Abortion: A Sad Reality

[lakeview]

"Her body. Her decision."


No it isn't.


Unless you can explain how 'her body' can have two different sets of fingerprints, and two different blood types.

What do you think about exceptions for rape or incest?

 

[ClosedCaption]

[

This discussion has turned completely away from abortion, because clearly your logic on abortion is flawed. Not mine.

I can derive scientific bases for my argument, all you have are political talking points and religious slurs. Really, you had no serious argument to begin with, so I fail to see how you would be "slapping" me "around like George Zimmerman does his girlfriends."

What's the "Scientific Basis" for letting a rape victim abort her baby but not letting a girl who just had a one-night stand not do so?

There isn't one.

Either a fetus is a person or it isn't.

All that "Its a life" jazz goes out the window depending on HOW the life is conceived. Why? They cant tell you

 

[clevergirl]

[

This discussion has turned completely away from abortion, because clearly your logic on abortion is flawed. Not mine.

I can derive scientific bases for my argument, all you have are political talking points and religious slurs. Really, you had no serious argument to begin with, so I fail to see how you would be "slapping" me "around like George Zimmerman does his girlfriends."

What's the "Scientific Basis" for letting a rape victim abort her baby but not letting a girl who just had a one-night stand not do so?

There isn't one.

Either a fetus is a person or it isn't.

All that "Its a life" jazz goes out the window depending on HOW the life is conceived. Why? They cant tell you

It;s a fair accusation- There is no scientific difference. Life begins at conception; viability of the fetus at implantation (3-7 days). The morning after pill prevents implantation by sloughing off the lining of the uterus- it is not dissimilar to what taking the pill monthly also effects.

But let's look at abortion for those who have been raped. It represents less than 1% of all abortions (some say even much lower), and it is a fairly accurate statement to say this is a case of two victims. Like the scenario where a woman's life is at risk to continue with pregnancy, rape creates a conundrum- a real choice due to no ones negligence or fault. In that way and for this reason, some states in the past had laws allowing abortion for rape.

Abortion Facts - Information on Abortion You Can Use
http://www.webmd.com/hw/womens_condition…
http://www.rainn.org/docs/statistics/ncv…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…

 

[clevergirl]

Your are full of shit and I am young enough to prove it. My ex-partner and I were responsible enough to use birth control pills in addition to condoms. Had she not been compelled to the IUD which very well may have played a role in her inability to conceive, we may have our own children today. Birth control has hardly been affordable since the 70s, and if you honestly think it has then I must conclude you are mentally retarded. It is anything but affordable.

Fuck you- I used "free birth control" when I was younger- and at 9 bucks a month its about as cheap as it gets for those who make too much to get it free!

NIXON: EXPANDING FAMILY PLANNING

Both Democratic and Republican leaders in Washington support expanding family planning services and research in the U.S. and internationally. President Richard Nixon declares birth control a national priority and seeks "adequate family planning services [for] … all those who want them but cannot afford them."

In 1970, Congress passes and President Nixon signs into law Title X of the Public Health Service Act, which makes contraceptives available regardless of income and provides funding for educational programs and research in contraceptive development. Later, Congress broadens Title X's mandate to provide community-based sex education programs and preventive services to unmarried teenagers at risk of pregnancy. History & Successes

The only thing I have to say to you is this, "Since when was $9 a month ever free?"
It has only increased tenfold since your last need for use, you are too distant from the facts to be relevant.

Hey idgit, yes you- The FREE is for those who cannot afford anything- the 9 bucks is for everyone, regardless of income. This makes your cry for FREE and, or affordable, moot!

 

[ClosedCaption]

What's the "Scientific Basis" for letting a rape victim abort her baby but not letting a girl who just had a one-night stand not do so?

There isn't one.

Either a fetus is a person or it isn't.

All that "Its a life" jazz goes out the window depending on HOW the life is conceived. Why? They cant tell you

It;s a fair accusation- There is no scientific difference. Life begins at conception; viability of the fetus at implantation (3-7 days). The morning after pill prevents implantation by sloughing off the lining of the uterus- it is not dissimilar to what taking the pill monthly also effects.

