Mitt Romney trying to ban abortion?

Claire - posted on 08/29/2012 ( 204 moms have responded )

164

24

2

What does everyone think of the gov't trying to ban abortion is the US? I personally think it is wrong and the gov't has no right what to tell women what to do. I personally would never get an abortion, but I dont think anyone needs to dictate who can and who cannot. But I do believe that any abortions should be in the first trimester.



But I also dont believe women should use abortion as a form of Birth Control. I know someone who had 4 abortions and I think that was disgusting, finally she got an IUD (hallelujah!!)



And I dont understand how they can be "pro life" protecting a few cells (early abortions) when there are children all over the world dying from starvation, why not help those already living?



What does everyone think?

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Dove - posted on 08/29/2012

6,577

0

1337

We've done abortion debates before and they are never pretty, but I'll reply anyway. ;)



As someone who is 100% pro-life from conception on.. this topic is quite conflicting for me. I do, personally, wish abortion were illegal. I don't think anyone should have the right to take the life of another human being even if that life is just a few cells put together. However, I am well aware that if abortion were illegal... some women would go on and find a way to get it done anyway... and if it is illegal it just increases the chance that the woman would die as well in some 'back alley abortion'.... in which case two lives have been lost and I would not call myself pro-life if I were ok with that since there IS no life there. Same as why I'm not against abortion if continuing the pregnancy to the point of viability would kill the mother... you still end up with two dead lives and that does not equal my definition of pro-life.



So.... I'm at the point where I realize there are NO good answers on this earth. I will remain 100% pro-life and share my views with anyone who wants to ask. I can not and will not ever condone anyone choosing abortion (except in a life and death case as I've already mentioned), but I can not agree that flat out making it illegal is the answer either.



I do think that more education (from elementary school on), cheaper access to birth control, and prenatal counseling could reduce the incidence of abortion, but there is no 'cure' to this problem that can be found here on earth.

Johnny - posted on 09/12/2012

8,686

26

318

Part of the problem is that since there is no government insurance in the US, like in Canada, people must get their insurance through their employer. To choose to go independently and find insurance outside of the group employer is almost always vastly more expensive, prohibitively so. Many religious groups run institutions that employ those who don't practice their religion and serve people who don't practice their religion, such as the many Catholic hospitals and universities. They are not specifically religious institutions, like churches, but serve the general public, employ the general populace, and usually receive a great deal of government funding. The healthcare mandate is requiring them to provide all the options for insurance coverage that their group plan would offer, rather than exempting themselves from covering certain products such as birth control. This mandate does not require the institutions to carry more coverage for more money, but simply to accept the group plan offered by the insurer as is and to offer it in that way to all their employees. It is basically saying that just because a religious group is involved in running an institution does not give them the right to make private healthcare decisions for their employees. To allow otherwise would be an enormous intrusion on the privacy rights of citizens by their employer. Religious views should be respected and those that believe that birth control is wrong should have every right not to take it. But they do NOT have the right to impose that opinion on their employees.



Just think, as an employer under that system, I could state that I hold beliefs that state that all women MUST take hormonal birth control to be under my employ. If conscience clauses are allowed, I would be able to check that each one of my employees is filling their birth control prescription and fire someone who didn't.

Kathy - posted on 09/23/2012

151

0

3

"How bout you stick to your own words? Move on.....I'm honestly tired of this pissing war with you. You have made clear in other threads that you didn't complete high school past the age of 21. You got pregnant at 21 then went back to complete grade 12 when your child was 1 year old. I finished high school before turning 18. I'm not trying to compare here, but seeing as you couldn't complete high school before the age of 21, I have to generally assume you were held back." HOPE





How incredibly rude! The only reason I can see for you to get as personal as you have is that you find her arguments challenging and rather than think about them or rebut them properly, you have decided to attack her personally. Pretty weak-sauce for a debate.



Are you trying to say her opinion is not valid because she is uneducated? (your assumption - not mine)



In addition to being a very elitist and arrogant position, this is a false position. I have a Master degree and have taken several course in woman's study…and my position is not very different than Momma's. I believe people can be very knowledgable on a subject without ever having set foot in a classroom. I do not doubt that most people on this thread know more about Romney than I do. Ideas are what are being judged - not their friggin educational credentials.

Jodi - posted on 09/18/2012

26,655

36

3891

"I am one of those children that you would rather see aborted than live. "



You know what, Anastacia? You TOTALLY don't get it. I don't WANT abortion at all. I think it is a horrible thing, personally, and I have said that many, many times. (See, I am NOT pro-abortion). BUT I don't have the right to decide for someone else. Period. So what gives some dick in government the right to make that choice for everyone? In a perfect world, there would be no-one wanting abortions, birth control would always work, everyone who got pregnant would want their babies, and there would be no babies born with medical problems, disabilities or severe defects. Sounds great doesn't it? I would LOVE a world like that. But it isn't like that. That's just a fact. YOU don't have a right to decide for someone else. I don't have a right to decide for someone else. So I ask, why should ANYONE be able to decide for someone else (and in particular a right wing facist homophobic elitist fuckwit)?



"He is pro life. That is pro life! He is not making infanticide comments like Obama did. So I don't really now what you are looking for here. "



OK, where I am going here is that this is a guy who thinks people on welfare are leaching of the government, and has no interest in even giving a shit about them. And yet he wants these people to have their babies. Where are his plans on making sure these children who are no longer aborted are going to be fully supported and funded, provided with loving homes, and are not ending up in the streets?



I have asked several times about Obama's *pro-abortion* comments. I ask you to please produce something (credible) that says is is pro-infancide. If you are going to say things like that, back it up.



Now, to one other point. Let's say they DO put a 12 week limit on it. How do you determine it is 12 weeks? Ultrasounds are notoriously inaccurate. I can't tell you how many inaccurate dates I received during my pregnancies. LMP? Nope, that doesn't work either, because anyone can lie about that.



Laws on abortion imposes individual opinions on the issue on OTHER people. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, you really are. I actually have no problem that you all think there should be no abortion and that it is wrong. No problem at all. What I have a problem with is that you think that YOUR opinion should be the opinion of everyone, and therefore it should be imposed on them by law.



Let's say I think every person should only be allowed to have 2 children. Let's say there is a presidential candidate out there who agrees, along with 53% of the population (just pulled that statistic out of thin air, because it is the balance when you take away the 47% you don't give a fuck about)). Is it fair for THAT to become policy? It's no different. It is a group of people imposing THEIR opinion of how you should choose to live your life. That should sit okay with you.

Johnny - posted on 09/17/2012

8,686

26

318

It all comes down to believing that YOU have the right to make personal, private, medical, physical decisions about another women's life and body. If you are pro-choice, then you don't believe it's up to you. If you are "pro-life" then you think you have the right to make other people's decisions for them.



You know Anastacia, I really don't like the term pro-life either. I'm pro-life. I'd like to see every child be conceived in love, have the opportunity to enter this world safely and with the best health possible, and to grow up receiving what they need. But I'm a pragmatist, and I know that just because I dream of that happening, it isn't going to and no amount of legislating is going to make it so.



