Group items tagged

this article is about abortion which is an important issue in the upcoming presidential election. I just thought that it was interesting to read but I am in no way for abortion.

Alex, did you read this article? This article is about how the parent DID have the baby and "took responsibility for their actions" and then abused the child. So, no just because a parent takes responsibility for their actions in the beginning, that doesn't mean the child won't be abused. If you look at it rationally and scientifically, abortion really isn't murder. Abortions are possible through the second trimester, or 24th week of pregnancy. At this time it is impossible for the fetus to live outside of the womb. It has only just started producing blood cells, the eyes aren't developed until the 26th week, the bones aren't developed until between the 31st and 34th week, the brain is still developing even after the 30th week, and the lungs aren't mature until after the 34th week. So is it really 'murder' to abort something that has less consciousness and is less developed than a mouse?

I am pro-choice, and agree with Mallory and Kirstina. Sure, it's not fair for the unborn baby, but is it fair for the parent(s). In the situation of rape, definitely not. Giving birth to someones child that physically harmed you, a mother should not have to do that. Not to mention how expensive it is to have a child. Why should a 15 year old have to pay that sort of money to have a child? The real problem, they don't, and the parents have to suffer for their child, which is unfair to them. If you want to say it's still morally wrong, it's just as bad as stealing thousands of dollars from those who gave birth to you just to let that child live.

"Iowa bill would let women sue doctor after abortion"

i think that a women should not be able to sue a doctor for her choice of having an abortion

I agree with Sydney, Lauren, and Landon. You made the choice of getting the abortion, and the doctor just did what you wanted. YOU should have made sure that it was the choice you wanted.

At 21 weeks, the pregnancy had been going well. But the look on the technician's face as she examined the images told Zink that was no longer the case. Further scans revealed that the fetus' brain was badly malformed. Two hemispheres should have formed by then, but the right side of the brain had not developed at all.

I think that it's wrong to say that women should have more right to an abortion if they had been raped or wouldn't be financially stable. Women should also be able to have as many abortions as they want, and it shouldn't be limited. Also I'm wondering what limit there is? And why you think that there should be one if that's what you meant. It is the womans choice, and it's her life and she can do with it as she pleases, so she doesn't have to have a "good reason" or have others think that it is okay if she has one.

Women have a right to their own body and abortion is exercising that right. Wanting an abortion is the only reason a woman needs in order to get one. Being raped or a victim of incest are seen as more understandable reasons to get an abortion but those are not the only reasons that should be seen as acceptable. All women have a right to their bodies and a right to decide what they want to do with their bodies.

"Ohio state lawmakers have passed a controversial "Heartbeat Bill" that would ban abortions from the moment the heartbeat of a fetus can be detected -- which usually occurs about six weeks into a pregnancy."

I think that having an abortion is your choice so you should be able to make it. If you are raped you should be allowed to get an abortion because having the kid would make you remember getting rapped and people don't want to remember things like that.

I would say it should be the state's choice if it's majority agrees and votes on it then I believe that it should be passed. My own opinion out of it, I think that 6 weeks is far enough time to make the choice, with other things that you can do.

"With a swipe of a pen Monday, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant signed into law a bill that prevents women from getting abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. His state, effective immediately, now holds the distinction of having the earliest abortion ban in the nation."

I feel that is still too late.

i believe this is fair because in some states the law is 6 weeks and most women do not know that they are pregnant at 6 weeks. 15 weeks most women would know that they are pregnant and would have time to make a decision.

Faced with the prospect of Trump as the party's standard bearer, Republicans from across the ideological spectrum quickly condemned Trump's assertion -- but not before Democrats showed the damage Trump's words could have on the GOP. And in what was a clear acknowledgement of the stakes, Trump did something he has rarely done in this campaign -- back away from his statement within hours.

I don't agree with the comment that Trump made about women or the doctors getting punished for having/ preforming an abortion. I am pro choice and believe it is the woman's decision weather she wants to have an abortion or not and she should not have to be held legally accountable for making her own healthcare decisions and the doctors should not be held legally accountable for providing the requested healthcare.

This is scary because he is saying that the women who get abortions or preform abortions should get punished. Which I don't believe is right at all.

"These laws may be unenforceable because of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. But abortion opponents are hoping that the legal challenges will serve as a vehicle for the Supreme Court to eventually overturn the Roe ruling."

banning abortions is against the constitution because the 14th amendment gives a women the right to have a abortion or not

While I personally agree that abortions should be legal, the 14th amendment doesn't give any particular rights to anyone. The 14th amendment basically just says the government can't take away the inalienable rights away from legal citizens (such as freedom of speech, press, religion, right to a trial, etc.) Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee an abortion for any reason. That's the exact reason this debate is so large and divided. There are no legal standards because we've never had the technology for these procedures before. The only standard is the Roe v. Wade decision which essentially says that first trimester, there can be no regulations. Second trimester, the government can impose regulations that are reasonably related to maternal health. Third, states are allowed to entirely prohibit third-trimester abortions. But even Roe v. Wade is just a supreme court decision that can be overturned.

"On Tuesday, Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a "fetal heartbeat" bill that seeks to outlaw abortion after about six weeks. The measure, HB 481, is the most extreme abortion ban in the country-not just because it would impose severe limitations on women's reproductive rights, but also because it would subject women who get illegal abortions to life imprisonment and the death penalty."

"In a split decision released Friday, the Nebraska Supreme Court rejected a 16-year-old ward of the state's request to waive parental consent to get an abortion, saying the girl had not shown she is sufficiently mature and well-informed enough to decide on her own whether to have an abortion."