But let's look at abortion for those who have been raped.

Actually lets not....The point is that you are ok with one and not the other while claiming that taking a life is terrible. Not so terrible when its a life created from rape.

I guess theres a difference you just cannot explain it

 

[clevergirl]

All that "Its a life" jazz goes out the window depending on HOW the life is conceived. Why? They cant tell you

It;s a fair accusation- There is no scientific difference. Life begins at conception; viability of the fetus at implantation (3-7 days). The morning after pill prevents implantation by sloughing off the lining of the uterus- it is not dissimilar to what taking the pill monthly also effects.

But let's look at abortion for those who have been raped.

Actually lets not....The point is that you are ok with one and not the other while claiming that taking a life is terrible. Not so terrible when its a life created from rape.

I guess theres a difference you just cannot explain it

I never said it wasn't a life, or a valuable life- I explained how some states created law with regards to abortion and rape. Why didn't you quote the rest of what I posted? Afraid of facts and opinion? There is an ethical distinction between a woman who is raped and becomes pregnant and a woman who becomes pregnant through a voluntary decision to engage in intercourse.

I personally DO think abortion for rape is wrong- but I can also allow the ethical difference and see the reasonable dilemma for the woman. But in most states rape kits offer women the morning after pill- and the entire argument becomes moot. Indeed, this makes the numbers claimed by abortion clinics for rape appear inflated- especially when also compared to numbers of reported rapes that are categorized as "completed"
The Justice Department statistics for 2004 were approximately 0.4 rapes per 1,000 people. But that's a very broad definition of rape. According to the Justice Department, of the average annual 200,780 sexual assault victims in 2004-2005, about 64,080 were victims of "completed rape". Obviously, only a "completed rape" could result in a pregnancy.

It's hard to accept that if 64,000 random rapes occurred that 13,000 (or over 20%) would result in a pregnancy, let alone that 100% of those pregnancies would be aborted. Now add in rape kits that offer women the morning after pill.


What all of these figures point to is an argument that is really not an argument- but rather a side-show to distract that the overwhelming number of abortions- more than 97% are for convenience- period!

Let me fix my original post for you:

It's a fair accusation- There is no scientific difference. Life begins at conception; viability of the fetus at implantation (3-7 days). The morning after pill prevents implantation by sloughing off the lining of the uterus- it is not dissimilar to what taking the pill monthly also effects.

But let's look at abortion for those who have been raped. It represents less than 1% of all abortions (some say even much lower), and it is a fairly accurate statement to say this is a case of two victims. Like the scenario where a woman's life is at risk to continue with pregnancy, rape creates a conundrum- a real choice due to no ones negligence or fault. In that way and for this reason, some states in the past had laws allowing abortion for rape.

Abortion Facts - Information on Abortion You Can Use
http://www.webmd.com/hw/womens_condition…
http://www.rainn.org/docs/statistics/ncv…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…

 

[NYcarbineer]

I understand that there is great discord on the issue of abortion, but I cringe whenever someone says "If you don't want an abortion, don't get one". This is like saying "If you don't like killing another person, don't kill anyone". The whole essence behind the pro-life idea is that all people are endowed with the right to life when they are conceived. These rights don't come from government. They come from God.

I would ask those who are obstinately pro-choice to ask themselves this: How would you justify to your creator that you thought this was OK?
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...F4yTSC399IYqNc1tpZLW4SIxIe-px55h4vcEaG78mS5_A

If you say you don't believe in God, then ask yourself this: is it morally right to take someone's life for the sake of convenience?

Forget the instances of rape or the life of a mother. That's about 3% of total abortions. Let's talk about the 97% of the 50 unborn children(or "fetuses" using the pro-choice lingo") killed since Roe v. Wade.

I understand that the majority of Americans are "pro-choice". But I think the reason for that is that they don't know the real story behind abortion. I really wish people could change their mind on this issue.

If abortion is murder then women should get the death penalty for having an abortion.

That is the logic you won't accept, but it's irrefutable logic nonetheless.

 

[clevergirl]

I understand that there is great discord on the issue of abortion, but I cringe whenever someone says "If you don't want an abortion, don't get one". This is like saying "If you don't like killing another person, don't kill anyone". The whole essence behind the pro-life idea is that all people are endowed with the right to life when they are conceived. These rights don't come from government. They come from God.

I would ask those who are obstinately pro-choice to ask themselves this: How would you justify to your creator that you thought this was OK?
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...F4yTSC399IYqNc1tpZLW4SIxIe-px55h4vcEaG78mS5_A

If you say you don't believe in God, then ask yourself this: is it morally right to take someone's life for the sake of convenience?

Forget the instances of rape or the life of a mother. That's about 3% of total abortions. Let's talk about the 97% of the 50 unborn children(or "fetuses" using the pro-choice lingo") killed since Roe v. Wade.

I understand that the majority of Americans are "pro-choice". But I think the reason for that is that they don't know the real story behind abortion. I really wish people could change their mind on this issue.

If abortion is murder then women should get the death penalty for having an abortion.

That is the logic you won't accept, but it's irrefutable logic nonetheless.

If murder as a legal definition were before us, then you might have a point- but it seems pretty obvious the poster was referring to a moral definition- But even still manslaughter charges do not always warrant capital murder charges.

Indeed Scott Peterson was charged with 2nd degree manslaughter for killing of his unborn son in CA- he did not receive the death penalty for the child, but for his wife even though he knew and planned the child's death. But the important point was that the courts recognized the unborn child as a human being deserving of protection and justice under the law.

On November 12 the reconstituted jury convicted Peterson of first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing the fetus she carried.

 

[g5000]

The "rape and incest" gambit is an old anti-life tactic which takes victims of rape and incest and uses them as human shields to protect the million-plus abortions each year which have nothing to do with crime victims.

It is a disgusting tactic. And the aim is to get into our wallets and pay for the irresponsible behavior of others rather than address that behavior.

"Pay for my baby or I will kill it."

It's all hostage taking. I honestly don't know how they hold their heads up in public.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Her body. Her decision."


No it isn't.


Unless you can explain how 'her body' can have two different sets of fingerprints, and two different blood types.

What do you think about exceptions for rape or incest?

1. I'm an American, a supporter of the Constitution.

My view of abortion is political....so if my state votes in favor....so be it.

I would oppose the killing of any innocent, and would vote accordingly.



2. Be clear as to the necessity of exceptions for rape and incest....

First.....all proposals that I am aware of take same into consideration.

But....these are the statistics:

In just 12% of the cases were there concerns for the mother’s health; 1% for rape; and .5% incest.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf



3. The vast majority of abortion performed in the United States are carried out for reasons that can be broadly categorized as “matters of convenience.” In a study of 27 nations, reasons for abortion services were found to be the following:

a. “Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.”
Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries



b. A 2004 study of American women yielded similar results: “The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%).

Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.” http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf


Is the mother's convenience enough reason to take a life?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I understand that there is great discord on the issue of abortion, but I cringe whenever someone says "If you don't want an abortion, don't get one". This is like saying "If you don't like killing another person, don't kill anyone". The whole essence behind the pro-life idea is that all people are endowed with the right to life when they are conceived. These rights don't come from government. They come from God.

I would ask those who are obstinately pro-choice to ask themselves this: How would you justify to your creator that you thought this was OK?
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...F4yTSC399IYqNc1tpZLW4SIxIe-px55h4vcEaG78mS5_A

If you say you don't believe in God, then ask yourself this: is it morally right to take someone's life for the sake of convenience?

Forget the instances of rape or the life of a mother. That's about 3% of total abortions. Let's talk about the 97% of the 50 unborn children(or "fetuses" using the pro-choice lingo") killed since Roe v. Wade.

I understand that the majority of Americans are "pro-choice". But I think the reason for that is that they don't know the real story behind abortion. I really wish people could change their mind on this issue.

If abortion is murder then women should get the death penalty for having an abortion.

That is the logic you won't accept, but it's irrefutable logic nonetheless.

If murder as a legal definition were before us, then you might have a point- but it seems pretty obvious the poster was referring to a moral definition- But even still manslaughter charges do not always warrant capital murder charges.

Indeed Scott Peterson was charged with 2nd degree manslaughter for killing of his unborn son in CA- he did not receive the death penalty for the child, but for his wife even though he knew and planned the child's death. But the important point was that the courts recognized the unborn child as a human being deserving of protection and justice under the law.

On November 12 the reconstituted jury convicted Peterson of first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing the fetus she carried.

I have an irrefutable point. If the fetus is a person from conception, then every abortion undertaken willfully by the pregnant woman,

is pre-meditated murder. Unless you believe that pre-meditated murder is not a capital crime, then you must believe that abortion is a capital crime.

Who believes that?

 

[lakeview]

"Her body. Her decision."


No it isn't.


Unless you can explain how 'her body' can have two different sets of fingerprints, and two different blood types.

What do you think about exceptions for rape or incest?

1. I'm an American, a supporter of the Constitution.

My view of abortion is political....so if my state votes in favor....so be it.

I would oppose the killing of any innocent, and would vote accordingly.



2. Be clear as to the necessity of exceptions for rape and incest....

First.....all proposals that I am aware of take same into consideration.

But....these are the statistics:

In just 12% of the cases were there concerns for the mother’s health; 1% for rape; and .5% incest.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf



3. The vast majority of abortion performed in the United States are carried out for reasons that can be broadly categorized as “matters of convenience.” In a study of 27 nations, reasons for abortion services were found to be the following:

a. “Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.”
Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries



b. A 2004 study of American women yielded similar results: “The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%).

Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.” http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf


Is the mother's convenience enough reason to take a life?

The reason I asked you about rape and incest is because the post from Joe you picked out to take issue with was part of an ongoing exchange about exceptions for rape and incest. Considering what you had to say I thought it was odd that only Joe got called to task because TK was just as deserving of that response.

I agree with you for the most part. Abortion is legal and as long as it's never mandatory I think we'll all be alright and I also think of it as legalized murder for the sake of convenience. I don't think it's the same thing as killing someone who has already been born and interacted with the world.

 

[clevergirl]

If abortion is murder then women should get the death penalty for having an abortion.

That is the logic you won't accept, but it's irrefutable logic nonetheless.

If murder as a legal definition were before us, then you might have a point- but it seems pretty obvious the poster was referring to a moral definition- But even still manslaughter charges do not always warrant capital murder charges.

Indeed Scott Peterson was charged with 2nd degree manslaughter for killing of his unborn son in CA- he did not receive the death penalty for the child, but for his wife even though he knew and planned the child's death. But the important point was that the courts recognized the unborn child as a human being deserving of protection and justice under the law.

On November 12 the reconstituted jury convicted Peterson of first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing the fetus she carried.

I have an irrefutable point. If the fetus is a person from conception, then every abortion undertaken willfully by the pregnant woman,

is pre-meditated murder. Unless you believe that pre-meditated murder is not a capital crime, then you must believe that abortion is a capital crime.

Who believes that?

Apparently the district attorney and 12 jurors in the Scott Peterson trial.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Her body. Her decision."


No it isn't.


Unless you can explain how 'her body' can have two different sets of fingerprints, and two different blood types.

What do you think about exceptions for rape or incest?

1. I'm an American, a supporter of the Constitution.

My view of abortion is political....so if my state votes in favor....so be it.

I would oppose the killing of any innocent, and would vote accordingly.



2. Be clear as to the necessity of exceptions for rape and incest....

First.....all proposals that I am aware of take same into consideration.

But....these are the statistics:

In just 12% of the cases were there concerns for the mother’s health; 1% for rape; and .5% incest.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf



3. The vast majority of abortion performed in the United States are carried out for reasons that can be broadly categorized as “matters of convenience.” In a study of 27 nations, reasons for abortion services were found to be the following:

a. “Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.”
Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries



b. A 2004 study of American women yielded similar results: “The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%).

Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.” http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf


Is the mother's convenience enough reason to take a life?

