Abortion - What's YOUR stand?

[horaciocs]

I'm from Brazil, and here abortion is ILLEGAL. It's a crime to commit one yourself or even for a physician to do so, unless in extreme situations, such as rapes.

What do US laws say about that? And what are your opinions?

Justices uphold ban on abortion procedure


By Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
Adjust font size:
Decrease fontDecrease font
Enlarge fontEnlarge font

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a law that banned a type of late-term abortion, a ruling that could portend enormous social, legal and political implications for the divisive issue.

The sharply divided 5-4 ruling could prove historic. It sends a possible signal of the court's willingness, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to someday revisit the basic right to abortion guaranteed in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.

President Bush, who signed the law in 2003 and appointed two of the justices who upheld it, said the prohibition "represents a commitment to building a culture of life in America."

"Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America," he said in a statement released by the White House.

At issue is the constitutionality of a federal law banning a rarely performed type of abortion carried out in the middle-to-late second trimester. (Watch how the decision might affect Roe vs. Wade Video)

The legal sticking point was that the law lacked a "health exception" for a woman who might suffer serious medical complications, something the justices have said in the past is necessary when considering abortion restrictions.

In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key swing vote in these divided appeals, said the federal law "does not have the effect of imposing an unconstitutional burden on the abortion right." He was joined by his fellow conservatives, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Roberts.
Sole woman on bench reads bitter dissent

In a bitter dissent read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the high court, said the majority's opinion "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court, and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."

She called the ruling "alarming" and noted the conservative majority "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases" by doctor's groups, including gyncecologists.

The Justice Department and abortion rights groups have offered differing views of the legislation's impact on women's overall second trimester access to the procedure, and whether the procedure is ever medically necessary.

This was the first time the high court had heard a major abortion case in six years, and since then, its makeup has changed, with Roberts and Alito now on board.

Their presence on the bench provided the solid conservative majority needed to allow the federal ban to go into effect, with Kennedy providing the key fifth vote for a majority.

Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor, a key abortion rights supporter over her quarter century on the bench.

"A lot of us wish that Alito weren't there and O'Connor were there," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, who opposed Alito's nomination, said.

Doctors call this type of late-term abortion an "intact dilation and evacuation." Abortion foes term it a "partial-birth abortion."

Three federal appeals courts had ruled against the government, saying the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is unconstitutional because it does not provide a "health exception" for pregnant women facing a medical emergency. The outcome of this latest challenge before the court's new ideological makeup could turn on the legal weight given past rulings on the health exception.

In states where such exceptions are allowed, the lists of possible health risks include severe blood loss, damage to vital organs and loss of fertility. Court briefs noted pregnant women having the procedure most often have their health threatened by cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure or risk of stroke. Doctors are given the discretion to recommend when the late-term procedure should be performed.

The federal law has never gone into effect, pending the outcome of nearly three years of legal appeals.

Specifically, the ban encompasses what doctors call "intact dilation and evacuation" (also known as IDX), which Congress in its legislation termed inhumane.

It is a rarely used second-trimester procedure, designed to reduce complications to the woman. More common is "dilation and evacuation" (D&E), used in 95 percent of pre-viability second-trimester abortions, according to Planned Parenthood. Both are generally performed after the 21st week of pregnancy.

A major part of the legal dispute was whether the federal ban also includes the relatively more common "standard D&E abortions." The government contends the law does not, and is sufficiently narrow not to place an "undue burden" on a woman's reproductive choices.

Raw numbers were also at the heart of the debate, because the two sides disagreed on how often the procedure is performed. Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Justice Department's top lawyer before the court, suggested it is rarely performed, and that other medical options are available, so banning it would therefore not be a real barrier to women.

Abortions rights supporters say "intact" abortions are a medically accepted pre-viability, second-trimester procedure.

Since the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, some states have tried to place restrictions and exceptions on access to the procedure, prompting a string of high court "clarifications" on the issue over the years.

 

[MsWikia]

I am against it for religious reasons. However, I understand it ONLY if the case is rape. I also do not think it should be a govt issue, if people want to do it, let them do it, they have to live with their decision later.

 

[Shogun]

is there any room for a compromise??

Say, a GREAT compromise even?

 

[Foxfyre]

I believe the unborn to be the earliest stage of human life, and for me there is no justification to destroy it because it is a hardship or inconvenience. I do see circumstances where the fetus is horribly malformed with no chance for anything but a short, tortured or miserable life and/or the life of the mother is in jeopardy, that an abortion might be the best choice, and I do think that should always be a legal option.

I am therefore pro life in all respects, but I do not want my government telling me that I have to be, nor do I want my government telling any community that it must accept abortion on demand when the values of the community recoil against that.

 

[Jon]

I am against it for religious reasons. However, I understand it ONLY if the case is rape. I also do not think it should be a govt issue, if people want to do it, let them do it, they have to live with their decision later.

Cool, I'll make the same argument about murder. Or, rape. Or, terrorist bombings. Don't punish me, I'll punish myself later.

Seriously though...

I agree with abortion only in the cases of a person who has been raped, or if the fetus is threatening the life of the mother. The argument that everything is in the hands of God and the mother should carry the baby until birth, even if the mother might die, because it would give the child life, is a bunch of garbage, in my opinion. It's horrible that a person would have to choose between their life and the life of their child, but telling someone they HAVE to choose the life of the child is none of anyone's business but the mother's.

 

[roomy]

I believe it is a decision best left to those it concerns.

 

[Foxfyre]

I believe it is a decision best left to those it concerns.

This however involves a fundamental philosophy of when life begins. Should the decision be made at any stage? Right now it is legal to kill a baby, using the most savage and brutal methods, minutes or seconds before it is born. But it is illegal to kill it minutes or seconds after it is born. What kind of logic is that? What kind of logic is a state law making it a double murder to kill a pregnant woman but she can kill her unborn child at will?

If the matter must be legislated, I do believe the original intent of Roe V Wade is probably the best national policy: abortion in the first trimester should be between the mother and doctor and the state should stay out of it. The state has increasing interest in the second trimester--perhaps justification and/or a court order should be required except in cases of extreme emergency. The state has a great deal of interest in the third trimester when the baby is viable and one would need a hugely compelling reason and argument to justify killing it.

Of course all of that is out the window as various liberal courts have rewritten the criteria laid out in Roe v Wade and the unborn child is deemed to have no right to life of any kind.

 

[roomy]

This however involves a fundamental philosophy of when life begins. Should the decision be made at any stage? Right now it is legal to kill a baby, using the most savage and brutal methods, minutes or seconds before it is born. But it is illegal to kill it minutes or seconds after it is born. What kind of logic is that? What kind of logic is a state law making it a double murder to kill a pregnant woman but she can kill her unborn child at will?

If the matter must be legislated, I do believe the original intent of Roe V Wade is probably the best national policy: abortion in the first trimester should be between the mother and doctor and the state should stay out of it. The state has increasing interest in the second trimester--perhaps justification and/or a court order should be required except in cases of extreme emergency. The state has a great deal of interest in the third trimester when the baby is viable and one would need a hugely compelling reason and argument to justify killing it.

Of course all of that is out the window as various liberal courts have rewritten the criteria laid out in Roe v Wade and the unborn child is deemed to have no right to life of any kind.

I agree with you, when I said it was a matter for those it concerned I should have added within legal confines.

 

[AllieBaba]

Cool, I'll make the same argument about murder. Or, rape. Or, terrorist bombings. Don't punish me, I'll punish myself later.

Seriously though...

I agree with abortion only in the cases of a person who has been raped, or if the fetus is threatening the life of the mother. The argument that everything is in the hands of God and the mother should carry the baby until birth, even if the mother might die, because it would give the child life, is a bunch of garbage, in my opinion. It's horrible that a person would have to choose between their life and the life of their child, but telling someone they HAVE to choose the life of the child is none of anyone's business but the mother's.

And what groups think that a woman should carry a baby until birth, even though she's guaranteed to die if she does?

 

[Jon]

And what groups think that a woman should carry a baby until birth, even though she's guaranteed to die if she does?

There's a small number of people (read: religious zealots) who argue that it is all in the hands of God and that there is no reason for there to ever be any abortion.

 

[roomy]

There's a small number of people (read: religious zealots) who argue that it is all in the hands of God and that there is no reason for there to ever be any abortion.

I wouldn't worry about them, they never likely to become the majority.

 

[AllieBaba]

Exactly. But pro-abortionists would have everyone believe they are representative of anyone who does not support abortion, and that by making abortion an illegal option, we are forcing women to give birth to children that will kill them.

 

[MsWikia]

Cool, I'll make the same argument about murder. Or, rape. Or, terrorist bombings. Don't punish me, I'll punish myself later.

Seriously though...

I agree with abortion only in the cases of a person who has been raped, or if the fetus is threatening the life of the mother. The argument that everything is in the hands of God and the mother should carry the baby until birth, even if the mother might die, because it would give the child life, is a bunch of garbage, in my opinion. It's horrible that a person would have to choose between their life and the life of their child, but telling someone they HAVE to choose the life of the child is none of anyone's business but the mother's.

OK, so how do we disagree?

I said the same thing but differently. I ONLY agree with abortion when rape or life/death situations are a factor, other than that I DISAGREE. Furthermore, I said I do not think this should be a govt issue, if people want to have abortions let them, why stop them, they are only hurting themselves in the long run, whereas killing others, rape, robbery, or terrorist bombing involves other people.

 

[Paulie]

I believe the unborn to be the earliest stage of human life, and for me there is no justification to destroy it because it is a hardship or inconvenience. I do see circumstances where the fetus is horribly malformed with no chance for anything but a short, tortured or miserable life and/or the life of the mother is in jeopardy, that an abortion might be the best choice, and I do think that should always be a legal option.

I am therefore pro life in all respects, but I do not want my government telling me that I have to be, nor do I want my government telling any community that it must accept abortion on demand when the values of the community recoil against that.

I almost agree. Except, who are you to say that a potentially malformed child would be better off dead?

 

[Paulie]

There's a small number of people (read: religious zealots) who argue that it is all in the hands of God and that there is no reason for there to ever be any abortion.

The fundamental problem with that is that there is no proof that there is any "god" taking care of anything, so until there is, perhaps we humans ought to be handling our own issues.

 

[Foxfyre]

I almost agree. Except, who are you to say that a potentially malformed child would be better off dead?

No, not a 'potentially malformed child'. Too many people have been far less than physically perfect but have nevertheless experienced great joy and satisfaction in life; many bringing great gifts to the world. But with modern technology, it is possible to determine early on that a child is doomed from the outset. And if the child has no chance for any kind of joy in life and is doomed to a short but excruciating painful/unpleasant time on Earth, I cannot fault parents who choose not to subject the child to that. For the same reason once there is no chance for any quality of life, I think we must respect an adult's request to keep him/her as comfortable as possible, but otherwise allow him/her to die.

 

[LOki]

I am Pro-choice. Having choices is having rights -- a life without rights is not a life; at least not a human life. In most cases presented to me, I would choose a way that preserves human life.

Which also makes me ...

Anti-abortion. It's a choice. Moreover it is a choice consistent with being pro-choice. Besides, anyone who is pro-abortion is in need of therapy.

I am also Pro-life. Unlike those hypocrites who make claim to this label, I'm pro-life for the prospective mother, pro-life of the expected child.

Yet I insist that these lives be human lives. I cannot accept degrading women to the status of 'brood animal' to appease someone else's superstitions, or stone-aged notions of gender class. Nor can I accept the forced birth of one who may be unwilling and is certainly unable (and may continue to be, for the rest of their unfortunate lives) to excersie their rights; who forced into this world find themselves unwanted and unloved.

On the one hand I find it abborhent that anyone should consider the taking of another individual's life a 'right.' But it doesn't bother me the least that it may be a neccessity, and I feel compelled to accept that it can be the right thing to do.

The taking of human life can never be contemplated without utmost care and consideration. Taking life cannot ever be allowed to be taken lightly.

On the other hand, I think is is the height of arrogant hypocracy to insist that at every pair of parents --that every mother-- does not endure a terrible trial of concience when making a choice regarding the fate of a new being. And worse, to think that a government regulation could possibly take the place of that.

I will have to assert that abortion must remain legal and safe, but cannot, if we are to preserve humanity, be considered a right.

 

[roomy]

I am Pro-choice. Having choices is having rights -- a life without rights is not a life; at least not a human life. In most cases presented to me, I would choose a way that preserves human life.

Which also makes me ...

Anti-abortion. It's a choice. Moreover it is a choice consistent with being pro-choice. Besides, anyone who is pro-abortion is in need of therapy.

I am also Pro-life. Unlike those hypocrites who make claim to this label, I'm pro-life for the prospective mother, pro-life of the expected child.

Yet I insist that these lives be human lives. I cannot accept degrading women to the status of 'brood animal' to appease someone else's superstitions, or stone-aged notions of gender class. Nor can I accept the forced birth of one who may be unwilling and is certainly unable (and may continue to be, for the rest of their unfortunate lives) to excersie their rights; who forced into this world find themselves unwanted and unloved.

On the one hand I find it abborhent that anyone should consider the taking of another individual's life a 'right.' But it doesn't bother me the least that it may be a neccessity, and I feel compelled to accept that it can be the right thing to do.

The taking of human life can never be contemplated without utmost care and consideration. Taking life cannot ever be allowed to be taken lightly.

On the other hand, I think is is the height of arrogant hypocracy to insist that at every pair of parents --that every mother-- does not endure a terrible trial of concience when making a choice regarding the fate of a new being. And worse, to think that a government regulation could possibly take the place of that.

I will have to assert that abortion must remain legal and safe, but cannot, if we are to preserve humanity, be considered a right.

Excellent post, deserving of rep.

 

[My Winter Storm]

I'm pro choice, very much so. I've often been condemned for my views, because I believe in the right to abortion up until birth.

I was once pro life - and I wasn't a very good one, eithor. I used to wish abortion would be banned, that women would die during backyard abortions, that they should be jailed, that they were sluts, murdering whores, etc.
I also believed that when a woman aborted, she was aborting a baby that looked just like a minature newborn.

Obviously, I was mislead, and I realised that after being pro life for most of my life. I started to do some research, to see things from the pro choice side. I quickly became pro choice when I considered their arguements, and the things I had been led to believe by the pro life side of the arguement.

It wasn't my mistrust of the pro life side that made me switch sides - rather, it was the arguements I hadn't paid attention to.

I don't believe anyone has the right to force a woman to gestate against her will. The Government certainly doesn't have that right - to do so would make women nothing more than slaves, giving them no authority over their bodies.

I guess it comes down to this: Which is more important? The fetus or the woman?
The answer should be simple.

 

[Zeddicus]

I would never ask someone to get an abortion because its not my choice its theirs, Yet i belive that abortion should be legal for someone to decide themselves. I once heard someone on the news say something along the lines of, they got pregnet its there mistake. If you agree with this guy you are a closed minded person. I mean a baby is not a mistake, its a life that has yet to come into existince. And if the parents are not ready for this life then they have the right to choose not to have it. Oh and to the people who stand on the street with dead babys on big boards, I can honestly say that none of you are doing any good and only bringer pain to many people. Their parents should have ABORTED THOSE dickheads