I don't like a lot of decisions other people make, I don't like that some people are irresponsible and reckless to the extent that they use abortion as birth control. I knew someone like that and just being near her made me almost physically ill. I don't like that some women drink to much, sleep with some guy they don't know, forget to take their pills, don't bother to take the morning after pill, can't remember if they used a condom, and don't even make plans to deal with the situation until well into the 2nd trimester. Ugh. But I know if she doesn't have the CHOICE to have the abortion, and is forced to carry the child to term, it could actually be worse. The idea of forcing motherhood upon people who would be very willing go to the extent of terminating that life seems full of hubris.



I think we already get enough babies born with FAS and drug addictions. Enough children who are abused, neglected or outright abandoned. Do you really think that forcing women who are ready to kill their unborn baby to carry that child to term is going to lead to a good result? Some of these women can't get themselves organized enough to plan to adopt out the child. (I used to work in child protection and saw this several times). And even if everyone carried their unwanted children to term in good health, where are all these babies going to live???? There are simply not even close to enough people seeking to adopt to make up for all those babies that are aborted in the US every year.



Banning abortion and legislating it will not end it. And it isn't pro-life. There was not a big jump in the number of abortions in the US after Roe vs. Wade, but there was a huge drop in maternal death. So who's really pro-life? The people that would force mothers to seek out illegal, underground and dangerous abortion providers and take on a high risk of death to kill their baby? Or those who would attempt to provided her with all the opportunities to avoid getting pregnant, all the support to carry on the pregnancy, and offer safe abortion as a last resort? I'm sorry, but the label "anti-women's rights" is really the fitting one.

This conversation has been closed to further comments

204 Comments

View replies by

Momma - posted on 09/23/2012

197

0

5

Hope---You have made clear in other threads that you didn't complete high school past the age of 21. You got pregnant at 21 then went back to complete grade 12 when your child was 1 year old. I finished high school before turning 18.



You do NOT read very well. Yes, I did not complete my grade 12 at the age of 18. I had three courses left and I QUIT! I was a bad seed teen. Never ever held back, so there you go again with the assumptions.



Yep, I went back when I was 22 (so, you got that wrong by saying 21), then I went and did 5 years of post secondary education (split between university and a few college courses (can you count? 5 years!). I was actually 27 by the time I was done and I am now 36. I am a Software Engineer, you don't become one if you are "stupid". So, unless you learn to read REAL soon, people are NOT going to take you seriously. I get that some people are weird but you take the cake, sweetheart. Have a great one!

Claire - posted on 09/23/2012

164

24

2

Thanks everyone for your opinions, but this is getting ugly, so I am closing the thread. Thanks to everyone who participated. You all made good points, and obviously no one will agree. No need for personal attacks.

Kathy - posted on 09/23/2012

151

0

3

"You really need to take political science. I don't have any further research, I've tried looking at your own "research" and it clearly has conflicting points so you just pull the parts you like. That much is clear to me. Your "research" comes from articles on the internet......mine come from a library and from witnessing several cases. " HOPE



More of your words.



Yes, you have questioned mommas intelligence and education (formal or otherwise on the matter). It is overly personal and weak. Oh, well, it looks badly on you…no one else.



I have no desire to get in pissing match with you, so I am off…I suspect you might just be trolling, anyways.

Hope - posted on 09/23/2012

48

0

1

All I can do is laugh. "how incredibly rude!" LOLOL I never said she was uneducated did I?? Hmmmm, now that I look back at my response, no I really didn't. Have fun with that Ms. Master's degree.....

"weaksauce" LOLOL you are hilarious!

Hope - posted on 09/23/2012

48

0

1

"Anyhow, I have given my 2 cents from the beginning and am now going to move on from this thread. ;) "

How bout you stick to your own words? Move on.....I'm honestly tired of this pissing war with you. You have made clear in other threads that you didn't complete high school past the age of 21. You got pregnant at 21 then went back to complete grade 12 when your child was 1 year old. I finished high school before turning 18. I'm not trying to compare here, but seeing as you couldn't complete high school before the age of 21, I have to generally assume you were held back. Please take your own words into consideration and MOVE ALONG. I've seen all the other pissing wars you get yourself into and it's clear to me that you label people as being rude when you yourself cannot seem to grasp the meaning. And you wonder why your account keeps getting deleted. Have a nice day sweetheart, I have nothing further to comment on here because you clearly have zero ability to humble yourself. :D

Momma - posted on 09/23/2012

197

0

5

Hope--- Just to complete my stance, here. You are assuming way too much. You have no idea what I took in University and you have no idea what I have read in my years. You also have no idea what I follow, in regards to politics. The only thing you have here, is that for THIS debate and any, really, within DM, in order to make a persons argument "most" valid, backing them up with information, is important. Thus links and quotes. In order to do such a thing, one only has the internet as a source. Perhaps, you are too new to realize, that most women here, want sources, not someones word. We tend to NOT change a stance and seldom agree to overlook or even accept, others points, just because they say it.



I do think you are saying never, as it is what you said, earlier. Are you saying you have now changed your view, just in the past 18 hours?



Oh and on this---You seem to STILL overlook important details, like the fact that seven of them were already appointed by republican presidents and only two expressed interest.---this may be true up-to-date BUT if it were Mitt Romney, I guarantee he would be appointing ones that WOULD agree with him. Since this is a part of his "game". ;)



~Meme

Hope - posted on 09/23/2012

48

0

1

I think that would be wise of you. You seem to STILL overlook important details, like the fact that seven of them were already appointed by republican presidents and only two expressed interest. You really need to take political science. I don't have any further research, I've tried looking at your own "research" and it clearly has conflicting points so you just pull the parts you like. That much is clear to me. Your "research" comes from articles on the internet......mine come from a library and from witnessing several cases. What's a stretch is you thinking that decision can be so easily overturned after I presented you with several facts proving it's highly unlikely. You clearly don't read/understand the entirety of my comments because you still think I'm saying "never." But oh well, this argument is completely moot at this point because there's clearly no convincing you.

Momma - posted on 09/23/2012

197

0

5

Hope--- I am not playing both sides of the fence. Go read the entire thread before you make assumptions. I am for a ban - just starting at 12 - 16 weeks, as I believe in leaving room for rape victims and since I would not want them to be forced to a medical, I would be fine with anyone being able to have an abortion during these weeks of pregnancy. However, if it is found that they are using it is birth control, then they should be declined. A database would help with this.



Hope---I understand you gave "three ways" but all of a sudden I see something interesting........

So, which one is it? I'm curious now momma. Seems a bit contradictory to me. I'm curious as to what your elaboration would be. You do know we have a system of checks and balances, right? It would undoubtedly require an amendment.




Hope, it can be any three. It is three plausible ways for Roe vs Wade to be overturned. I am in no way saying which one would be used, since unlike you, I am not going to be that certain. It does NOT need to be a constitutional amendment but it more than likely would be. All that needs to be added to the constitution is that a fetus from conception (or somewhere within the pregnancy) is a PERSON. I provided links to show the three ways this overturn can occur. They did not come from my own mouth.