Is using RU486 or the equivalent a death penalty or life in prison crime? If not why not?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I understand that there is great discord on the issue of abortion, but I cringe whenever someone says "If you don't want an abortion, don't get one". This is like saying "If you don't like killing another person, don't kill anyone". The whole essence behind the pro-life idea is that all people are endowed with the right to life when they are conceived. These rights don't come from government. They come from God.

I would ask those who are obstinately pro-choice to ask themselves this: How would you justify to your creator that you thought this was OK?
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...F4yTSC399IYqNc1tpZLW4SIxIe-px55h4vcEaG78mS5_A

If you say you don't believe in God, then ask yourself this: is it morally right to take someone's life for the sake of convenience?

Forget the instances of rape or the life of a mother. That's about 3% of total abortions. Let's talk about the 97% of the 50 unborn children(or "fetuses" using the pro-choice lingo") killed since Roe v. Wade.

I understand that the majority of Americans are "pro-choice". But I think the reason for that is that they don't know the real story behind abortion. I really wish people could change their mind on this issue.

If abortion is murder then women should get the death penalty for having an abortion.

That is the logic you won't accept, but it's irrefutable logic nonetheless.

If murder as a legal definition were before us, then you might have a point- but it seems pretty obvious the poster was referring to a moral definition- But even still manslaughter charges do not always warrant capital murder charges.

Indeed Scott Peterson was charged with 2nd degree manslaughter for killing of his unborn son in CA- he did not receive the death penalty for the child, but for his wife even though he knew and planned the child's death. But the important point was that the courts recognized the unborn child as a human being deserving of protection and justice under the law.

On November 12 the reconstituted jury convicted Peterson of first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing the fetus she carried.

Allow me to add a political argument:

1. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson.


2. Our nation was founded on the premise that each individual has the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But they don’t become rights by virtue of birth…we are endowed with these rights by our Creator, at the moment of creation.

a. This is a political argument: the form of the Creator invoked by the Founders is irrelevant to the debate. Morality is not a consideration here, so there is no mention of contraception as being right or wrong; one’s use of contraceptives does not infringe on anyone else’s rights.

b. The fact is that our nation, at its very founding, acknowledged that, by virtue of being created, of being conceived, the unborn child, has a right to live. It is not a right that is alienable….even by the child’s mother.
On-demand abortion is antithetical to the ideas and ideals upon which America was built.

From “Voices of the Damned,” found in “Reinventing the Right,” by Robert Wheeler, pp. 89-99.

 

[g5000]

What do you think about exceptions for rape or incest?

I think asking that question is using victims of tragedy as human shields to protect the million-plus annual abortions by irresponsible people. It's an attempt to throw up a lot of smoke and mirrors to avoid addressing the much, much, much larger problem.

You should be ashamed of yourself for exploiting rape and incest victims to achieve more than a million murders a year.

 

[g5000]

Here's an interesting tidbit:

About half of Americans call themselves "pro-choice". The other half self-identifies as "pro-life".

And yet 2/3 of Americans agree that abortion should be banned past the first trimester.

This means a significant number of people who consider themselves "pro-choice" are actually pro-life after 13 weeks. A supermajority of Americans are pro-life when the second trimester rolls around.

This is the middle ground we should be meeting on.

Another interesting tidbit:

47 percent of all abortions are the result of no birth control being used during the sexual intercourse which led to the unwanted pregnancy. Another significant amount of unwanted pregnancies (I don't recall the exact figure) are the result of improper or irregular use of contraception.

It seems obvious to me that getting people to use birth control, and use it properly, would lead to a significant decrease in abortions.

This is also the middle ground we should be meeting on.

This "rape and incest" tactic of pro-choicers and the "life begins at conception" tactic of pro-lifers keeps an insurpassable rift between all concerned and the middle ground.

 

[clevergirl]

Manslaughter as applied to abortion when abortion was illegal:

Missouri Right To Life

A common concern that people always share with me is whether or not Plan B (also known as the morning-after pill) is the same thing as RU486 (the abortion pill). Emergency contraception is often viewed synonymously with the abortion pill. It is important to realize, however, that these two medications serve two different purposes and work completely different from one another.