A letter from the Texas Health and Human Services Commission Office of the Inspector General went out Monday to inform affiliates they are believed to be "no longer capable of performing medical services in a professionally competent, safe, legal, and ethical manner," according to a copy posted by The Dallas Morning News.

this is very wrong, planned parenthood doesn't only do abortions. like it said in the article, planned parenthood does cancer screenings, HIV testing, birth control, and much more. only about 3% of planned parenthood services are abortions. if they're so against abortions, then shutting down planned parenthood isn't going to help, it will only lead to unsafe illegal abortions. they're contradicting themselves because planned parenthood provides birth control, and people would only get more abortions. they're not only hurting people who want abortions, but all of the other services too.

"One in four women will have an abortion by the time they're 45, which means that very likely, you know or love someone who has had an abortion."

I agree with this law and feel like it should be the same in every state. There are millions of families out there who have wanted a baby and either couldn't have one or the pregnancy didn't go through as planned. Some people would counter-argument that certain women who get pregnant or have been raped don't think they are fit to be a parent. This is where the women who struggle to have kids can get involved. There are many different options babies can go to if their mother cant take care of them. Abortion is taking a life away and in my eyes is seen as a form of murder.

Someone posted this, but it wasn't possible to comment

First point: I fail to see how denying a single cell the chance to go through mitosis is abortion. It's no more aware than bacteria. Also, the author is referencing the morning-after pill. For some reason there's a lot of confusion about how the morning after pill actually works. It prevents the egg from joining the sperm, or depending on where the woman is in her cycle, prevents the ovaries from releasing eggs. Contrary to what pro-life proponents apparently believe, conception does not happen immediately after having sex. If using the morning-after pill is abortion, we may as well call abstinence abortion. Secondly, "the mandate requires private citizens who are also employers to purchase private goods (health insurance services) with private money from non-government companies." This is clearly written by a sensationalist. What it really means is that a company has to use its own money to provide healthcare. (And everyone seems to be forgetting that employees don't just receive healthcare plans for free). There is a difference between being a private citizen and being an employer. Owning a public company and employing people is about as far from private as you can get. "Requiring private citizens to pay for abortifacients is more akin to requiring the Amish to use their own money to purchase weapons from a private gun dealer or be forced into bankruptcy. Or kind of like forcing anti-pornography legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon to buy pornography for her law students." This is simply ludicrous and shows that the author clearly doesn't understand what a business is. It's a corporation, it employees people, it isn't a private citizen. I will admit that if Hobby Lobby employed only people who were in complete agreement with the beliefs of the owners I would support them in their case. However, the reality is that many of Hobby Lobby's employees don't share the exact same beliefs as the owner. And it would in fact be illegal for Hobby Lobby to choose their employ

ees because of their beliefs. And the last time I checked, in America we don't make people follow certain religions or beliefs. In fact, the law isn't supposed to be based in religion. I know it sounds shocking, but it actually isn't okay to force a religion on people, or to make everyone live in accordance with one belief system, which is exactly what Hobby Lobby, and everyone who argues against this provision in the new health care law, is trying to do. Lastly, the author says repeatedly that this law essentially discriminates against Christians, which is a complete lie. Christians is a broad term. There are Christians who believe in all kinds of birth control and then there are those who think all birth control should be outlawed. There are even Christians who get abortions. So, and this is a message to anyone who writes articles of this kind, stop saying just saying Christians. Tell the truth and call yourself a Fundamentalist. Saying Christians make it seem like the majority of people who believe in Jesus Christ agree with you, and they don't. You're a minority, and you need to accept that. And maybe read a little about how our government works. It's a majority rules system.

"Utah will now require doctors to provide anesthesia to women having abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy or later."

i think if its been 20 weeks and u havent decided to keep your kid yet or not then you have a problem because your the mother of that child and you obviously dont care about your own kid that you decided to have.For one your the one who decided to have unprotected sex and got pregnet so if you dont want the kid the your going to have then you should'nt have sex and get pregnet then.Another thing if its been longer than 16-19 weeks that you have been carrying the child then you should'nt be able to put the child up for abortion because if you have made up your mind if you want to keep the child then there is somthing wrong.

Philadelphia (CNN) -- A Philadelphia judge threw out three of the seven first-degree murder charges against Kermit Gosnell, the abortion clinic doctor accused of performing abortions past the 24-week limit allowed by law. The judge also dismissed one count of infanticide -- the intentional killing of an infant -- and five counts of abusing a corpse.

"One day after proposing a bill that would classify having an abortion after rape or incest as "tampering with evidence," a Republican legislator in New Mexico said Thursday she is clarifying the intent of the legislation."

Women shouldn't have to carry around a baby that could just bring up bad memories of what had happened to them,

I am glad this law has been put in place. It still protects unborn life but makes exceptions for "rape, incest or medical emergency". I hope other states decide to put this law in place.

i disagree because women should have a choice on what to do with that baby

I disagree with this. At 6 weeks there is a very slim chance of knowing whether you are pregnant or not. Many women have irregular periods and can be off by two weeks even. This can lead to people being unable to get abortions before they even know that they are pregnant. Even though this may make exceptions in the terms of "rape" it still is not an effective way or limit

""The US Supreme Court essentially has held" in Roe and subsequent cases "that a state cannot ban abortion before viability," Nash explained. "Viability is determined individually but on average is between about 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy.""

"Lawmakers in the Iowa Senate have approved a bill that would ban most abortions at the first detectable fetal heartbeat."

i think this is a good bill because alot of people take advantage of getting rid of a baby. if a heartbeat is detected i dont think you should be able to get rid of it. just have it and put it up for adoption for people who cant have kids.

A Philadelphia abortion provider who killed babies by cutting their spinal cords with scissors was found guilty of first-degree murder on Monday.

This is crazy and absurd!! Who cuts the spinal cord?!