Devastating Ban

Discussion in 'Women's Issues' started by plastic bagism, Apr 20, 2007.

  1. Frieden

    Frieden Senior Member

    Yes, politicians think they can serve double duties---as politicians and doctors. How studious :$
     
  2. HippyFreek

    HippyFreek Vintage Member

    Personally, I support the decision. There is strong evidence (will dig up the three or four articles) that suggests that fetuses as young as 14-16 weeks along have physical touch-reaction. And that opens the door to the ideas that fetuses THINK and have emotions.

    And literally TEARING a sentient creature apart is not only murder, but cruel as well.
     
  3. I see where you are coming from. Let me remind you, however, that this federal ban is leaving no room for exceptions for a woman's health. If a woman's life is at risk, she and her doctor can appeal to a federal court. That is, of course, if her pregnancy complications do not take a turn for the worse before the government can make a decision.

    Furthermore, the studies that have been done have most specialists in agreement that the physical reaction of the fetus is not a reaction of pain, but simply reflexes.

    Either way, it is the woman's right to choose. It is her body. It is her life. It is her fetus. There is no place for Bush and his comrades in making such a decision. It lies between the mother and her doctor.

    This ban is simply a stepping stone in the aim to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Look at all that has happened during the Bush administration. Numerous bans have been enforced, and now they are questioning certain methods of birth control. I am not optimistic about the future of women's rights. The hard work of our 70's sisters may be eradicated with the sign of pen. It's devastating.
     
  4. Allonym

    Allonym cheesecake slut

    the article made it soudn like it was just that one form of procedure though, not -all- abortion just the one uncommon method

    well, now i cant log into it again to read it so if someon ehas a subscription to the site just copy paste it so other folks can read it too eh, thanks
     
  5. can someone actually tell us what the banned procedure is? that article doesn't explain it...
     
  6. Partial-birth abortion (or, scientifically, intact dialation and extraction). It's used after the first trimester.
     
  7. Poem~Girl

    Poem~Girl Member

    As stated in an artilcle i was doing for school. There should be absolutely no abortions after the 1st trimster. Why? Because after the 4 week the heart starts beating so on and so forth. And the 5 6 7 8 evertything starts to develop. If you read to your child while your pregnant EVERY single night the same book, your child will 99.99% definately know that book by the time the child is of age to know how to read.


    Stated by Zolner and Kail.

    I agree with medical issues and if the baby is having complications have an abortions but just don't get an abortion because your other half don't want kids
     
  8. That's the problem. This ban leaves no room for health exceptions.
     
  9. Nalencer

    Nalencer Dig Yourself

    If you have a point to make, make it, but I'd leave out all this women's rights stuff. Plenty of women are against abortion, which makes it look like an attempt to strengthen a weak argument. All women are not united behind your cause.
     
  10. I simply posted a link to an earthshattering event, voiced my opinion, and responded civally to others. I believe these are free speech forums, are they not?
     
  11. Nalencer

    Nalencer Dig Yourself

    Sure they are. I never said you weren't allowed to drag women's rights into it. I just said it was unwise.

    Just where do you get off? Do you feel victimized by men? You think men are out to oppress women? Well, sorry, but the majority are not. Men want to live and be happy just like women do, and all you're doing is putting up barriers between people, not breaking them down. If you want to put yourself into the box labelled "Pro-choice", that's up to you. But there are a lot of people of both sexes that are going to disagree with you. You'll just have to live with that, instead of just saying that everyone who disagrees with you is a rich, white male fuck who wants to tell women what to do with their bodies. That's just plain sexist, which is what you're supposed to be against. Or are you only against it when you're the victim?
     
  12. Bella Désordre

    Bella Désordre Charmed

    I'm sorry. I don't think partial-birth abortions should be legal. There's a difference between having the right to choose and exercising cruelty. This ban does allow for it when the mother's life is in jepordy so I see this as a great thing. Not for women's right but for HUMAN rights.
     