RU486 results in a termination of a pregnancy and is only used after pregnancy is established (and no more than 49 days since a woman’s last menstrual period). On the other hand, Plan B is used to prevent pregnancy when taken within 5 days after unprotected intercourse. It will not harm an existing pregnancy and does not cause an abortion.The Abortion Pill vs. The Morning-After Pill... Are they the same thing?

Going back as far as English and colonial law, the criminal law classified those involved in crimes as principals and accomplices. A principal is “the person whose acts directly brought about the criminal result.” An accomplice aids or abets the crime.

States did not treat women who had the abortion as either principals or accomplices. As the Oregon Supreme Court held as late as 1968, the abortionist commits the act, and the woman aborted is the object of that act. “A reading of the statute indicates that the acts prohibited are those which are performed upon the mother rather than any action taken by her. She is the object of the acts prohibited rather than the actor.”3

As one legal scholar in the 1980s who studied this issue concluded after surveying the 50 states, women “were never charged with murder, only seldom were named co-conspirators, and still more rarely were regarded as accomplices.”4

While some women were prosecuted for their abortions under the English common law, by the 1870s or 1880s, most American states came to recognize that the better policy was to not prosecute women. That was the position of New York by 1885.5

With the exception of [four] state cases, the vast majority of the states with reported cases that discussed this issue determined that states could not prosecute women under any theory of criminal liability.

States relied on various techniques of statutory interpretation, along with the generally held belief that women were victims of their abortions, to support their decisions to refrain from prosecuting women. As the appeals court in the District of Columbia wrote in 1901, “y its terms, [D.C. Code Ann. § 809 (1901)] applies to the person or persons committing the act which produces the miscarriage, and not to the person upon whom it is committed, notwithstanding it may be done with her knowledge and consent. Not being liable to indictment thereunder, she is not an accomplice in the legal sense.”6 States Didn?t Put Women in Jail for Abortions Before Roe, Won?t if Overturned | LifeNews.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

What do you think about exceptions for rape or incest?

1. I'm an American, a supporter of the Constitution.

My view of abortion is political....so if my state votes in favor....so be it.

I would oppose the killing of any innocent, and would vote accordingly.



2. Be clear as to the necessity of exceptions for rape and incest....

First.....all proposals that I am aware of take same into consideration.

But....these are the statistics:

In just 12% of the cases were there concerns for the mother’s health; 1% for rape; and .5% incest.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf



3. The vast majority of abortion performed in the United States are carried out for reasons that can be broadly categorized as “matters of convenience.” In a study of 27 nations, reasons for abortion services were found to be the following:

a. “Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.”
Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries



b. A 2004 study of American women yielded similar results: “The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%).

Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.” http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf


Is the mother's convenience enough reason to take a life?

The reason I asked you about rape and incest is because the post from Joe you picked out to take issue with was part of an ongoing exchange about exceptions for rape and incest. Considering what you had to say I thought it was odd that only Joe got called to task because TK was just as deserving of that response.

I agree with you for the most part. Abortion is legal and as long as it's never mandatory I think we'll all be alright and I also think of it as legalized murder for the sake of convenience. I don't think it's the same thing as killing someone who has already been born and interacted with the world.

ErroneousJoe said 'her body.'

The baby is a separate individual.



Further....post #175

 

[lakeview]

What do you think about exceptions for rape or incest?

I think asking that question is using victims of tragedy as human shields to protect the million-plus annual abortions by irresponsible people. It's an attempt to throw up a lot of smoke and mirrors to avoid addressing the much, much, much larger problem.

You should be ashamed of yourself for exploiting rape and incest victims to achieve more than a million murders a year.

Have you bothered to read the thread? What is it with this board and you holier than thou blowhards loving to comment on shit you don't even read?

If you had bothered to read what I had said before you jumped in with your little "contribution", you would have known that I pointed out the hypocrisy in saying that abortion is murder but at the same time wanting to have exceptions for rape and incest.

Try to have just a tiny bit of a clue before you comment.