Hope---" The Religious Right as we know it today exists because abortion was made legal, and it has delivered the presidency to Republicans for five of the last seven presidential elections. Want to take a guess at how the national political landscape would change if Roe were overturned? Yeah. Neither do conservative politicians, which is why--despite winning the aforementioned presidencies--Republican administrations have done nothing concrete to ban abortion. Even though conservative Republican presidents have appointed seven of our nine current Supreme Court justices, only two of these justices have expressed an interest in overturning Roe v. Wade. "



Oh did you miss this part?



A conservative president and conservative Senate are in power. Two or three key justices retire and are easily replaced by justices of the Scalia-Thomas mold. A routine abortion rights case makes its way to our nation's highest court...and in a 5-4 majority ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia writes words never before handed down by the Supreme Court: "We find in the Constitution no implicit right to privacy."



You do realize that a few of those justices are soon ready to retire, right? You do realize there are currently 21 states with a clause, stating that when Roe vs Wade is overturned they will immediately have a ban on abortions? I think you still have some further research, to do.



And as for talking down to you, no, sorry. I am just being very clear, that you telling me I am in a fantasy is a long stretch. Now if you want to talk about being rude, go back and read your own comments. Thanks for sharing and remember never say never. Anyhow, I have given my 2 cents from the beginning and am now going to move on from this thread. ;)



~Meme

Kristi - posted on 09/22/2012

1,355

3

78

"I am talking post viability. Typically, by 20 weeks and especially 23+ weeks, you know a woman is pregnant. It's harder to hide that pregnancy. A very low percentage, may be able to but then, they risk killing themselves too. In that case, so be it. If they are willing to kill the baby, then their life is really not important. IMO."--MeMe



I knew you were talking about post viability, I was just throwing that out as more of a ridiculous tension breaker.



I also believe Romney intends on leaving it up to each state, I think this was discussed earlier on by my self and Jodi. IMO, Romney doesn't want that blood on his hands. He wants plausable deniability. I haven't researched that any further since then so I could be wrong but I'm tired of researching Romney, the more I find out the more disgusted I get.



editted to turn of italics

Hope - posted on 09/22/2012

48

0

1

"And another way, is for them to add that a fetus is a person from conception, to the constitution."

-Yes, I stated that as well.

"It does NOT have to be in the constitution. "

I understand you gave "three ways" but all of a sudden I see something interesting........

So, which one is it? I'm curious now momma. Seems a bit contradictory to me. I'm curious as to what your elaboration would be. You do know we have a system of checks and balances, right? It would undoubtedly require an amendment.

I for one LOVE the fact that you quote an article without reading/understanding the entirety of it. I mean, I could quote parts of that article that would side with me. Take for instance:

"The Reality for Women

1. In states that protect abortion rights, little changes. A post-Roe New York is going to look pretty much just like a pre-Roe New York.



2. In states that ban abortion, abortion will move from the clinic to the bedroom. In most Latin American countries, abortion is illegal with a prison sentence of up to 30 years for women who have abortions--but there are still about four times as many abortions in Latin America as there are in the United States. Why? Because women who can't have abortions at clinics are still perfectly capable of shelling out two dollars for a black market abortifacient."

"3. Many women will get angry...and vote accordingly."

READ CAREFULLY, THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART of the article you just quoted momma,

" The Religious Right as we know it today exists because abortion was made legal, and it has delivered the presidency to Republicans for five of the last seven presidential elections. Want to take a guess at how the national political landscape would change if Roe were overturned? Yeah. Neither do conservative politicians, which is why--despite winning the aforementioned presidencies--Republican administrations have done nothing concrete to ban abortion. Even though conservative Republican presidents have appointed seven of our nine current Supreme Court justices, only two of these justices have expressed an interest in overturning Roe v. Wade. "

Hmmm, seven of nine of our current supreme court justices were appointed through conservative replublican presidents.

All I can do is sit back and watch. Where's the popcorn?

Jenny_D - posted on 09/22/2012

169

12

3

For me, with this being a spiritual matter, I think the thing that bothers me the most is simply peoples hearts. Whether it is legal, not legal, etc, doesn't really matter as much as the fact that people WANT to do this, or that people are ignorant about their (less drastic) choices. Like I said many times before, it goes back to how a baby is made. There is ONLY one way these women are actually getting pregnant, and I think it starts there with the decision making. As a christian, I feel that it is NOT supposed to be this way, regarding mothers hearts toward their children and families in general being under such attack (confusion, brokeness, etc.) Like it has been made clear on here, even if abortions were illegal, there are so many women who would go to pretty disgusting measures to terminate pregnancies or find ways to not have to be respsonsible for the life they created...but I thank God every day for his grace and mercy through Jesus Christ! It is a scary, confused world that we live in and through HIM is how I have peace and comfort. It is no surprise, and shouldn't be a surprise considering EVERY prophecy in the bible has come to pass over the years and the final prophecies are in the works. So considering the bible talks of all the evil on the earth, this isn't that unexpected. *Isaiah 5:20 - Woe to those who call evil, good and good, evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. (I know this doesn't apply to everyone here so please no negative comments are necessary)...

Hope - posted on 09/22/2012

48

0

1

Listen hon, I have done my research inside and out and for you to continue to dismiss/talk down to me is quite cruel and unusual.

"Unlikely? Very." That is from your post. If you want to play both sides of the fence, then play them fairly. But don't pretend to be on both sides when you clearly have more interest over the other. I certainly won't pretend to play both sides. I have stated my stance on the whole scenario so that you know. I'm happy to see you do your research, but you pull it from an unchecked source, the internet. I pull mine from textbook. I know A LOT about the constitution, I've taken classes from some of the greatest professors in the field and for you to simply assume I don't do my research is severely naive. I bet you are a great believer that Mr. Romney can overturn the decision, but as I've stated before (and have had conversations at GREAT length with people who are more knowledgable than both you and I on the subject) I say again, it's HIGHLY DOUBTFUL. Forgive me if I say never, I didn't mean to say never, just highly unlikely. The recent mishaps mr.romney has had over the past week has not shed a good light on his person in the interest of women OR people in general. He clearly does not grasp what that 47% of people contains. He's only stated that they are simply freeloaders......I wouldn't call a military man a freeloader, would you? My husband is in the military. He is no freeloader. He sacrifices more than half the country put together. A bit over 2 million people serve, that is less than 1% of the population of the states. The rest of that are people who are retired servicemen, the elderly, mainly people who cannot physically work to make enough to pay federal income taxes. I think what Romney has done was a SEVERE mistake in his candidacy, so long as people take notice. Calling the folks serving in Iraq/Afghanistan freeloaders is the worst thing a future president could ever do. (That's right, people who are serving overseas right now do not pay income tax.) So again I say "momma," you can have fun thinking your fantasy will easily become a reality. To the rest of the educated world, it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY. (notice I didn't say never)

Momma - posted on 09/22/2012

197

0

5

Hope--- It is not a fantasy. I gave you three ways roe vs wade can be overturned. It does NOT have to be in the constitution. All you need is a president like Mitt Romney and him appointing specific justices for the Supreme Court and there you have it, the law over turned.