  13. Nalencer

    Nalencer Dig Yourself

    Case in point ;)
     
  14. FallenFairy

    FallenFairy Senior Member

    i agree with this law or whatever i mean it is just cruelty killing a live human being just becuase you dont want it. i can understand if the woman's life is at risk and this certain procedure is needed that is all fine and dandy but if they use this procedure other than that reason then that is just murder and wrong.
     
  15. mlo

    mlo Member

    I don't think that the government should be able to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with their own body. I also do not think that it is right that a doctor cannot exercise this type of abortion even if it is medically necessary to preserve the womans life, but I think that should be the only way this type of abortion should be used, as a medical procedure to preserve a womans life.

    Aside from this type of abortion I am pro-choice. If my husband and I ever discovered that I was pregnant I would not have an abortion even though we don't see kids in our future. If when I was younger I became pregnant as a result of having sex with a boyfriend, I would not have an abortion. That is my choice. If there were a medical reason for which, if I carried a child or bore a child, I would die or have serious health complications as a result of the pregnancy I would chose to abort the pregnancy. I would chose this only if totally necessary to preserve my own life. That is my choice, that is my right, not only as a woman, but as a human being. I have a right to do what I want to do with my own body.

    I don't agree when people use abortion as a form of birth control, however, that is their choice, unfortunately I can't change that, and neither can anyone else. If I say "you can only have an abortion if _______." That takes away that persons right to choose. Being pro-choice means you have to be respectful of others choices, even if you don't agree with them.

    I saw a bumper sticker that said "Pro-choice BEFORE CONCEPTION, Pro-life AFTER". It made me think a little about it. I am pro-choice, and for me that also goes the other way as well. If a woman was raped and became pregnant, she didn't have a choice in the matter before conception, in which case I believe that she should have a choice to have an abortion or not. I know that there are people that will say to that "But there is always adoption" and to that I say kudos to you if you find yourself with the strength to carry and bear a child of someone who violated you. I on the other hand would kill myself before I ever had a rapists child- no, it isn't the unborn childs fault that they were created, but it also wasn't the womens fault that she was raped. I do believe that any abortion that is not medically necessary to preserve a womans life should only be done in the beginning of the pregnancy.


    The are two things that get to me about this ruling:

    1)The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health, Kennedy said. ''The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice,'' he wrote in the majority opinion. As I said before: I think the only way this type of abortion should be used is as a medical procedure to preserve a womans life.

    2)''I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation's laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life," This type of comment bothers me because, since I am pro-choice, I forsee the possibility of more rulings being enacted that will infringe on my right to choose, ever.
     
  16. MikeE

    MikeE Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    1) Yes, rich white male fucks defined the limits of the Roe decision (also made by "rich white male fucks.")

    2) Yes, laws apply to women and men both. Talk to your granddad about the joys of the draft.

    3) What does Hillary have to do with it? How will she remove those restraints? Are you saying that if she is president the justices that she appoints will decide another case that will make this proceedure legal?

    4) Those restrains are not unconstitutional. That's what the decision said. They are unwise (the court decision didn't address that part), but they are constitutional.

    5) Is there any case where this law has prevented a woman from getting needed medical care? Has any doctor been charged?

    6) Stupid legislature for passing this stupid law. They should repeal it. Hillary is in the legestlative branch, she could sponsor a bill to repeal this restriction.
     
  17. Haid

    Haid Member

    I don't think it will make that much of a difference. They can still dismember the fetus in the womb and then suck everything out, they just can't deliver the head and then crush the skull and pull it out whole.
     
  18. HippyFreek

    HippyFreek Vintage Member

    You know, this might seem totally off-topic to people, but I as a mother, see a major interconnection between this and another issue involving a woman's right to choose: birth.

    It doesn't get near as much press, and most women don't even think about the options, but women in this country are losing the right to chose what type of birth they want to have and where they have it. Many states have made lay-midwifery illegal. A woman in my state (WA) had her child taken away from her after having an unassisted childbirth (no midwife or doctor). We're made to lie down on hospital beds, strapped to monitors and IVs, with doctors putting fear into us and making decisions for us without even asking. Something that effects not just one person, but two people, has become an event where a woman has no voice. And no one cares.

    And we'll argue this other point until we have no breath yet.
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice