The vast majority of people that have abortions do use contraception. http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm
you asked me why ok i'll tell you why 52,008,665 million babies have been aborted since roe v wade 1973 and i don't think that was necessary. life begins at conception."
Exactly Bathead. There are people who believe that life begins AT conception. There are people who believe that life begins with the first heartbeat inside the mother's womb. And then there are people who believe that life begins AT birth.
I have read that half of women who get abortions have done it before. That is using it as a form of contraception and feels wrong to me. I do not say I support abortion but I support that it should be a woman's choice if that is what she feels is right to her. I always do my best not judge others wrongly and I realize that every case is unique and individual. The right of abortion should not be taken away b/c of that.
Even if you believe life begins at conception, no one has the right to be a parasite to another. Being "Pro-Life" isn't advocating the same rights to fetuses that we enjoy but to claim additional rights for them.
Outlawing abortion will be as successful at getting rid of it as Prohibition was at getting rid of alcohol. Make it illegal and send the mothers to the back alleys to get abortions, many will end up dead, and then there will be two lives lost instead of just one. I'm also not keen on the idea of rape victims being forced to have their rapist's child (especially when the rape victim herself is a child), but that's just me. I am by no means in support of abortion, but I can't in good conscience be in favor of outlawing it, either. The problem with it is that too many people on both sides try to turn it into a black and white issue when it's not. It's oftentimes a very, very gray area.
You know what, that's a brilliant rebuttal. To argue in favor of abortion is to argue in favor of essentially eliminating child negligence laws - and along that same logic would invalidate child support. The act of abortion feature not a parasite that has viciously attached itself to another, but a direct result of a consensual act on the part of the mother. (This would obviously eliminate any doubt about rape induced pregnancy being an issue.)
Well, an embryo at conception seems to satisfy most mainstream scientific definitions of life. http://www.una.edu/faculty/pgdavison/BI 101/Overview Fall 2004.htm
Abortion due to rape makes up less than a fraction of a percent of all abortions. That's just a red herring used to justify all abortions. You could easily categorize abortion due to rape as health issue pertinent to the mother and still leave the other 99+% of abortions up for debate.
A new bill being proposed in Ohio would limit abortions to just before the first heartbeat of the fetus can be detected. The bill is being called the 'Heartbeat Bill'.
South Dakota Moves To Legalize Killing Abortion Providers A bill under consideration in the Mount Rushmore State would make preventing harm to a fetus a "justifiable homicide" in many cases. A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetusa move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state's GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon. "The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers." The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortioneven if she wanted one. Jensen did not return calls to his home or his office requesting comment on the bill, which is cosponsored by 22 other state representatives and four state senators. UPDATE: Jensen spoke to Mother Jones on Tuesday morning, after this story was published. He says that he disagrees with this interpretation of the bill. "This simply is to bring consistency to South Dakota statute as it relates to justifiable homicide," said Jensen in an interview, repeating an argument he made in the committee hearing on the bill last week. "If you look at the code, these codes are dealing with illegal acts. Now, abortion is a legal act. So this has got nothing to do with abortion." Jensen also aggressively defended the bill in an interview with the Washington Post's Greg Sargent on Tuesday morning. "The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers," says Vicki Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers. Since 1993, eight doctors have been assassinated at the hands of anti-abortion extremists, and another 17 have been the victims of murder attempts. Some of the perpetrators of those crimes have tried to use the justifiable homicide defense at their trials. "This is not an abstract bill," Saporta says. The measure could have major implications if a "misguided extremist invokes this 'self-defense' statute to justify the murder of a doctor, nurse or volunteer," the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families warned in a message to supporters last week. The original version of the bill did not include the language regarding the "unborn child"; it was pitched as a simple clarification of South Dakota's justifiable homicide law. Last week, however, the bill was "hoghoused"a term used in South Dakota for heavily amending legislation in committeein a little-noticed hearing. A parade of right-wing groupsthe Family Heritage Alliance, Concerned Women for America, the South Dakota branch of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, and a political action committee called Family Matters in South Dakotaall testified in favor of the amended version of the law. Jensen, the bill's sponsor, has said that he simply intends to bring "consistency" to South Dakota's criminal code, which already allows prosecutors to charge people with manslaughter or murder for crimes that result in the death of fetuses. But there's a difference between counting the murder of a pregnant woman as two crimeswhich is permissible under law in many statesand making the protection of a fetus an affirmative defense against a murder charge. "They always intended this to be a fetal personhood bill, they just tried to cloak it as a self-defense bill," says Kristin Aschenbrenner, a lobbyist for South Dakota Advocacy