Is it possible for someone to tell me (WITHOUT DEBATE!)...

[In a hurry]

Morning after pills. Some believe they cause abortions as well, but that is a religious opinion on when life begins rather than a medical opinion. IMO it's no different than any other kind of birth control, including NFP.

People just won't believe that because they don't want to. I have tried to say that to educated people, who then call me a liar.

I tend to be pro-choice for the first trimester ( I have known way to many unwanted children and miserable parents!), and adamently pro-life for 2nd and third trimesters. But I gave birth to a 24 week preemie. Who is (and was) very much her own person even on that day. She felt pain, had a personality and had the commen sense to calm down when her mama was there!

 

[cardaway]

But if you do want a straight answer, my guess is the focus would be more on the doctors performing abortions rather than on tracking down women who have had them.

All but impossible without involving the patient and their medical history. It sounds like the anti-abortion folks would be OK with this under the circumstances, but then IMO it goes against all angles of right to privacy.

I also don't think we want to give the extremists the means to go on a medical witch hunt.

 

[jodifla]

emphasis mine and I completely agree. this is the thing that drives me nuts about the debate from both sides. all the discussion is on roe v. wade!! if politicians on boths side really wanted to have a productive discussion about abortion, it would focus on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and resultant abortions instead.

Yes, but the most militant anti-abortion folks are anti-birth control pills, too, because they believe them to be abortifacients.

 

[6_Time_Momma]

The current abortion notification law in front of the Supreme Court is being challenged because it does NOT allow for an exception for the health of the mother. So, if a teen is pregnant and needs an abortion or else she will be injured/killed, they still have to tell parents even if that might result in negative consequences - abuse, being kicked out of the home, etc. Many states have perfectly constitutional notification statutes.

Abortion rights, based on the right of privacy, stems from the cases on birth control. Connecticut had a statute that banned the sale of birth control to married couples, supposedly under the policy that the state wanted couples to birth babies once married. The Court found that violated a right to privacy.

Many of these decisions cite the Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. So, when some judges say that rights are not enumerated, therefore they do not exist, goes against this amendment. Does that include privacy? The Court says yes, many dissenting opinions say no.

The problem I see with tossing the right to privacy? It's a slippery slope. It opens the door to further regulation of sexuality and pregnancy. If a state can make a law outlawing abortion, they might also have the right to mandate pregnancy, or at least ban birth control. Both are currently outlawed based on the right to privacy.

Okay, that explanation makes a little more sense. Thanks.

 

[hokiefan33]

Yes, but the most militant anti-abortion folks are anti-birth control pills, too, because they believe them to be abortifacients.

You know this for a fact, then? I assume you do, since you make the absolute statement "are" rather than "might be" or "could be." So I assume you have talked to every single militant anti-abortionist, then.

I am STRONGLY opposed to abortion, for any reason at all. Not only for religious reasons (though they do play a big part), but also just for moral reasons. Militant? Maybe, but probably not considered that. But we use birth control, b/c it has nothing to do with an abortion. It in fact PREVENTS unwanted pregnancies, so if you're not wanting a baby right now, chances are you won't get pregnant! You want to reduce abortions? Get more women to use birth control effectively, to preven the pregnancy BEFORE it happens, rather than "fix the problem" AFTER it happens.

 

[VSL]

hokiefan - what about if the pregnancy was unsafe for the woman to continue with?

 

[hokiefan33]

hokiefan - what about if the pregnancy was unsafe for the woman to continue with?

The answer to that question, for any person answering it, would depend greatly, I believe, upon their moral and religious views. Myself, for example, and my wife as well, would not be able to have an abortion, even if warned by the doctors that her health could be at risk. I know that my wife would simply not be able to knowingly end her pregnancy, just to potentially save herself. Now, a lot of women (and perhaps men) would call that kind of thinking foolish. And that's fine - I don't have to be concerned about what they think of it. However, as Christians, who pray for God's will in our lives, we could not do something like that. We would certainly pray that if it is God's will, that both my wife and the baby be kept safe. And if one or both of them were to die as a result, then although it would certainly be a terrible loss of life and would certainly be the height of sadness, we would still be able to know that the will of God was accomplished. Who knows why bad things happen to us sometimes? Often it is for a greater good to be accomplished. But if God blessed us with a pregnancy, who are we to end it on our terms, rather than on His?

Again, the answer from anyone would depend greatly on their religious outlook. This is simply mine.

 

[Tumbleweed]

The problem with making abortions illegal is that you will NEVER get a chance
to counsel or help a woman make a decision again. They won't be talking.
We will go back to backroom dangerous abortions and may lose mothers and babies.

I was once pregnant. My hormones were so whacked I couldn't think straight.
Abortions were legal and I did have one. If I had not been able to get one,
I can honestly tell you I would have committed suicide. I was sick, miserable,
scared and not thinking clearly. I gave it serious thought. It was scary enough to end the pregnancy.

 

[scubamouse]

You know this for a fact, then? I assume you do, since you make the absolute statement "are" rather than "might be" or "could be." So I assume you have talked to every single militant anti-abortionist, then.

I am STRONGLY opposed to abortion, for any reason at all. Not only for religious reasons (though they do play a big part), but also just for moral reasons. Militant? Maybe, but probably not considered that. But we use birth control, b/c it has nothing to do with an abortion. It in fact PREVENTS unwanted pregnancies, so if you're not wanting a baby right now, chances are you won't get pregnant! You want to reduce abortions? Get more women to use birth control effectively, to preven the pregnancy BEFORE it happens, rather than "fix the problem" AFTER it happens.

this may be a case where your definition of militant is different than hers. that said, there are phamacists and doctors who are not filling perscriptions for BCP because either they don't believe in contraceptives and/or view BCP as abortifacients. here's an article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm

i actually agree w/you that improved availablility and education on the use of BC could do a lot to reduce the number of abortions.

and a good friend of mine had an abortion when she was d/x with cancer. there are 3 children in the world today because she made that decision. they were all born after she was treated and in remission. they would not be alive were it not for that choice she made.

 

[jodifla]

You know this for a fact, then? I assume you do, since you make the absolute statement "are" rather than "might be" or "could be." So I assume you have talked to every single militant anti-abortionist, then.

I am STRONGLY opposed to abortion, for any reason at all. Not only for religious reasons (though they do play a big part), but also just for moral reasons. Militant? Maybe, but probably not considered that. But we use birth control, b/c it has nothing to do with an abortion. It in fact PREVENTS unwanted pregnancies, so if you're not wanting a baby right now, chances are you won't get pregnant! You want to reduce abortions? Get more women to use birth control effectively, to preven the pregnancy BEFORE it happens, rather than "fix the problem" AFTER it happens.

Frankly hokiefan, you are about as militant as they come, at least on these boards.

I'm referencing the spokesmen for the American Life League, who want to make BIRTH CONTROL PILLS ILLEGAL. They are making ground, too.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Just like others don't like the word murder used until the laws are changed.

See--here's the thing--didn't use that term. I simply tried to help the OP.

 

[hokiefan33]

Frankly hokiefan, you are about as militant as they come, at least on these boards.

I'm referencing the spokesmen for the American Life League, who want to make BIRTH CONTROL PILLS ILLEGAL. They are making ground, too.

If you think I'm as militant as they come, I hope you never run into someone who is truly militant. It will probably be a big shocker if you do!

It was impossible to know who you were referencing, b/c you didn't specifically identify anyone in your post. Now that you have, it's a little easier to understand. And for the record, I think the push to have BCP made illegal is completely misguided, and a bad idea with far-reaching repercussions.

 

[rigs32]

Does the include saving mom from an ectopic pregnancy?

I think an ER should be able to perform any life sustaining procedure until next of kin can be notified..and if the difference between performing the procedure and not is life and death--i think life should win. They can cover the semantics later.

(and I'm not speaking of living wills and such--I'm speaking of--needing to amputate a limb--remove shrapnel---that kind of stuff...where fixed it isn't life threatening--but unfixed/unrepaired--it can kill you).

I have not read the statute, so I am not sure, BUT there was an ER doc on Talk of the Nation today who seemed to think it included ANY pregnancy ended by a doctor, including ectopic.

A woman called in to tell her story about the days when CA required parental notification (late 60s?) and she was 19 and the vicitm of date rape. She had 106 fever for three days because they couldn't locate her parents. The docs thought she would likely die before they could follow procedure and notify the parents, but they lucked out and found them in time. Those are the types of situations that are in play with laws that don't have heath exceptions.

Another interesting question in this case is how people can challenge it - there is another issue about this type of challenge, called a facial challenge. Planned Parenthood is saying that because the law can harm some as written, it should not be implemented. The opposition says that because it can only harm a few, it should go into effect and them it should be up to a legislative body to change it if they want to.

The problem I see with this? There are no checks and balances. The point of the judiciary is to tell legislatures when their actions are unconstitutional. If you let laws that are only a little illegal go into effect, I see that as making the rule of law that much weaker overall.

 

[rigs32]

A bit off topic, but while I'm espousing legal theory, here's something interesting for you.

Many pro-life people refuse to acknowledge the Supreme Court cases allowing for a right of privacy - from Griswold (the BC case in CT) to Roe to Casey. Because of this, some attorneys refuse to cite to those cases in their briefs. (I know this because I have an aquaintance in law school who'se very much to the right) During the Terry Schiavo case hearings, there were better legal arguments to be made on behalf of the parents (probably not enough to have a differing outcome, though), but a refusal to acknowledge the right to privacy case hurt their case.

I'm not sure exactly what the other arguments would have been - it's been awhile.

 

[cardaway]

See--here's the thing--didn't use that term. I simply tried to help the OP.

I didn't say you did, just explaining my side after having my terms questioned by Matt.

 

[padams]

I haven't read all the way through this thread so if someone has already posted a link to the complete Roe v. Wade opinion, ignore this one. If you've never read Roe v. Wade, no matter what your opinion on abortion is, you should read the whole opinion. I'm always surprised at the people who have an opinion on this case but have never read it.

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_a.htm

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I didn't say you did, just explaining my side after having my terms questioned by Matt.

Gotcha--and I do want to be clear here--that I am trying to discuss Kristy's initial post to the best of my abilities so that there doesn't have to be debate. The constitution fascinates me and while I may not be supportive of the topic in question--it helps both sides of the discussion to bring what we can find to the table so that we can learn instead of ending up in the toilet as we always do on this topic.

Thanks for the link padams--I will check it later. I posted an excert or something (was looking just for the constitutional parts)--but haven't read the opinion. I'm a reader's digest kind of gal, but will check it later after we return from our event.

 

[cardaway]

Gotcha--and I do want to be clear here--that I am trying to discuss Kristy's initial post to the best of my abilities so that there doesn't have to be debate. The constitution fascinates me and while I may not be supportive of the topic in question--it helps both sides of the discussion to bring what we can find to the table so that we can learn instead of ending up in the toilet as we always do on this topic.

Understood, and I'm trying to do the same thing, concentrate on why it's legal and why that shouldn't change. I think it would be great if this thread continued to keep out the usual bickering because religion says it's wrong, men can't conceive, etc.

 

[KarenC]

You often hear references to "original intent" when it comes to interpretation of the constitution. While I think it's inappropriate to believe that the framers original intent should apply to situations they never dreamed could exist, I think it is interesting to point out the state of abortion rights at the time the constitution was drafted. In the 18th century abortion was routinely performed before the "quickening", when the mother felt the baby move. Unlike slavery, there was no great debate over whether or not abortion was moral during this time. Abortion was also peformed during the time while Jesus taught, yet he is also silent on abortion. It wasn't really until the 1940s (when women slowly but surely began to become less dependent upon a spouse to survive) that abortion really started to become an issue in America and laws were put in place banning it.

 

[JennyMominRI]

. Abortion was also peformed during the time while Jesus taught, yet he is also silent on abortion. .

He may have been silent but Jewish law,which he followed,wasn't silent.. While not approving of abortion on demand jewish law REQUIRES and abortionif the life or health of the mother is at risk..That can also include the mothers mental healht.The Talmud actually gives instructions on how the procedure is to be done... Jewish law does not recognize the fetus as a life from conception ,but as a potential life..The mothers life takes precidence until such time as the fetus is halfway delived,and then one cannot be chosen over the other