Hope--- One thing you may not realize yet is most of the regulars here, do their research and they do it well (both sides of the debate). You can continue to think it will never happen but again, be forewarned to never ever, say never.



Oh and you are not correct about the pro-lifers. See, I am one of them and there are several more here, in this thread. Most of us agree with abortion in the first trimester (for rape) and at anytime during the pregnancy for SERIOUS medical reasons. Other than that, nope, we care MORE about the baby in question, especially once they have hit the viability state. Perhaps, you need to start at page one of this debate and read from there, before making assumptions.



Hope---We all have different views, but what I think is universal is the fact that we all want to protect womanhood. Period. Women have done a lot to fight for their rights throughout history, in my opinion it would be a major setback if us women unwittingly decide to put other women in danger simply for our own beliefs. I think that is a level of evil that should never surface.



And I think a woman that is 23+ weeks and wants an abortion is evil and should not get her wishes granted, unless she or her baby have a serious medical issue. I will NOT and would NOT fight for her, I would fight for the innocent, unknowing, harmless, little being, inside her.



I like the way you are so certain of yourself. Perhaps realizing that, when it comes to politics, nothing is 100%. You really have NO clue what way things will go, until they "go"..... Have a great day. ;)



~Meme

Hope - posted on 09/22/2012

48

0

1

Have fun with that fantasy Mama. The last time the constitution was amended happened in 1992- the prohibition of Congress's voting itself a raise that takes effect before the next election. It took 203 years for the United states to do that. The one before that was in 1971- The prohibition of setting the minimum voting age above 18 in any election.

A topic as controversial as this, I highly doubt it could happen. I don't need your explanation of what it takes to ratify the constitution, I know quite well what it takes seeing as I explained it myself in detail. If you think the only step is getting 51% of the states to agree, you probably want to go back to civics and re-take that course. OR you could just refer to the information I stated previously. I think that a good amount of "pro-lifer's" would certainly want to keep abortion legal simply because it keeps women safe. Women make decisions based on that simple principle because we are one in the same. We all have different views, but what I think is universal is the fact that we all want to protect womanhood. Period. Women have done a lot to fight for their rights throughout history, in my opinion it would be a major setback if us women unwittingly decide to put other women in danger simply for our own beliefs. I think that is a level of evil that should never surface.

Momma - posted on 09/22/2012

197

0

5

With the amount of research I have done on this, for past debates, I can say that Roe vs Wade can be overturned at anytime, as long as they get enough agreeable States. All they need is 51% of all States to agree (pass a bill per State) and Roe vs Wade can be overturned. With all the religious fanatics coming out of the wood works, in the US, I would not be sooo certain, that it will NEVER happen.



Another way, is for the Supreme Court to overturn it. All they have to do is decide that a fetus is a person from time of conception. Which may not be all that hard for a president to win the favour of the justices.



And another way, is for them to add that a fetus is a person from conception, to the constitution.



So, there you have three ways for Roe vs Wade to be overturned. I don't think it is as hard as some may think. The US has just not hit that point yet, they have not had a religious fanatic push it to the extreme. Mitt Romney, just may be the one, to do so.



Oh, it could happen. Never say never.



“And as president, Romney could appoint enough Supreme Court justices to make his dream of overturning Roe v. Wade a reality,” NARAL complained.



http://www.lifenews.com/2012/04/17/mitt-...



For some it's a dream scenario, for others a nightmare: A conservative president and conservative Senate are in power. Two or three key justices retire and are easily replaced by justices of the Scalia-Thomas mold. A routine abortion rights case makes its way to our nation's highest court...and in a 5-4 majority ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia writes words never before handed down by the Supreme Court: "We find in the Constitution no implicit right to privacy."



Unlikely? Very. But in the final analysis, this is what we're fighting over. Conservative presidential candidates say that they will work to appoint justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade. Other candidates say that they will not. Nobody in any real position of political power is talking about a federal constitutional amendment banning abortion, or anything of that nature, anymore. It's all about Roe.

The Political Reality



1. Within the first 60 days, trigger bans take effect. Numerous states have abortion bans already on the books that could take effect automatically within 45 to 60 days, based only on the attorney general's finding that Roe v. Wade has been overturned. All of these states would immediately close down any and all abortion clinics.




http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortio...



~Meme

F.A.S. - posted on 09/22/2012

45

0

15

thats y we really have to be careful of who we put in office it aint about color its about who gonna do the right thing for the american ppl!

Jodi - posted on 09/22/2012

26,655

36

3891

Well, you kind of mentioned the fact that you weren't sure if it had been mentioned, so I was just responding to that. That yes, it had been mentioned, and yes, this is what came out of it. Not sure what you are trying to achieve by that last comment aimed at me, but whatever......

Hope - posted on 09/22/2012

48

0

1

I would never quote a man with the mental capacity of a gerbil. Just my opinion.

Jodi - posted on 09/22/2012

26,655

36

3891

Umm Hope.....I'm just quoting what is on his website as his aim. Not what I believe :)

Hope - posted on 09/22/2012

48

0

1

Ummm Jodi....it already is up to the states past a certain point. The state of GA for example: just recently passed a 20 wk abortion bill making it illegal past that point. Roe v. Wade happened in 1973 and hasn't been overturned yet. I think Romney would have a VERY difficult time overturning that decision since the Supreme Court was involved. At one point it was a crime to protest outside abortion clinics unless you were a certain amount of feet away. I have mixed feelings on the whole issue entirely because of the fact that my grandfather was involved in the sister case representing the unborn fetus. I grew up knowing a great deal about how the law works, I've worked for civil rights attorney's for nearly half my life. The court is supposed to interpret the constitution. The only way to overturn Roe v Wade is to add a Constitutional Amendment defining the point at which life begins. It takes 2/3 of the house and senate and 3/4 of the states must ratify the amendment. In other words, it's not going to happen. George Bush had two terms to try, and he never succeeded. Bush even said himself that the president didn't have that power. I think it's incredibly naive to think that the president has that power because quite simply put, he doesn't.

Jodi - posted on 09/22/2012

26,655

36

3891

Hope, it has been mentioned - Romney apparently aims to have the decision overturned apparently......



"he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."



From: http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values

Hope - posted on 09/22/2012

48

0

1

I think the first thing you should do is know your history on the subject. More specifically, do some research on the case Roe v. Wade.

"Roe v. Wade is the historic Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas interpretation of abortion law and making abortion legal in the United States. The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without legal restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy." http://womenshistory.about.com/od/aborti...

This basically means that Mitt Romney can't outright ban abortion on the federal level since the case ruled that it was a state issue. I wouldn't be worried about Romney outlawing abortion because it's simply not within his power to do so. Any person willing to vote for him for this reason clearly did not take American government in high school.