Network for Women. "They're still trying to cloak it, but they amended it right away, making their intent clear." The major change to the legislation also caught abortion rights advocates off guard. "None of us really felt like we were prepared," she says. Sara Rosenbaum, a law professor at George Washington University who frequently testifies before Congress about abortion legislation, says the bill is legally dubious. "It takes my breath away," she says in an email to Mother Jones. "Constitutionally, a state cannot make it a crime to perform a constitutionally lawful act." South Dakota already has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, and one of the lowest abortion rates. Since 1994, there have been no providers in the state. Planned Parenthood flies a doctor in from out-of-state once a week to see patients at a Sioux Falls clinic. Women from the more remote parts of the large, rural state drive up to six hours to reach this lone clinic. And under state law women are then required to receive counseling and wait 24 hours before undergoing the procedure. (Click here for an interactive map of abortion restrictions.) Before performing an abortion, a South Dakota doctor must offer the woman the opportunity to view a sonogram. And under a law passed in 2005, doctors are required to read a script meant to discourage women from proceeding with the abortion: "The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Until recently, doctors also had to tell a woman seeking an abortion that she had "an existing relationship with that unborn human being" that was protected under the Constitution and state law and that abortion poses a "known medical risk" and "increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide." In August 2009, a US District Court Judge threw out those portions of the script, finding them "untruthful and misleading." The state has appealed the decision. The South Dakota legislature has twice tried to ban abortion outright, but voters rejected the ban at the polls in 2006 and 2008, by a 12-point margin both times. Conservative lawmakers have since been looking to limit access any other way possible. "They seem to be taking an end run around that," says state Sen. Angie Buhl, a Democrat. "They recognize that people don't want a ban, so they are trying to seek a de facto ban by making it essentially impossible to access abortion services." South Dakota's legislature is strongly tilted against abortion rights, which makes passing restrictions fairly easy. Just 19 of 70 House members and 5 of the 35 state senators are Democratsand many of the Democrats also oppose abortion rights. The law that would legalize killing abortion providers is just one of several measures under consideration in the state that would create more obstacles for a woman seeking an abortion. Another proposed law, House Bill 1217, would force women to undergo counseling at a Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC) before they can obtain an abortion. CPCs are not regulated and are generally run by anti-abortion Christian groups and staffed by volunteersnot doctors or nurseswith the goal of discouraging women from having abortions. A congressional investigation into CPCs in 2006 found that the centers often provide "false or misleading information about the health risks of an abortion"alleging ties between abortion and breast cancer, negative impacts on fertility, and mental-health concerns. "This may advance the mission of the pregnancy resource centers, which are typically pro-life organizations dedicated to preventing abortion," the report concluded, "but it is an inappropriate public health practice." In a recent interview, state Rep. Roger Hunt, one of the bill's sponsors, acknowledged that its intent is to "drastically reduce" the number of abortions in South Dakota. House Bill 1217 would also require women to wait 72 hours after counseling before they can go forward with the abortion, and would require the doctor to develop an analysis of "risk factors associated with abortion" for each womana provision that critics contend is intentionally vague and could expose providers to lawsuits. A similar measure passed in Nebraska last spring, but a federal judge threw it out it last July, arguing that it would "require medical providers to give untruthful, misleading and irrelevant information to patients" and would create "substantial, likely insurmountable, obstacles" to women who want abortions. Extending the wait time and requiring a woman to consult first with the doctor, then with the CPC, and then meet with the doctor again before she can undergo the procedure would add additional burdens for womenespecially for women who work or who already have children. The South Dakota bills reflect a broader national strategy on the part of abortion-rights opponents, says Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate with the Guttmacher Institute, a federal reproductive health advocacy and research group. "They erect a legal barrier, another, and another," says Nash. "At what point do women say, 'I can't climb that mountain'? This is where we're getting to." Due to an editing error, an earlier, updated version of this article that was briefly available online stated that exemptions had been added to the bill after Mother Jones inquired about the legislation. That was wrong. Sorry. People for the American Way, a major progressive advocacy group, has issued a statement condemning the judiciary committee's version of 1171. http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers
MIKE HUCKABEE: ABORTION ISSUE 'TRUMPS ALL' http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/15/huckabee-abortion-issue-trumps-all/
Re: South Dakota, not exactly the most objective article in the world, but the implication of the law is clearly aimed at the abortion debate. The law would make no sense in any other context: it's already justifiable homicide to defend yourself or a pregnant woman from murder or assault, and if a women is harming the fetus she is carrying, how is killing her going to help the situation? Whether you agree with abortion or not, this is a cowardly and mean-spirited law.
