete and a female gamete, why on earth do you say that it is a female who must take responsibility for both? The responsibility for "controlling oneself"is equally distributed among the interested parties. Indeed, fathers should have a say in abortion. The foetus is as much their responsibility as it is the woman's.
I think it was an excellent ruling. You can't just walk into a clinic eight months pregnant and get an abortion anyway! Most places do regulate that sort of thing. We don't need a bill for it. I agree. It's very inconsistent from a legal standpoint. It would take forever to get out all my thoughts on this issue.
It is the womans body, it is her responsibility to take care of her body, whatever that means. As i said, if we want men to take responsibility for men getting a woman pregnant he should have a say in abortion. If we dont want to give a man a say in abortion, then the responsibility lays with women. You cant have it both ways.
But the ultimate decision is the womans, because it is her body, she is the one who will have to gestate said fetus for 40 weeks.
i agree with the ruling in the sense that woman wont die because the abortion is banned. However, i think it is a horrible, horrible ruling in the sense that the "pain of the fetus is irrelevant." That is a horrible horrible slippery slope.
I agree that men and women shouldnt have sex if they are worried about having a baby, they should also discuss their feelings on what would happen if they do get pregnant so there is no debate over whether there should be an abortion or not. However, it is highly hypocritical that men can be held responsible for a baby and have absolutely zero legal say in abortion.
Welllll. While I don't think the pain of the fetus is irrelevant, I place more importance on the woman and what she needs and wants, rather than the fetus. Like I said, you cannot just walk into a clinic and abort a healthy seventh month pregnancy. There has to be a very good reason for it. The ruling itself was the right thing to do; it was perhaps a poor choice of words on their part, though. Twenty-three (I believe) states have passed bans on late term abortions, we do not need a federal ban. Leave it to the states to set their own laws on this, like Roe v. Wade originally intended.
And, it is also hypocrytical for a man to want to have a say in abortion, when he can just as easily dissappear and not deal with it at all. Pretend it never happen. It goes both ways. If men want to be involved in abortions, then they also should not be able to ignore the fact that they caused a pregnancy. But, we don't live in a perfect world.
i'm not sure about the state you live in. But in vermont you can take it the courts and a certain amount will be garnished from their paychecks and given to a woman. I in no way support a man running out and not paying for the kid. It is however, hypocritical that he has to pay and has no say the abortion. The only one that suffers if he runs out, is the kid, and not the mother, which is why i in no way condone a guy running out on footing the bill.
Like I said before, theoretical men have no actual responsibility until the courts step in. I agree with you, though. But, it just doesn't work that way. BTW, money isn't everything when it comes to having children.
No its not, and more important than money is to have two stable adults raising kids, that however, is not always possible.
Wrong. Read the Supreme Court's Doe v. Bolton ruling. It decreed that abortion must always be allowed for any "health" reason contrived by the abortionist, including emotional and financial considerations. Are you serious? Roe v. Wade specifically usurped states' authority to restrict abortion.
I'm sorry, but since when do a woman's finances factor into a health decision? Oh, that's right, they don't. I am quite serious. After the first trimester, the states are permitted to regulate abortion any way they see fit. But perhaps that is not good enough for some people; they want to see it completely outlawed.
The amorphous "health" exception required by Doe v. Bolton renders such restrictions almost meaningless: http://www.roevwade.org/aod.html
Oh yes they do, all the time. Some parts of health care are not available to those that can't pay for it. There's an interesting article here on the history of abortion some of you might want to read. http://www.cbctrust.com/abortion.html#61