Personally, I am pro-choice. I believe that abortion is a personal matter, not for the law to interpret or prevent. It's a private choice between you, the babies father and of course your doctor. It should NEVER be up to the general public, nor any of their business whether or not somebody gets an abortion. I understand everybody has an opinion on the subject, but your opinion is just that, an opinion. I don't think that anybody should dictate a medical procedure but the person receiving it. I have strong feelings for that. If you believe you have the right to dictate that, then you might as well have the right to dictate who can and can't pro-create. Doesn't that sound crazy? It certainly does to me. That is my viewpoint on the subject and I hope I've shed some light on the history of abortion, because I really haven't (so far) seen anybody mention Roe v. Wade.

Momma - posted on 09/22/2012

197

0

5

I am talking post viability. Typically, by 20 weeks and especially 23+ weeks, you know a woman is pregnant. It's harder to hide that pregnancy. A very low percentage, may be able to but then, they risk killing themselves too. In that case, so be it. If they are willing to kill the baby, then their life is really not important. IMO.

Kristi - posted on 09/22/2012

1,355

3

78

"Maybe with the threat of a murder charge and prison time, they would rethink. ;)" MeMe



Just for the sake of arguement...



If a woman would resort to throwing herself down the stairs or giving birth only to kill her child, she would probably be very careful to hide her pregnancy. If nobody knows she is pregnant, she gives birth, (I don't even like typing this) she kills the baby, disposes of the baby, all gone. No record of the birth. If the body was found, there would be no way to identify him/her or to link him/her to a mother. (providing the mother's DNA wasn't already on record.) Terrified, desparate, mentally ill women are capable of doing just about anything. I'm not saying the woman has to be all three, just giving examples.



Just a little (and creepy) hypothetical to think about. : x

Momma - posted on 09/21/2012

197

0

5

Johnny--- You do make good points, for sure.



For your 3rd paragraph, I would say that the consensus from most here that are pro-life, they would be satisfied with a law stating that post viable abortions were illegal, except in serious medical situations.



I know many have their own beliefs but I also get that abortion is required, especially during the first 12 weeks and thereafter for serious life/death situations. I understand both sides here, I really do. I just wish there was a way to protect the mother for the most part AND but mostly the viable baby. Protection laws should be for both, not just the mother. If she cannot take of her needs before 12 weeks (or around that time and again, with the exception of serious medical reasons), then she should have to continue the pregnancy or risk prison time.



For who gets to decide? I would say the Government, since they are the law makers. It is rather lazy to say "well, no one can come to the same decision, so lets not make one and leave it up to the individual". People can't make choices all the time and a law has to be passed. So, what is the difference?



Johnny---More likely they'll just be like those women they used to find around the turn of the century with backyards full of little baby corpses.



Maybe with the threat of a murder charge and prison time, they would rethink. ;)

Johnny - posted on 09/21/2012

8,686

26

318

"I have a question for everyone that feels it is their right (or a woman's right) to abort an unborn fetus for financial, unwanted and/or other non-medical (I will add rape to medical) reasons.



What if there were no such thing as abortion? What if once you were pregnant, there was no way to take that life? Would you be a bit more cautious in having sex? Why, just because abortion is readily available, it all of a sudden becomes the go to method, if you decide to have sex and end up pregnant, without wanting to be? "




No, people have never been "more cautious" having sex even before the onset of modern abortion practices. Going back through recorded history most societies had forms of poison and other treatments to cause abortion. Or women threw themselves down staircases or off high walls. Women would actually lose some of their power in their relationships, because they would no longer have this choice to terminate a pregnancy safely. They would only have four choices, keep it, adopt it/abondon it, kill it at birth or try to cause a miscarriage. That's how it went for thousands of years.



What there would be is lots of dead babies. Dead babies in dumpsters, Dead babies floating down the river, dead babies half buried in the local park. Burned baby bodies. The orphanages would be fill to overflowing, just take a look at the state of orphans in countries where abortion is illegal. It might not be quite as bad as it was historically because of access to modern birth control and fertility surgery, but you would definitely see a rise in infanticides.



Not to mention that many of those pushing for an end to abortion actually also see many modern forms of birth control as "abortive" as well. That's part of the issue about who gets to decide where we draw the line. We could say at the age of viability (23 weeks), we could say at the end of the first trimester (12 weeks), we could say no abortion past conception, we could say no right to prevent a possible life in preventing conception, we could say that hormonal birth control increases miscarriage chance and is thus also wrong. Who gets to decide?????



Do you really think that women who are okay with having multiple abortions as a birth control method are all that likely to just suddenly change their tune and start loving their babies? More likely they'll just be like those women they used to find around the turn of the century with backyards full of little baby corpses.

Momma - posted on 09/21/2012

197

0

5

F.A.S--- Which is why it should be legal up to 12 weeks, hell make it 16 weeks, if you want. Although, the baby is getting bigger (4-5" and 4-5ozs) and it may be much more emotionally hard on the mother......

F.A.S. - posted on 09/21/2012

45

0

15

i kno a lady that was rape she didnt want the baby because of the way it was concived im not for abortion but in this case what do u do!

Momma - posted on 09/21/2012

197

0

5

Kathy---Laws exist to protect people - and yeah, sometimes people are going to break those laws - that does not mean the law should not exist in the first place.



Exactly! Because MOST people are law abiding citizens. We cannot do anything for those that break the law, except punish them. The same thing we do now for those that don't listen and follow laws... ;)



Most people know the law and learn what they are allowed and what they aren't. Therefore, would encourage (poor word, maybe) them to seek abortion during a non-viable time, of the fetus.

Kathy - posted on 09/21/2012

151

0

3

I think I am mostly done on this topic.



The fact that anybody thinks it is Ok to abort a late term, viable baby barring extreme life and death scenarios, totally perplexes and saddens me.



I understand that some people do not want to ban late term abortions, because, even though they think it is wrong, they do not think it will solve anything (just cause more deaths as woman seek illegal abortions). I understand this position, even though I don't think it is a strong enough argument to keep elective abortions legal post viability.



I am also not sure it is true in the long run:



-I imagine many of the people who had an abortion post 20 weeks would seek an abortion earlier, if they knew there was a firmer deadline



-Infanticide is not that common in North America. If late term fetus were given the same protection and respect-for-their lives that infants are given, maybe, as a society , we would slowly come to see mature fetuses lives as worthy. Maybe society saying - "hey, wait! Late term abortions are wrong, and we are not going to legally do it" would help to change the climate of late term abortion acceptance. Attitudes do change over time and can be affected by policy.





I think it is ok to draw a line in the sand. A 30 week fetus is deserving of the same legal protection as a week old baby - there is no real difference between the two. Laws exist to protect people - and yeah, sometimes people are going to break those laws - that does not mean the law should not exist in the first place.