And yeah, as far as the 'legalization' of killing abortion providers goes... Shameful and disgusting.
Update from HuffPost... Lawmaker Behind South Dakota's 'Justifiable Homicide' Bill Defends Measure, Makes Changes The internet is straight blowing up at the news on Tuesday that lawmakers in South Dakota are mulling a piece of legislation that would seem to make it legally permissible to kill abortion providers. Here's Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard: A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus -- a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state's GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon. The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion -- even if she wanted one. Says Vicki Saporta, the head of the National Abortion Federation, "The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers." Phil Jensen did not return Sheppard's calls, but he did speak to The Plum Line's Greg Sargent this morning, and guess what? He feels his law is being badly misinterpreted! "This has nothing to do with abortion," he says. Since the original outcry, a change has been made to the bill: it only allows the "justifiable homicide" defense in cases of self-defense. It's no longer applicable to fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, or husbands. So what does this law seek to do? When I asked Jensen what the purpose of the law was, if its target isn't abortion providers, he provided the following example: "Say an ex-boyfriend who happens to be father of a baby doesn't want to pay child support for the next 18 years, and he beats on his ex-girfriend's abdomen in trying to abort her baby. If she did kill him, it would be justified. She is resisting an effort to murder her unborn child." Is there a localized outbreak of women having their abdomens beaten by people who want to avoid paying child support? Is it not already a crime in South Dakota to beat on your ex-girlfriend's abdomen? And is it not yet permissible in South Dakota to defend oneself, with deadly force if necessary, against the threat of immediate harm to your person? (Maybe South Dakota is simply lagging behind on legal protections for ex-girlfriends.) Jensen was dismissive of the notion that this law could be seen as an invitation to kill abortion providers: "Never say never, but if some loony did what you're suggesting, then this law wouldn't apply to them. It wouldn't be justifiable homicide." I guess I'm pretty hung up on that whole "never say never" part. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...akota-justifiable-homicide-bill_n_823553.html
If the pro-life movement wants to show it really opposes the use of violence on abortion providers, I would expect a few prominent spokespersons from this movement to criticize this law. If not, then they show their true colors.
That header is highly deceptive, but I expect nothing less from Huffington Post. The bill's author says the bill would protect other individuals from being charged with murder if they killed someone attempting an illegal assault on a unborn child. Arguing whether the bill is necessary is one thing, but grossly misrepresenting this as an attempt to smear the pro-life movement is another. I think the bill is probably badly written and I don't know how many cases in the past this bill would affect. In theory, if a mother can use this defense against harm to her child, I don't see why hypothetically a father or brother can't. Of course the controversy from this bill stems from flimsy, inconsistent method of determining whether an embryo, fetus is alive (it is if the mother feels like it is).
Maybe if you actually read the link instead of jumping to conclusions you would see that THAT headline ISN'T from HuffPost. It's from Mother Jones.
Agreed Marx It is absolutely disgusting All women have the right to have an abortion for whatever reason and no one has the right to try and stop us Our bodies are our own and no one has the right to tell us what to do with them This proposed law is disgusting and inhuman