Kathy - posted on 09/21/2012

151

0

3

"But you do realize that an abortion is not murder. But if you have to keep on telling yourself that, then so be it. If I murdered my neighbor, I could get locked up for life. But since terminating a pregnancy is a LEGAL medical procedure, I fail to see the murder."



I am only speaking of a viable fetus. and yes - aborting a viable fetus is taking the life of another human being i.e. a baby. Ergo murder.



There is lots of science behind the fact that a 30 week fetus is a human being. The fact it has a heart beat, all its organs, feels pain, has brainwaves…can live outside the womb. Honestly, I think you are the one telling yourself that a viable fetus is not a person to justify your position, but you have shown no proof that a 30 week fetus is not a baby.



And on the legal thing - you are kidding me, right? Just because the law says it is acceptable to kill a viable late term fetus does not make it right. On the word "murder" - the dictionary does define it as the unlawful taking of a life. So I guess people who abort late term viable fetuses are simply killers rather than murderers. Whatev.



FYI - link on doctors being charged with murder after performing illegal abortions on late term fetuses:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

Momma - posted on 09/21/2012

197

0

5

Sapphire--- I just don't think you can relate in your peachy sugary world of the severe impact of depression and the dire toll it takes on your family.



Hmmm - just a tad bit assuming, I would have to say. You do not know me on a personal level. You have no idea how anything impacts me. I have family members that are severely depressed. I know what it is about, I am just not one to allow myself to get to that point. I have been in some god awful positions, Sapphire, ones that some people would have killed themselves over. There have been days (years ago) where I wasn't sure I could continue. So don't sit there and type like you have an understanding of everyone's life and emotional status because you do not.



In addition, I do have a child with severe combined ADHD. She has been diagnosed by the Government to be disabled. Most people with ADHD do not get the Government to support their disability, so that just shows you how severe it is and how people do it EVERYDAY. They do it out of LOVE not anything else.



One must remember that, not ALL disabilities can be known before the child is born and some not even until the child is of a certain age - 5 for an ADHD child (for a true diagnosis, not from a pushy doctor). So, using abortion as a means to rid the mother of some mental anguish because their unborn "may" have a disability, well, that is just silly. Since, that is a risk for any pregnancy, even wanted ones. It is also something that could happen to any being outside the womb - one car accident or any accident for that matter and they could be severely disabled. It is called "a part of life" and we must take what life hands us and make the best of it. If we don't, then we aren't deserving of a lot of things.



Anyhow, I do know it doesn't matter what either side says. It is not going to change each others mind. We all feel the way we do for our own personal reasons. I never said I did not respect anyone for their opinion, I just do not agree with some (including yours). I can respect an opinion and not agree. The great thing about differing viewpoints, is they work wonders for a good debate. That is all this is, here. I am not making decisions on how I "feel" about anyone in DM, due to a debate on abortion. I need to know you on a personal level, not a cyber level, in order to make such decisions. I have some friends, where we have differing views on some topics, there is nothing wrong with that. It is what makes us, us.....;)



~Meme

[deleted account]

I would agree whole-heartedly that using abortion as a means of habitual birth control is a sick practice. But I am not the abortion police and I am not having to make those decision and choices for another woman. It is a still a legal medical procedure, whether or not it is a planned or unplanned pregnancy. There are no life-set limits on the number of abortions a woman is allowed to have either. So while I find the habitual practice of abortions as a birth control method, I will still maintain it is still a legal medical procedure and quite frankly, not my business.



As far as my own personal concerns surrounding a hypothetical unplanned/unwanted pregnancy, I am also entitled to make the same medical decisions for my own body. I am not obligated nor required in the U.S. (no need to drag other nations into this scenario) to carry an unwanted baby to term. My priorities are to my living son and my living husband. Period.



And furthermore, my choices do not carry such a heavy heart burden on you. If I had this fake hypothetical unwannted pregnancy and to find out that there may be genetic markers for a baby that I was simply unable to parent, cope with, and raise, it is a decision that impacts MY life. Being saddled down with an unwanted baby that may have severe special needs is enough to bring any post-partum woman to a snapping point emotionally and physically. I just don't think you can relate in your peachy sugary world of the severe impact of depression and the dire toll it takes on your family.



Here's the thing though- I can repsect you and your pro-life stance. I guarantee you cannot say the same about me because we differ in our viewpoints. Oh well...have a lovely day.

Momma - posted on 09/21/2012

197

0

5

Sapphire---But you do realize that an abortion is not murder. But if you have to keep on telling yourself that, then so be it. If I murdered my neighbor, I could get locked up for life. But since terminating a pregnancy is a LEGAL medical procedure, I fail to see the murder. Why aren't the police lining up every day at local abortion clinics arresting every woman who terminates a pregnancy?! Oh, wait....there was no murder committed.



In some Countries it IS murder. Keep telling YOURSELF it is not murder. Who are you to be so certain? Just because it is currently legal for the most part? Isn't that what this debate is about? If this Mitt Romney dick gets his way, it WILL be murder at all stages (which I don't agree with - again, up to 12 weeks should be allowed).



I find your rebuttal fairly obtuse. If when another person kills a mother and the baby dies, too, it IS murder - double homicide. They are just allowing a mother to take the life of the unborn because they do not want back alley abortions. However, I tend to feel as Kathy does. I do cherish the life of an unborn viable baby more than a mother that is sick enough to try and take it, whether it be safely or on her own. She should have realized BEFORE 23 weeks, not after.



Explain to me/us, what the difference is between a 30 week old baby and a newborn. 30 week babies are born all the time, they live without an issue, without the mother. So, tell us, what is the difference. Again, it has nothing to do with needing the mother. They are only putting weight on, at this time.



Sapphire---I am still waiting to hear why the weeks-old fetus is valued much more than my living husband and living child. I should sacrifice my own mental well-being and stability, my own medical issues surrounding pregnancy, labor/delivery for the sake of an unwanted fetus? Is it preferable that my son become motherless and my husband become a widower because the government wants to ban all abortions? No one has still clearly provided a valid answer as to how someone else's termination impacts your daily life.



We have also ALL said a medical emergency IS the only reason for a late term abortion. If you have mental issues, well you would have had them BEFORE the pregnancy. Go get some help and take some meds. I fail to see how a baby is going to make it that much worse for someone that is already having issues.



No one has provided a valid answer on many things. Why is there a law that we must wear seat belts? Why is there a law that we must wear helmets, with a street or pedal bike? Why can we not murder someone? None of these things impact YOUR life. Abortion, after a viable date, DOES impact another life. The babies! How selfish can someone be - to only care about themselves? Wow, just wow!



How about this. Sometimes, people are not able to make proper decisions, therefore someone has to do it for them. Some women ABUSE abortion. Should they be allowed to continuously seek abortions as birth control? How sick is that??



~Meme

Momma - posted on 09/21/2012

197

0

5

Sapphire---Murder of a living being outside the womb is murder. Someone could be convicted of murder, taking the life away of a living, breathing being OUTSIDE of the womb. I don't consider an 8 week old fetus, something the size of a poppy seed, any living being able ot live outside the womb.



Ummm, most of us have said we understand the need for abortion up to 12 weeks. Most of us are speaking of a viable baby. You know 23+ weeks gestation. I KNOW abortion has to be available, at least up to 12 weeks. Since, I would never want a rape victim to have to suffer.



Sapphire---Really?! YOUR tax dollars PAY for abortions? Let me see the bill. Sorry, but tax dollars do not pay for an abortion.



Not sure how much of this thread you have read but I left some generous info on how much it has cost Canadian tax payers - especially for the out-of-Country post viable abortions. Not only that but our health care is PAID for by OUR taxes. So, yes, abortions are most definitely included.



In addition, Sapphire. What about all the women in the USA that abort because they are not financially equip to support the baby? Do you seriously think they have $5000 or more to abort? Where do YOU think that money is coming from? Yeah, you know it, YOUR tax dollars!



Sapphire---So you are of the opinion that a women absolutely MUST go through an unwanted pregnancy although it may impact her LIVING child and LIVING husband? Screw the living family, THEY do not count, but save the almighty fetus? I'm selfish because *I* want to live and be emotionally healthy and stable for my husband and child? Sorry, again, insulting in your language. I'll just go ahead and let my kid know that HIS life doesn't matter, just protect the one not born yet. That's all that counts-the unborn. Once they are alive, they don't matter anymore.



Ummm, if you are that bad off mentally, perhaps your family were already in danger? If you really cannot take another child, Sapphire, get your tubes cauterized. Get your husband to have a vasectomy. Shit, there are so many things you can do, rather than sit on your arse and utilize a service that is meant for dyer situations. It is not meant to be a scape goat. If a person cannot be responsible enough, than they need to live with what they created!



No one said anything about screwing the living. Besides, it is not the baby that made that choice. YOU (general) did, grow up and take care of your actions.



~Meme

[deleted account]

I am still waiting to hear why the weeks-old fetus is valued much more than my living husband and living child. I should sacrifice my own mental well-being and stability, my own medical issues surrounding pregnancy, labor/delivery for the sake of an unwanted fetus? Is it preferable that my son become motherless and my husband become a widower because the governement wants to ban all abortions? No one has still clearly provided a valid answer as to how someone else's termination impacts your daily life.

[deleted account]

But you do realize that an abortion is not murder. But if you have to keep on telling yourself that, then so be it. If I murdered my neighbor, I could get locked up for life. But since terminating a pregnancy is a LEGAL medical procedure, I fail to see the murder. Why aren't the police lining up every day at local abortion clinics arresting every woman who temrinates a pregnancy?! Oh, wait....there was no murder committed.

Kathy - posted on 09/20/2012

151

0

3

"And comparing child abuse is also an illogical comparison, since one would have to be a living outside the womb breathing baby/child. Terminating a pregnancy is not murder, nor child abuse. It's a legal medical procedure that has no impact on your life."



You are right - comparing it to child abuse is illogical. My bad.

I will leave it at comparing abortion of a viable fetus to murder - which it is.

Kathy - posted on 09/20/2012

151

0

3

"Really?! YOUR tax dollars PAY for abortions? Let me see the bill. Sorry, but tax dollars do not pay for an abortion"



Saphire - not everyone in the world lives in the USA.



i looked up Canada for kicks - and yes, my tax dollars do pay for abortions:



http://www.cfsh.ca/Your_Sexual_Health/Ab...



"Abortions at a hospital are free if they take place in your province of residence and you present your provincial health card. Abortions are also free at most clinics in Ontario, British Columbia, Newfoundland, Alberta, Quebec and Manitoba. At abortion clinics in other provinces, you must pay part of the cost."

[deleted account]

"And I find the opinion that any woman should be able to have an abortion just because she did not want the baby or any other "irresponsible" reasons to be extremely childish, selfish and down right foolish"



So you are of the opinion that a women absolutely MUST go through an unwanted pregnancy although it may impact her LIVING child and LIVING husband? Screw the living family, THEY do not count, but save the almighty fetus? I'm selfish because *I* want to live and be emotionally healthy and stable for my husband and child? Sorry, again, insulting in your language. I'll just go ahead and let my kid know that HIS life doesn't matter, just protect the one not born yet. That's all that counts-the unborn. Once they are alive, they don't matter anymore.

[deleted account]

Moma "It does impact EVERYONE! For one, it costs tax payers. For two, it is an innocent being involved that did not ask you to have sex and create them. They just all of a sudden become a subject of your irresponsible self. Someone needs to speak for them, since they cannot. For three, it has to do with the basics of life and that this unborn child could have a great impact, to the better, on our world. Who knows? No one, if the child is aborted for non-medical or non-rape reasons, that is a life that was created and deserves to be here, just as much as you or I."



Really?! YOUR tax dollars PAY for abortions? Let me see the bill. Sorry, but tax dollars do not pay for an abortion.Show me the line item on your taxes that define a payment to the abortion clinic. You have your facts screwed up. If I seek to legally terminate my pregnancy, you still have not shared how it impacts YOUR life. No one asked you to be someone else's voice. That's butting your nose into someone else's business. Stay out.

[deleted account]

"Are you ok with child abuse? Murder? Or is that really none of anyone else's business either?



An abortion post viability is murder of a human being. Yeah, I guess I will poke my nose into that. "



Murder of a living being outside the womb is murder. Someone could be convicted of murder, taking the life away of a living, breathing being OUTSIDE of the womb. I don't consider an 8 week old fetus, something the size of a poppy seed, any living being able ot live outside the womb.



And comparing child abuse is also an illogical comparison, since one would have to be a living outside the womb breathing baby/child. Terminating a pregnancy is not murder, nor child abuse. It's a legal medical procedure that has no impact on your life.

Kathy - posted on 09/20/2012

151

0

3

"It might turn people off to think of that "extreme pro-choice position", but perhaps they need to really think about ALL the potential ramifications of legislating what people can do to their own bodies and how that could in turn effect them personally at some point." JOHNNY



----What makes you think I (or whomever) has not thought about it - because I have not reached the same conclusion as you? I do not always believe in moral relativism. In some areas there are moral absolutes (or very close to absolutes). Killing a baby (I am only arguing post viable here) because it is inconvenient is wrong.



"I guess if the only life you truly value is the unborn one, then outlawing abortion might seem to work." JOHNNY



--Once again - if someone had a newborn and asked us to accept that they killed the newborn because of their own personal distress over having a newborn - would we accept it? HELL NO. So why accept it out of a post-viable pregnancy???



I do get that outlawing abortion post viability will result in some underground and unsafe abortions. I guess if it comes down to it, I do value an innocent babies life more than a woman who is attempting to kill her unborn and viable child.



Of course, if a woman has an illegal post viability abortion, they both might die. That sucks, it really, really sucks, but I am not willing to say -" I understand you want to murder your baby - here is a way to do it safely."





I am not willing to back down on what I believe in (not murdering babies) because some people are going to do it. What kind of society are we if we do not have rules and laws to protect innocent people?

Kathy - posted on 09/20/2012

151

0

3

"I still find it incredulous that there are so many nosy people butting their unwanted opinions into another person's life and decision." SAPHIRE



Are you ok with child abuse? Murder? Or is that really none of anyone else's business either?



An abortion post viability is murder of a human being. Yeah, I guess I will poke my nose into that.

Momma - posted on 09/20/2012

197

0

5

I have a question for everyone that feels it is their right (or a woman's right) to abort an unborn fetus for financial, unwanted and/or other non-medical (I will add rape to medical) reasons.



What if there were no such thing as abortion? What if once you were pregnant, there was no way to take that life? Would you be a bit more cautious in having sex? Why, just because abortion is readily available, it all of a sudden becomes the go to method, if you decide to have sex and end up pregnant, without wanting to be?



It saddens me, that there are people out there (maybe not in this thread but then maybe), that look at abortion as an "escape" from their responsibilities. It truly baffles me and actually, really pisses me off! It does tell me (and others) a story of what that person holds as moral and ethical values, whether anyone likes it or not. I don't understand and never will, why an unborn fetus is not important and does not have as much of an importance as a born child. Just because it is inside of a woman's body does not make it unworthy!



~Meme



ETA:

I teach my children that you must take ownership for your mistakes - ALL mistakes. I teach my 14 year old girl that if she has sex, she is risking becoming pregnant. I teach her, if she falls pregnant before she is ready, it will be a very hard road ahead for her - just like it was for me. I do not teach her that if she does make a mistake, there are avenues out there to help her escape them. I do not teach her that abortion is OK. I do not teach her that taking the easy way is the correct way because it isn't!



Sure, some will say, making an abortion decision is not easy, perhaps not but it IS the easier way out once done (whether you think about it the rest of your life or not, it was easier, otherwise you wouldn't do it). I would not support my children in abortion unless there was a serious reason. I am a firm believer in making your bed and lying in it.

Momma - posted on 09/20/2012

197

0

5

Sapphire--I still find it incredulous that there are so many nosy people butting their unwanted opinions into another person's life and decision. If I decide to make a decision about an unwanted pregnancy that you personally do not agree with, it does not impact your life in any way, shape or form. What's it to you, honestly?



It does impact EVERYONE! For one, it costs tax payers. For two, it is an innocent being involved that did not ask you to have sex and create them. They just all of a sudden become a subject of your irresponsible self. Someone needs to speak for them, since they cannot. For three, it has to do with the basics of life and that this unborn child could have a great impact, to the better, on our world. Who knows? No one, if the child is aborted for non-medical or non-rape reasons, that is a life that was created and deserves to be here, just as much as you or I.



Sapphire---I also find the comments of "Keep your damn legs closed" to be immature and insulting. JMO.



And I find the opinion that any woman should be able to have an abortion just because she did not want the baby or any other "irresponsible" reasons to be extremely childish, selfish and down right foolish. Whatever happened to taking care of our own made consequences? Why do people think it is their right to take the easy way out? What ever happened to being a mature adult and taking care of the business you subjected onto yourself? Yep, keep your legs closed, if you are not prepared to be a mother, since abstinence is the only 100% way to not become pregnant. As soon as you have sex, you are placing yourself in a vulnerable situation, if you do not want a baby, at that time - that is on you, not the baby!



Another thing to keep in mind, is even legal abortions are often NOT submitted. They do not become a part of the stats and therefore, we really have no idea how many occur. However, those we do know of, there are far too many that are done for reasons that can be chopped up to be "irresponsible".



~Meme

Johnny - posted on 09/20/2012

8,686

26

318

No matter what, it should not be up to another person to dictate how someone else handles their own body. Although I think once the baby reaches the age of viability, this becomes a thornier issue as that baby may well be considered it's own being an thus not just the mother's own body. It might turn people off to think of that "extreme pro-choice position", but perhaps they need to really think about ALL the potential ramifications of legislating what people can do to their own bodies and how that could in turn effect them personally at some point.



I have to agree with Anne, legislating against abortion just results in the deaths of women AND their babies. It doesn't stop abortion. There was actually not a jump in the rates of abortion after Roe vs. Wade, which I actually found surprising because I assumed it would harder to track the illegal, under the table abortions. I guess so many women ended up dead or in the emergency room as a result of illegal abortion that it wasn't.



I guess if the only life you truly value is the unborn one, then outlawing abortion might seem to work. But I'd rather see the rate of abortion go down in reality, not just in government statistics. I want there to be less abortions. I just don't think that legal mandates will do that nor are do I think that they are ethically sound. From both directions, they are a losing proposition.

[deleted account]

I also find the comments of "Keep your damn legs closed" to be immature and insulting. JMO.

[deleted account]

I still find it incredulous that there are so many nosy people butting their unwanted opinions into another person's life and decision. If I decide to make a decision about an unwanted pregnancy that you personally do not agree with, it does not impact your life in any way, shape or form. What's it to you, honestly? Whether I decide on an elective abortion or one of medical necessity, how does my choice leave an impression on you? Am I thought of as a lower-class slum if I had an abortion? Don't my living children and husband have a right to have a mentally stable, balanced, and non-depressed mother? Woudl it be preferable to go find back-alley services if I am faced with an unwanted pregnancy, no matter the circumstances? Again, no impact on your life and you just need to mind your own business. Do *you* (in general) feel you are a superior person than I am because we differ in abortion beliefs? What medical decision I make is between me, my husband, and my doctor. NOT with the government!

Momma - posted on 09/20/2012

197

0

5

Kathy---On a personal level (although I am not imposing this on anyone as it is a belief) I somewhat agree with Jenny. I am aware that any time I have sex I can get pregnant. It is an idea I teach my children. The possibility of pregnancy is a consequence I accept when I choose to have sex. If I ever found myself in a position where I knew I really, truly could not handle a baby, I would abstain from sex.



Exactly. Like I shared, earlier. We are pregnant with our third child. We were not prepared, yet. I just got back from maternity leave a year ago. My career is very important to me, therefore we were looking at maybe another 3-4 years (but we had even decided, that we may not do that, either). We were using contraception, it failed. No, we did not use two methods, we weren't that worried. When it failed, I went out and got the morning after pill, within 12 hours (which does not harm the baby if it has already been conceived, it only stops the sperm from meeting the egg - in layman terms) and it failed. So, we are now 17 weeks pregnant. I had to do a lot of planning and work with my employer because I do NOT want to take maternity leave, again. I will be working from home, instead. Never once did it cross my mind to abort, just because the timing was off. We knew there was a chance, even if it were a small one and now we are making good on our outcome, from deciding to have sex, even with a slim chance of falling pregnant.



I get that not everyone would make this choice but again, it causes me to ask why not? If you are healthy and the pregnancy is doing fine, then why? Just because you weren't ready? Well if you weren't ready, than keep your damn legs closed!



Also, I would like to add that I too am agnostic. So, my views have nothing to do with religion, it all has to do with science, respect, unselfishness and compassion for all living things (born or in the womb).

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms