E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA U.S. appeals court on Tuesday said an Idaho woman who aborted her pregnancy by taking pills instead of traveling to a clinic or hospital as required by state law should not have been criminally charged.
In the same opinion, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals court upheld a U.S District Court decision that ruled the woman could not challenge an Idaho state law that bans most abortions after 19 weeks under the premise that fetuses feel pain at that stage of development.
In 2010, Jennie Linn McCormack, an unmarried mother of three, was pregnant, unemployed and receiving between $200 and $250 a month in child support, according to the court opinion.
McCormack searched for an abortion provider but there were none in Bannock County, where she lived, the court opinion said, adding in a footnote that 87 percent of counties in the U.S. do not have abortion providers.
She knew she could get an abortion in Salt Lake City, Utah, about 138 miles away, but the procedure would cost between $400 and $2,000, the opinion said.
Watch the Top Videos on NBCNews.com
Instead McCormack chose RU-486, a medication that induces an abortion, which she ordered online. The drug is approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and can be prescribed over the Internet. The drug is for early pregnancies, however, and McCormack was much farther along.
She confided in a friend, and that friend's sister tipped off police, National Public Radio reported. Police found the fetus wrapped up on her back porch.
McCormack was charged by Bannock County prosecutors last year under a 1972 Idaho law that requires abortions be performed by a physician at a licensed abortion facility. If convicted, she would have faced up to five years in prison.
“There are many cases where they prosecute or threaten to prosecute a doctor," Richard Hearn, McCormack's attorney, told NPR. "There are not so many where they’ve prosecuted a woman.”
Around the time of her arrest, Idaho passed a statute making it illegal for women to obtain abortions after their 19th week of pregnancy, the AP reported. In the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, lawmakers argued that fetuses start feeling pain around 20 weeks.
McCormack was not charged under this statute, although she did challenge it in her lawsuit.
Read the appeals court opinion (.pdf)
The criminal case against McCormack was dismissed and on Sept. 16, 2011, she filed a broad lawsuit claiming that Idaho's abortion law is unconstitutional because it places an undue burden on women, which flies in the face of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in the U.S.
An Idaho federal judge issued an injunction saying the law could not be enforced against McCormack.
In its opinion, the 9th Circuit largely agreed with McCormack and her counsel. Criminal abortion statutes typically apply to doctors, who perform unhealthy abortions that threaten women's safety, the unanimous three-judge panel said.
Further, Idaho's law is at odds with Roe v. Wade, the judges said, because pregnant women should not be criminally charged nor expected to “explore the intricacies of state abortion statutes."
Under the law, they said, women in McCormack's position have three choices: To carefully read Idaho law, violate the law or not get an abortion.
The opinion also points to a letter the state's attorney general wrote about the abortion law, in which he says the law "plainly intends to erect a substantial obstacle to the right to choose."
Watch the most-viewed videos on NBCNews.com
At this point in the litigation, only McCormack cannot be prosecuted -- not women generally, the court said. McCormack may ultimately get a judgment that strikes down the law entirely, the 9th Circuit said.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Evidence shows White House got many pre-9/11 warnings
- FAO: VA struggles to calculate lost wages for wounded vets
- Key question in Chicago strike: How do you measure a teacher
- Professor in Ala. university shooting rampage pleads guilty
- Jailbird ex-cops talk about Drew Peterson's fate in prison
Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.
Leave a Comment:
Her body, her business. The law is stupid and should be struck down.
Frankly it's all about religion. Can't prove it, certainly can't sell it, so what to do?
Legislate it.
Right. how about we go further and allow post-bith abortion up through nursing. After all, not all mothers can afford formula, so they might have to nurse. And since babies who breastfeed are using their mothers' bodies when they do, they are acting as a parasite. Now I would say it's the mother's responsibility to breastfeed and unwillingness to do so would be selfish and cruel, but then again I'm a man, and I'll never have to nurse, so who am I to tell her what to do with her breasts? I mean that's sexist, right? Her body, her property.
Your absolutely right, who are you to tell another what to do with their body.
argumentativebutfair may actually have a point. If it's wrong in one instance, it must be wrong in all instances.
Hey, we should use that "argument" when dealing with pedophiles, too. Since we give Catholic priests umpteen chances to stop sexually abusing children, and never go to jail -- it means that ALL pedophiles should be given the same umpteen chances.
But the issue is abortion. Wait....it's ok for God to abort a baby, but not for us puny humans to do it? What the @!$%# is up with that?
So much for those little white lies that liberals like to spread around that says the "morning after" pill isn't really an abortion pill. I think this woman just proved it( what republicans have been saying all along) and I bet that this abortion had NOTHING TO DO WITH RAPE OR INCEST(another lie told by liberals).
Make sure you remember this scenario when the subject of Planned Parenthood comes up. People are still irresponsible even when they have access to birth control. (And yes, she could have gone to her neighborhood drugstore.)
yep it's ok for god to kill entire bus loads of already born children, but that's just him working in mysterious ways and the "faithful" just cant wait to get to heaven to spend eternity kissing his feet and thanking him for starving millions of children to death, or letting them get raped by his priests. He "loves" us so much that he gives children horribly painful and disfiguring diseases before killing them, he is so miraculous that we should pile into mega churches every Sunday and give our hard earned money to his earthly emissaries so they can buy fancy cars and $5,000,000 dollar homes. Oh Jebus I love you so much for playing a cruel game of chess with my life and for taking my wife and child from me by telling that drunk driver to hit them as they crossed the street, thank you Jebus, thank you Jebus. Praise the Lord.
Absolutely sick...
Here's the real question that must be answered with or without "religion". Everybody is on this "womens choice" kick. The woman made her choice when she uncrossed her legs, let her panties down, and willingly "by her choice" had sex. Science 1-0-1 tells you that sex between a man and a woman creates a real live baby. So... the "choice" is not that the woman has the right to "abort"... to fail, cease, or stop at an early or premature stage) because she already made her "CHOICE". That was when she decided to have sex!
We don't deprive our citizens of constitutionally protected rights by forcing women into pregnancy and childbirth against their wills simply because they had sex. Sex is a strong, natural, human drive. Most sex is accomplished with the desire it NOT result in a child.
Body Double: Why put all the blame on God? Do you realize that if it wasn't for man's sin, we would all still be living in the Garden of Eden, free from disease.
You obviously need counseling. God didn't make that drunk driver drink, that was something that MAN did. I'm sorry you lost your wife and child, but I would be more likely to blame the drunk driver than God.
It's really just another case of man thinking he's got everything under control; and doesn't need God, before he screws others up.
Frankly it's all about religion. Can't prove it, certainly can't sell it, so what to do?
Best selling book ever. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Body double... Be careful... You can believe or not believe there is a God, but...
If God is real... you in deep doodoo. I don't hear you thanking "God" for being alive but we
(me included) sure are quick to blame God (even if they don't believe He is real??) for all
the bad things. You nor I know the "other side of the story". Somewhere in the Story of God
I hear He is a merciful God and just the fact we are alive would be pure evidence of that if God is real.
We have that right to "choose" either way in the same sense the woman made her choice to
have sex. What I find scary is we all bear the consequences of our choices. The consequence
of the pregnant woman was her simple choice to have sex. To abort is a total nother choice
that has it's consequences too.
??Questions... but where are the answers?
Abortion is the willful immoral act of taking the life of an innocent unborn child. The law (Roe v. Wade) is wrong and needs to be changed, and the sooner the better. 56,000,000 Americans have been put to death by their mothers and their baby butchers, and don't give me any crap about rape and incest, it is still an innocent child that is being murdered. It is also NOT just her body after a child is conceived! Wake up America, we are literally killing our future.
@argumentativebutfair
A Mother has a right to terminate a pregnacy out of concern for her health. Pregnancy can kill. Once a baby is born, that concern for health no longer applies. Its not just about her ability to afford a child either. Its all the risks that go with pregnancy. Long term and short. A baby can be adopted once born.
People who are not religious, are NOT required to obey your moral edicts. No matter how wrong you think it is. They dont answer to you. If there is a god, then they will answer then, but not until.
You still have free will. You are in control of your actions when you want to have sex.
Alcoholism runs in may family, but I have enough will power to resist the temptation to drink because I know what the consequences could be.
Overeating is a strong, natural desire, but people can avoid it even so because they have control over their own actions even when they are really hungry.
Most men will be tempted to cheat on their wives. Those with integrity resist this strong, natural urge by staying away from those who lead them on, strip clubs, etc.
But if you really are that weak and can't resist temptation, then just stay away from friends and partners who would tempt you to have sex, just as the one who is trying to quit smoking should stay away from other smokers who would tempt him to smoke.
Resist temptation. But if you can't, stay away from it.
I suppose fatal congenital defects are proof of a merciful god too? What about children born with severe diseases and addictions? Crohn's disease? Leukemia?
Hey, I've got one. Maybe lithopedions are a shining example of God's mercy, too. Start digging into the dirtier side of biology and the whole notion of a "merciful" god is dashed apart.
I actually think the RU-486 pill is a great idea! Rather than these women going to a doctor for a quick and easy solution that they don't have to give a second thought to or watch what is happening or think about throwing the aborted baby in the trash, they should all be given this pill, where they can then go home, and would have to face and look at what they personally have done.
LOLFATTYKNEWWHO: I noticed that you never mention Satan, only God. What makes you think that God is all to blame? Doesn't God allow satan to roam the earth seeking whom "he is to devour"?
God told Man to stay in the garden of Eden and he didn't listen. Now look what we have unleashed.
wow, just for the sake of argument lets say you are right and there is an old white bearded man floating around in the sky that watches to see if we are naughty or nice. I could care less what he thinks about what I said in the previous post because he is a sick, twisted, egotistical, self centered, sadistic, perverted a--hole. Basically all the human traits we endowed him with whe we created him, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
I would rather spend eternity in your fictional hell getting stabbed in the ass with a pitchfork than spend one minute in heaven with it's gates made of oyster spit and it's streets paved with shiney rocks kissing some sadistic, manipulative, egotistical beings ass that punished us for thousands of years because some bimbo he created in his own image did something she was told not to, You people, christians, muslims and jews, have the most childish belief system that you could possibly dream up and you are willing to drag the rest of us into endless wars fighting over which lie is more right than the other.
Are you suggesting that God is only responsible for the good stuff and not the bad? Because that's pretty simple minded. Hey, how about that time God slaughtered all the first-born in Egypt?
Didn't God create Satan knowing that he'd rebel? Whoops. Oh, and if you actually read the Bible and take a tally of the body-counts, God kills way more people than Satan.
@Freedom4Everyone If a mother is shopping with her child and a gunman walks in and starts spraying, wouldn't she fall on her child and absorb the bullets? If she is willing to die for her child in that situation, why shouldn't she be so willing in another.
But you have a point about religion. So why don't we legalize homicide, theft, and perjury? After all, those things are forbidden in the ten commandments, so isn't making those acts illegal forcing religious ethics on everyone else?
Better yet, let's say for argument's sake that I am not religious. That way you actually have to address my original argument instead of dragging religion into it, which I did not. Are you up for the challenge or do you need to poison the well a little more? And speaking of poisoning the well, go to wikipedia's list of informal fallacies and see "appeal to motive" and "appeal to spite".
My gosh look at all these comments, are we still in the 12th century or what.
It really really really takes a weak mind to believe in god. What happened to cause you believers to give up control over your own mind. Yes we all have at times given in to a slick salesman but then we come to our senses and realize we have been had, not the lord works in mysterious ways-oh well.
Just for a laugh, Its documented that Mormons babtize the dead so that the can have their own planet too, what do Christians do for folks who died before Christ? Like Zeus followers (they have many of the same holidays) Are they just screwed? I'll bet there's a subsection dealing with that.
What is needed most isn't banning abortions, it's getting people to be responsible and not get pregnant in the first place if a child isn't desired.
If all the effort spent trying to ban abortion went to this goal you'd see much better results since banning abortion is just going to drive it underground again, not stop it.
Also, if you think abortion is murdering a child, state why. It cannot survive on it's own so isn't a "life." If you believe it is because it has a soul, then you are forcing your religious views, which many people do not agree with and cannot be proven, upon others.
Once again the right wing religious nut jobs get the facts wrong. RU-486 is not the 'morning after pill' Unhappy. RU-486 is specifically designed to abort a fetus. The morning after pill is simply an increased dosage of the hormones found in regular birth control and is designed to make the uterus reject the implantation of a fertilized ovum. No implantation means no pregancy. Big difference from abortion there Unhappy. If you choose to engage in intellectual debate you really should learn what the hell you're talking about first.
@CommonSense: A newborn baby can't survive on it's own. It needs to be fed. Before baby formula it needed to nurse. So I guess a newborn isn't a life either?
Faulty reasoning argumentative. I am referring to breathing, existing for even a short amount of time.
lolfattynerdwhoknew: Are you saying that God is only responsible for the bad and only deserves your attention when something goes wrong? Because if that's all God has to do to get your attention, then its working.
You want to talk about the first-born in Egypt during the time of Moses? Fine. Everyone knows that God did away with the gods of this world in each of the pestilences. For example,
the " Sun god"- God covered the earth with darkness to show that he had dominion over it.
The list of pestilences goes on and on until finally God killed the remaining god of this world which is:
"Pharoah( God on earth)" - God killed all the first born of Egypt.
Anyone who had studied the bible would know this.
@CommonSense: BUT YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT, NOW DID YOU? YOU SAID IT'S NOT A LIFE BECAUSE IT CAN'T SURVIVE ON IT'S OWN. IF YOU MEANT BREATHING YOU SHOULD HAVE SAID IT. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WOTH MY REASONING; YOU CHANGED YOUR ARGUMENT BECAUSE YOU KNEW I HAD A BETTER ONE. IT'S CALLED USING EQUIVICAL TERMS (LOOK IT UP ON WIKIPEDIA's LIST OF INFORMAL FALLACIES).
But ok then, I'll play. So let me ask this: if a child is born alive but can't breath and needs to be assisted by a machine to breath, does that mean it's not a life? If a smoker looses his ability to breath and needs to be put on a respirator for the rest of his life, should he be pronounced dead?
Not what I'm saying at all, but I don't expect you to get the point.
@Common Sense Ed,
If you consider the anti-choice end game, IE. banning birth control outright, it becomes much clearer where they are at socially. They long for the days when women were property, did not vote and knew their place.
They are weak and controlling women makes them feel important.
Notice its always the woman who must keep her knees together. Not lead them on.
I can't help but wonder why my comment was collapsed. I wasn't advertising, the comment was no more inflammatory than Agnon's response (which, buy the way, did nothing to logically address the argument and instead relied on red-herrings) and apparently it has value because five people agreed with it. But I guess other people who disagreed with it couldn't think of a logical counter-argument, so they got frustrated and flagged it instead of just choosing to "Ignore This Author"
RU-486 isn't the "morning after" pill. That's "Plan B". RU-486, what she took, is intended to terminate a pregnancy. The morning after pill, prevents the pregnancy from occurring.
It all goes to show ...... don't trust a friend with information that can hurt you ....
"But if god is real, you're in deep doodoo!" Whoever said this is an idiot!
If you believe in god, you realize that god put the dinosaurs here first for over 200 million years... NO, he didn't create man first! He didn't create the sun first off and then the earth!!... That's how ignorant people would see it over 2,000 years ago.. But, people still cling to that stupidity. The universe started way before the religious dopes started talking about how we got here and then created a cult that has lived on in ignorance for 2,000 years...
Their cult has killed more people than anything or anyone in history! If the dinosaurs get close to 300 million years, shouldn't man get close to 300 million years too?? Because judging from the religious idiots on this planet, I'd say somebody is going to blow up the world in the next 1,000 years...
NOW!!!! YOU THINK THERE IS A GOD?? WE'LL HAVE SOME 45,000 YEARS, THE DINOSAURS HAD ALMOST 3,000,000 AND STUPID MANKIND WILL DESTROY IT ALL IN THE NAME OF RELIGION IN THE NEXT 1,000 YEARS!
DO YOU THING HUMAN BEINGS ARE STUPID NOW??? HOW BOUT THOSE TERRORISTS? THE DUMBEST PILES OF POOP AND IGNORANCE ON THE PLANET. I HOPE THEY ROT FIRST!
RU-486 - the drug that this woman took, is NOT the "morning after" pill. What she took was a medication designed specifically for medical abortions. The "morning after" pill - Levonorgestrel - is commonly known as Plan B and contains the exact same ingredients as standard oral contraceptives but in higher doses. If taken early enough - typically within 3 days - it will prevent conception and pregnancy before it occurs. But, if a woman has already become pregnant before she is able to take the medication, it WILL NOT terminate the pregnancy.
So WOW - last I looked a woman cannot get pregnant without SPERM - that is what a male produces
Where is the responsibilty of the male to wear a rubber?
You say "a woman" decided to have sex - yeah all her idea - and you guys are just innocent bystanders
You want to prosecute women - fine prosecute the men also
I have had it with you hit and run boys and thats what you are just boys - 3 minutes of pleasure and to hell with the mess you leave behind
Fine let's make it a crime to have an abortion as long as the men are charged equally - little WOW
Do you think you could get that through Congress?
And now you have Abortion laws in Idaho... Religious fervor laws of anger and unyielding ignorance! In Idaho, we want it all our way, the religious way, or else you ain't a American!!
I got news for all of you! An American always stands up for their rights! That's why people in Idaho look so stupid in the West!
It's time to see religion for what it is... A good way to start morals in children, but a bad way for people to become worldly and more well-rounded! It's all about their own religion, it always will be and that's why "WE" as Americans have always sounded off to KEEP RELIGION OUT OF POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT!
Long live the USA. Religion was not a building block, it was something that always found it's way into people's thought, but it was specifically excluded in our government FOR ALL THE RIGHT REASONS!
IT'S LEADS TO CORRUPTION IN THE CHURCH AND VICTIMIZATION FOR THOSE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE CHURCH! That's why America has always had Son's of the American Revolution, just like me.. My mother was a DAR from the south. She knew religion was one-sided and unaccepting if you didn't follow the Church..
@Barbara: If the man hits the woman in the stomach to abort the fetus, then yes, by all means, prosecute him.
But I have a question: If the woman had an objection to the man not upholding his responsibility to wear rubber then why did she not make him put on rubber?
Wait, wait guys, what god are we talking about?
If this is about fertility, is it about Hera?
There are so many god/gods/goddess/goddesses, I am really confused and trying to wrap my mind in all this deity/god business.
Common Sense
21 days after conception the fetus has a heartbeat, look it up. Any entity that has a heartbeat is what we call life. Women are implementing a holocaust under the cover of "rights", several million pregnancy's a year with just less than 20% aborted and 1% due to rape or incest. This issue doesn't need to be dealt with from a religious point of view, a common sense approach is all that is needed.
Women are not only to blame, many Men are responsible for forcing Women to abort to rid themselves of the responsibility of the child. If you were to perform this act on a dog you would go to jail, now you tell me if this culture and society has their priorities straight.
It's not an issue of "rights" but more of an issue of what is the right and morale action to take.
As the great Gloria Steinem once said, "LISTEN HONEY, IF MEN COULD GET PREGNANT, ABORTION WOULD BE A SACRAMENT." Yep. And there would be an abortion clinic on every corner. I may not be an Obama fan, but this is one area we agree on. He once said he didn't want his daughters to pay for a mistake. Right he is, the only time he is.
I am not a one issue voter and therefore, will vote for Romney. BUT, I did have an abortion in college at 10 weeks. I have no regrets. My only regret is that I had a stupid, drunken one night stand with a friend. And the sex wasn't even good. The only time in my life I did not use birth control and I paid. Boy, did I pay. Prevention is what we should be aiming for. Condoms are not that expensive.
But women SHOULD ALWAYS have control over their reproduction and not some old, white dude. 77% of the anti-choice movement is made up of men and none of them will ever face an unwanted pregnancy. They can all slag off. Even with 8 years of Reagan, anti-choice, and 8 years of that idiot, George W., abortion is still legal. They know the reality of illegal, back alley abortions. It will never be illegal in this country again
Unhappy = yet another IGNORANT PRO-birther who doesn't know that RU 486 is NOT the same as the "morning after pill". WTF... do you people ever research ANYTHING before your flap your jaws and make yourselfs look like like fools ??
http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecnotru.html
Olivia
I'm sorry to hear you had the experience of an abortion and you claim you have no regrets, other than the drunken one night stand, but possibly sometime in the future when you get on the other side, you may be confronted by the gift you conceived and explain why he or she was rejected.
Doesn't matter whether it is legal or illegal, this only deals with man's rule, the reality is that it is morally wrong no matter how you disguise it.
Gemini618:I am not talking about the Plan B pill. Don't you know that RU-486 is called the "morning after pill" in Europe which is why she was able to get it online?
Maybe you should research instead of " flap your jaws and make yourselfs look like like fools ?"
Thank you, Barbara Adams Jackson. You took the words right off my keyboard!
I also am sick to death of men taking absolutely no responsibility and then making the woman out to be a murderous slut who should have kept her legs closed and her panties on. It's truly sickening.
Sex takes two. Making a baby takes two. An egg must be fertilized with sperm. When an unwanted pregnancy occurs, it is often the male who suggests abortion. It's so much easier for him than taking responsibility. One procedure and he can tidy up his life real nice. She, of course, goes to hell. If the woman refuses the abortion, she is on her own. Nice.
Dave Simpson, I'm standing next to you, too. I have had it with others trying to shove their religion into our government. Who do they think they are trying to change the foundations upon which our country was built? They just can't be happy with the freedom to practice their religion. They have to force it on the rest of us. I'm always amazed at how they just don't get it; by their skewed perception and delusive ideals.
Religion and government just don't mix. The government is supposed to serve US. We do not serve IT. So, if they want to mix the two, just whose version of religion is it we are supposed to adopt? Who decides which collection of religious stories we will accept as law? Who interprets those laws? How do we know they did it right? Do we take everything literally? What about science?
Yeah, I just don't like where this is going. And I'm sure I'm not alone!
Actually, Vince, vets perform abortions on dogs all the time. Cats too. It's called spaying. If the dog or cat happens to be pregnant at the time, the pregnancy is ended when the uterus is removed. They even charge extra.
No, our culture does not have its priorities straight. It's evident when you compare an extremely difficult decision that is not made lightly by any woman, to a dog. Yeah, thanks for that.
See, I told you I wasn't alone!
Chuck Leipold and the other so-called men like you, when you can carry a baby for 9 months, with all the danger that entails, not to mention labor and birth, you get a say so. Until then, um NO!
The mortality rate for women who carry and give birth is significantly higher than those who have abortions. And even using the birth control I am using, there is ALWAYS the risk of pregnancy. I use the best contraception out there, the Paraguard Copper T IUD and there is still a chance.
My husband and I don't want children. And even once he gets his vasectomy, there is still the risk. If I got pregnant despite all my attempts to prevent it, I would run, not walk, to the nearest abortion clinic. I have known since I was 15 years old that motherhood wasn't for me. Yet I love my 6 year old niece with a ferocity I never thought possible. I would give my life for her. So until you get a womb, you get NO SAY!!!!!
This story points out the only moral answer: Work together to make abortion safe, legal and rare. That means, explicitly, stop opposing abortion, and turn all your efforts toward helping prevent unwanted pregnancy. If there was a health care provider able to safely offer abortion services in her town at an affordable price, then we wouldn't be talking about this. If there was enough of a focus by society on providing all the support necessary (including a change in societal perspectives on the matter) to prevent pregnancy until a child is explicitly desired, then many cases like this would simply never occur.
At least that is what they thought until they understood what a solar eclipse was.
Religion did do one thing thing quite well though. They suppressed scientific advancement for for over a thousand years. They also did what they could to eradicate all science already established.
Can't have people knowing that a bush struck by lightning and catching fire isn't really their God by proxy.
As was already pointed out for Unhappy's edification, here is a write-up about the differences between RU-486 and the Morning After pill. This is a direct cut and paste so any words after the line of asterisks are from the write-up and not my own words.
************************************************
What is RU-486?
The abortion pill RU-486, otherwise known as Mifeprex, is a pill that blocks a hormone necessary to sustain pregnancy. When followed by another medicine, misoprostol, Mifeprex ends the pregnancy. The regimen includes use of Mifeprex for ending early pregnancy up to 49 days from a woman's last menstrual period.
How does it work?
Mifeprex is a pill that blocks progesterone, a naturally produced hormone that prepares the lining of the uterus for a fertilized egg and helps maintain pregnancy. Without progesterone the pregnancy cannot continue and the lining of the uterus softens, breaks down and bleeding begins. Mifeprex is followed by a prostaglandin misoprostol, which causes the uterus to contract and helps to complete the process. 5-8% of women will need a surgical procedure to end the pregnancy or stop heavy bleeding. Day One: 3 tablets of Mifeprex administered orally. Day Three: 2 tablets of misoprostol administered orally. About Day 14: A follow-up visit confirms that the pregnancy has ended.
Are there any side effects
I should know about?
What is the Morning After Pill?
The Morning After Pill, commonly known as Plan B® is marketed as "emergency contraception" - a backup method of preventing pregnancy - and is not for routine use. It can reduce the chance of pregnancy when taken as directed up to 72 hours (3 days) after unprotected sex (if your regular birth control method fails, or if you've had sex without birth control).
How does it work?
Plan B® contains two pills taken 12 hours apart that contain a higher dose of levonorgestrel, a hormone found in many birth control pills that healthcare professionals have been prescribing for more than 35 years. Plan B® works in a similar way to prevent pregnancy. Plan B® will not affect an existing pregnancy.
Are there any side effects
I should know about?
The choice is yours. Choose to know.
Wow! A lot of side affects. What are the side affects of having an unwanted baby?
The government has no business with what somebody wants to do with their body. Too many laws and control, we want freedom from government!
I understand that in some states, or it used to be, suicide was illegal but the government never prosecuted a single person. Stupid laws!
This Abortion issue is just a something we will never agree on here in America, We seem to be the only industrial Nation that still fight over it. And America was suppose to be about freedom of religion. I stopped going to Church many years ago. I was so sick of going to Church every Sunday and seeing all those Hippocrates, I kept asking my self what would Jesus think of all of us. We weren't living as Jesus wanted us to live. We didn't help those in need, Hell you were not welcome in that Church unless you were well off. God forbid a poor person would walk in and set down, but there was always someone at the door to make sure that didn't happen. I have read the bible front to back 2 times. But never once did I ever hear a preacher, preach what the bible said, they always gave there spin on what they thought Jesus was saying, And the people would set there and eat it up like a fat dog. When you read the bible for your self, You would see that Jesus never wanted man to have these Huge buildings to hold serves in, so called places of worship. When Jesus walked the earth spreading the word of God, he didn't need an Alter to speak from, and he never passed a plate for people to give money. In fact he feed them, He feed the spirit. Jesus Died on the cross for calling out the High Priest for taking from the poor and living the high life while the people were striving to death. Kind of like here in the USA.
Abortion is the same thing, No one really is for abortion. But the same people that don't want a woman to have a right to have one, are the same ones that don't want us to teach people how not to get Pregnant in the first place. How much sense does that make. O sense. You see there is to much money to be made here. I watched a argument or debate if you will in the 70's with a Dr. and a guy from anti abortion side. The Dr. really hammered this guy. The Dr told this guy that he could put him out of business if he would just teach these kids how to not get PG. in the first place, But if you did that, then you would be out of a job too. What is that saying, Me thinks you protests to much. And the fact is, most men push women into a abortion. Does anyone remember when the Reps were trying to Impeach President Clinton. Bob Barr lead the charge. He said the President has sex with a young lady. We all know that is why they were trying to Impeach Clinton, But what Bob Barr didn't tell us is that he was messing around with a woman that was not his wife. And he didn't tell us that he got her pregnant, and he didn't tell us that he took her right down and got her an abortion, even though he didn't want other women to be able to get abortions. Do as I say not as I do right Bob. Funny how people want to force there wishes on others, but don't want to do the same for them self. I bet these so called good Christians would rush there white daughter for a abortion if she got Knocked up by the black QB from school. What do you think?
Since as many as 40% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, Who should be responsible for that? What about people who are brain-dead but are being kept alive? I will give you the common sense approach: It is no concern to you what so-ever. You chose to believe that a fetus is a human being, other people see it only as a potential human being (just as a sperm cell is a potential human)
I don't understand how people can label a single-celled bacteria "life" but refuse to give that designation to a fetus. A five month old fetus is alive!!!
Throw the book at her. This is homicide.
Are you suggesting that killing bacteria is wrong?
If you're going to play fast and loose with language, then you deserve the be ridiculed in this manner.
Are you saying that killing a five month old fetus is right?
You can't kill a five-month old fetus in any state of the union without there being a genuine medical emergency. Not even Roe V Wade gives people that kind of permission.
When you kill that old of a baby it is fetal homicide. This is not a legal abortion anywhere in the country.
Women have more birth control options, including pregnancy termination. Men have two options: use a condom or don't have sex.
Women also have all of the reproductive rights. I can't stop my pregnant wife from getting an abortion if she woke up one day and decided she didn't want to have the baby. As far as the government is concerned, I'm just a sperm donor until it comes to collecting child support.
Women have more rights and more options; therefore, they are ultimately responsible.
I'm saying that you get to determine whether terminating a pregnancy is "killing" anything when the pregnancy is in your body and you DON'T get to determine whether terminating a pregnancy is "killing" anything, when the pregnancy is not in your body.
So, in other words, "sometimes". Thanks for being at least that honest about this.
What about the body on the back porch, that one wasn't her's..........
Can someone please explain why my tax dollars are supposed to support someone's unwanted child?? If someone wants an abortion, then they should get it.
C'mon everyone knows that this is the sky zombies wish.
Can someone please explain to me why I have to pay for other people's birth control and they still refuse to use it? It's bad enough when someone claims rape or incest, its another thing when it is just their stupidity.
Perhaps we should stone her.
Perhaps you would remember this situation next time you claim that abortion is never misused.
You said it, not me.
WiserThanYou has a point. Everyone agrees that we, as a country, are broke. So do you want to spend $400 on an abortion or $200,000 raising the kid for the next 20 years? If you, as a taxpayer insist that she can not have an abortion, then you are morally bound to pay for that child she already decided she can not afford.
There are a lot of things I am not happy about. There are a lot of things my tax dollars gets spent on that I do not agree with. That's all part of how the game works; if every American had a line item veto on every tax dollar, we would never get anything done ... including the things that are important to me.
As a taxpayer, I would rather be out $400 this year than to spend $10,000 a year for the next 20 years raising that child she did not want ... her reason just does not matter. If she thinks she needs an abortion, she will get one ... just a matter of whether she lives thru it or is dead in an alley.
C'mon everyone knows that this is the sky zombies wish.
Wow your ignorance has no bounds.
Gorion: Why do all your posts include zombies? You need to get out more.
unhappy - you, and your little stoning commment are why many are thankful for separation of church and state. Otherwise, you and your flunkies will have the US living in an Iran-like theocracy faster than you can say "zombie".
And since you apparently don't get out much, the zombie thing is a trolling young male agnostic's way of referring to Jesus. You know, he rose from the dead, the undead - like a zombie is dead but walking around, it's a joke.
Hey gordo,
A zombie is not like your saviour how? (an animated corpse brought to life by mystical means)
Quick check your book written by herdsmen thousands of years ago, yah that passage fits kinda.
BTW: Biblical references Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" etc.
Turns out you books is full of Romneys.
So, which is it?
$400 for abortion or $200,000 for raising the kid to the age of 20.
I am sure you don't want either and like to condemn both the mother and child as "parasites" to the rest of their nature life.
Happytimeshereagain:
I didn't mention stoning, "systembroke" did. But it is just like you liberals who like to put the blame on christians .
Yeah, it wasn't a funny joke.
Unhappy. Why are you so unhappy? Why do you think you have the right to force you wishes on someone else. If you choice is not to have an abortion then that is fine. But you have no right to tell others they can not have an Abortion. A lot of these women are forced to have sex weather they want to or not. This women that this peace was about, sounds like she has 3 children she can't take care of already, Her Hubby ran off for a younger woman most likely, and she chose not to have his 4 child to raise by her self. She had 3 others to think of also. I know your a good Christian? So I have to ask. How many children have you adopted? Unless you have adopted several of these unwanted kids then you need to back off and take a good look at your self. Judge not less be Judged your self! May be then you change your name to happy.
Unhappy I also have to say. I am a Christian, but I do not go to Church, I have been closer to Jesus sense I left the church. Most people that call them self's Christians are on that for 1 hour a week, come Monday morning they start sinning again, They seem to think they can go to Church and been seen, Ask forgiveness and go right back to sinning again. I look at Mitt Romney. He made his Millions by steeling from others. There is no other way to say it. He bought company's and loaded them down with debt, took the money he borrowed, gave him self bonuses and stole the retirement funds and let the company go bankrupt. So he stole from the banks and employees, and the tax payers got the bill for it. But I guess Romney don't call him self a Christian now does he. But there are many more like him, they hide behind that Cross, they think we will not know they have done if they call them self Christians. I say as a Christian that we should not let this happen. If you want to stop something, stop letting these kind of people hide within Christianity.
I'm shocked, shocked! The 9th Circus has once again affirmed it's ruling that an abortionist's right to make a killing is absolute.
If only the complications of this issue could be reduced to your simple reasoning. Thankfully, the court, at least in this case, delivered the best solution.
Our society would be so much better off if religious ideology were kept out of our secular government.
I'm shocked, shocked! The Religious Right-wing is still trying to tell us that they are "pro-life" -- while calling for the DEATH of anyone who dares to oppose them.............
She should have been tried for murder. This would have been a later pregnancy and all the BS about it not being a real child is exactly that...... BS.
This was not a group of cells anymore, people!
Funny how liberals like to play dumb when they just proved a republican's argument!
Im shocked, shocked! The political left embraces Islam over Christianity -when it is clear that the first order of business for Sharia Law would be to eradicate all leftist propagates, supporters and sympathizers because their views are considered too evil to bear in conjunction with the Haddith of the Holy Quran.
I think Unhappy is one of the Seven Republican Dwarves, and instead of "Doc" - they have "Pope".
I'm just not the gullible one who falls for the sob stories told by liberals.
It's only a killing if you're: Right Wing Religious Extremeist and completly numb to the LAWS OF THE USA THAT "THE PEOPLE" HAVE MADE! That's right, it didn't include you because YOU DON'T RESPECT OTHER PEOPLES VIEWS, ESPECIALLY THE MAJORITY (with education as not in your case).
We have pound the pulpit, hold up the Bible and say: Holy Jesus, there's a man or woman here who believes in the almighty and he doesn't like it when other people get pregnant and they don't have a baby!!
They are killers in his or her eyes! Oh, Holy Ben Jesus, it's time everybody became religious like me and end this rational and educated approach to birth control! Let's stone them and call them the witches they are!! If they float, they are witches to be killed! If they sink, they were witches, glad you're dead you unreligious pagan!!!
@riley-1759556
You need to have your head check. If anything, this is to show you that Christianity and Islam shares many common thing including control on what a woman can and can't do.
Dave
Would you perform this act on your Dog? Would you abort the the pregnancy of your Dog if she was going to have 6 pups and you didn't want that many dogs around because you couldn't feed them all?
Guess what, you would go to jail! Can't do it. Ask Michael Vick about abusing animals.
But if we're talking about a human, no problem, slaughter as many as you want cause we have a law that says it's okay. Do I have this rational right? This is the mindset of an intelligent human being?
I'm not performing any act Vince. If I had dogs, I wouldn't abort any of them, because I would love them all..
If a 14 year old girl got pregnant from her 17 year old cousin and didn't say anything for 4 months... I'd say, this is an intelligent human problem.. Not a religious exercise.. I wouldn't discuss 6 puppies with her, because she's a human being. She has more brains than a puppy Vince. She also matters more than puppies, Vince. Because I'm a Buddhist at heart, I wouldn't say you'll go to hell if you don't have that baby like Vince wants.. I wouldn't say anything that isn't a fact, Vince.. And for sure, your god is not a fact... You won't respect that now. You won't respect her and you won't respect anything after hearing that except you're own narrow view of yourself.
That's how blind you can be (in the eyes of god).. Because... Even if god can't see you, I can, and I realize if there were a god, he would probably pity you for your lack of logic outside of religion. I forgive you. You don't need to stone anybody anymore. You don't need to victimize and crucify the one's who don't follow your narrow belief. You only have to demonstrate to yourself that you are logical and a fair human being to others... So.. TAKE A YEAR OFF AND THINK FOR A WHILE!
No, not at all.
Did the dog give informed consent for you to abort her pups?
Did the Human give informed consent to abort her fetus?
See the difference? Probably not.
What up with the Michael Vick reference anyways? Animal abuse relates to an informed decision how?
Dave Simpson...wonderful post bro
Fortunately, there are courts that protect citizens' rights from those who want to impose their religious beliefs upon others.
Fewer and fewer.
Thank goodness for the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights!!
So....an unwed mother of three out in Idaho has another one on the way....(Big Surprise), decides she doesn't want this one. So.....she waits longer than 20 weeks and decides she doesn't want to drive the 123 miles and pay for "Legal" abortion....so she takes a pill and kills the fetus. Sets it out on the back porch.....hoping the coyotes would run off with the evidence?
This is wrong on so many levels it boggles the mind.
We can't talk about involuntary sterilization though, can we?
She kills the fetus beyond the legal date in Iowa and gets a pass. Free to go get knocked up again and kill another fetus.
If she had been in a car accident and had suvived but the developing baby inside her had been killed would the other driver be facing vehicular manslaughter charges?
I am for legal abortion because I don't want to see a society where women are getting abortions in back ally "clinics".
I understand the argument of anti-abortionists.
There is simply put, no solution to this question that is going to satisfy everyone.
"Under the law, the appeals court said, women in McCormack's position have three choices: To carefully read Idaho law, violate the law or not get an abortion."
NO, She had a fourth choice: To abstain from sex and NOT get pregnant.
Well didn't the guy also have the option to say no to her?
Mebbe it was a virgin pregnancy.. OMG, she aborted the second coming of Jebus!!
pro1070 seems to be one of those Religious Fundamentalists who believe that it's always -- and ONLY -- the woman's duty to abstain from sex.......
Just think, without their Mommy insisting on on having Daddy forcing her to wear his undershorts, pro1070 wouldn't be here to spew their Religious Fundamentalist garbage.
pro1070 seems to be one of those Religious Fundamentalists who believe that it's always -- and ONLY -- the woman's duty to abstain from sex.......
Nope but in the end it is her decision as much as anyone else. So because it isn't her sole decision it isn't her decision at all? Really?
The man is already stuck with whatever post conception decision she makes regardless of what he wants.
I say we enact legislation that says if the man decides he doesn't want the child but she does, then she gets the bills. After all it was her decision. No more 18+ years of payments to someone you'll likely resent.
NO, She had a fourth choice: To abstain from sex and NOT get pregnant.
Exactly!!
@Gorion Read my post below. I pretty much make the same point you're trying to make. Except I still do believe that the father should have to pay child support.
The issue was after she got pregnant, not before, so the abstaining from sex wasn't an option, legally.
Agnon Mema seems to be one of those guys who believe that 80 million Americans proven by statistics to consider themselves Christians will not bring those values into their political views/affiliations/voting habits.
Yet people like him probably will be easily characterized as bringing having propensity to bring their secular and often self serving attitudes to the voting booth.
Hmmmm. How myopic and one sided.
THat's right, she had a fourth choice... Not have sex! Perhaps never have sex again!! Would that make the church happy?? To finally have a depressed and sex starved woman in need of companionship, then the church is happy as long as she doesn't have sex where the condom breaks??
Is that the clincher?? The condum breaks and all of a sudden you're the anti-christ!
Yes, the Church is ignorant, the religious people are ignorant because they can't get out of their own way! They always feel guilty because that's the mind control the Church puts over them!
They have no independent thought. It's all from the church! Mind control and money!
Marriage would be great for companionship.
When are we going to start legislating against the penis? What is always the vagina?
We already do. If a woman wants to kill my child I have no choice.
If a woman decides to keep a child I don't want I have no choice.
Where is my choice?
deleted
Word!
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, lawmakers argued that fetuses start feeling pain around 20 weeks.
...and how did they determine that? So, that's when we all get in line for a lifetime of it.
When are we going to start legislating against the penis?
yup. And it is the man's sole responsiblity to pay child support to the woman that kept the baby that he didn't want. Personally, if they want to be fair about it, the man should be allowed to have a virtual-abortion. Namely, make a court statement saying that he didn't want to go through with the pregnancy and made his wishes clear, so if SHE keeps it, SHE pays the child's way herself.
Absolutely correct j, otherwise it's gender discrimination.
He has a choice; keep it in his pants.
The sex act is obviously not determinative under the law in whether or not a person accepts parental responsibility.
@Steve and so did the woman.
Steve and Argumentativebutfair (which I'm not finding terribly accurate, btw) - they both had a choice. And men, if you don't want to end up paying child support for the next 20 years, use a condom! It's not that difficult. Frankly, if I were a man engaging in a casual sexual encounter, I wouldn't place as much trust in the woman as some men apparently do.
If the woman didn't want a child, then she should have used a condom. Like you said, "it's not that difficult"
A female condom? I don't see the reasoning behind doing that when male condoms are easier to use and have a much lower failure rate. After all, if the goal here if to prevent pregnancy then we are looking for the most efficacious route, right?
@PDL, Not all condoms are 100%. I can preach to the choir all day long about using condoms, but, since the generational gaps between safe sex, party sex, and hook up became the style, loyalty went out the door with the freedom the (false sense of security) condom protection provides, it does not stop the animalistic attraction that repetitive alternating sexual partners has on one's sense of safety. One only need to look as far as the increase in teen pregnancy to know, early education about sexual desire and reproduction is key. Education on the results of becoming pregnant, the influence of sexuality on your personality, and the influence of abortion and associated guilt that follows in most, but not all cases. Even the (ROE V WADE plantiff is now PRO LIFE after a lifetime battle with her associated guilt, not just from her own abortion, but her actions that created such a craze since.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey
@MrR - I believe I acknowledged that when I said that male condoms have a much lower failure rate. I recognize that no birth control is 100%.
However, I highly doubt that all these unwanted pregnancies result from failed birth control. It's possible that some result from improperly used BC. These are all poured into the same statistic, although they really shouldn't be. Human stupidity is not the same as product failure.
And yes, as part of the hook-up generation, I know all about early education. To be honest, I find my generation's cavalier attitude toward sex shocking, but I doubt it will change anytime soon, so it's best to do what we can toward preventing pregnancy and STDs.
Well said LJ!
We all understand its the woman's body, but if the baby is feeling pain then it should'nt be aborted. Just my opinion, since the baby has no say in it.
Since it's all about the ability to feel pain, we shouldn't be eating anything at all. After all -- even a carrot feels pain.
even a carrot feels pain.
ahahahahahahahahahah you funny
There was a large carrot in my bag of baby carrots I think it was an adolescent carrot.
Doctors have performed in-utero surgeries on a fetus as late as 30 weeks into gestation which passes that magic 20 week "fetus can feel pain" idea. So my question..is the surgeon performing these in-utero surgeries sans anasthetic or is there a way they are reducing or eliminating fetal pain? If they are anesthetizing the fetus by administering a local or general anasthesia to the mother, could this same procedure be used in cases of abortion? If surgeons aren't using any kind of anasthesia, it is OK because the fetus will survive even though on a living, breathing human already born we would consider surgery without anasthesia a form of torture?
Not advocating abortion thogh I am pro-choice but the argument about no abortion post 20 weeks due to fetal pain, in my mind, is questionable if we have ways of eliminating that pain. My main argument about not disallowing abortions is the idea of medical necessity due to humanitarian reasons or life of the mother..too many pro-life fanatics won't even consider those points.
Or she could just put the baby up for adoption. She didn't have to kill it. Very sad.
Tell you what, YOU adopt an unwanted baby. Until you do, you have no right to tell anyone that they should put a baby up for adoption.
The time of choice is prior to conception. People should be stuck with their stupidity.
We should take a survey of kids who have been put up for adoption but haven't been adopted yet. The question would be if they would rather have been aborted than put up for adoption. I bet they would all say yes (sarcasm).
Gorion - wake up bro. Yes, it would be great if it were as simple as - "People should be stuck with their own stupidity" - but it ain't that simple bro. All of the low income kids that would be additionally born - who do you think is going to pay for them? All of the additional kids in school - who's going to pay to build those additional schools, hire those additional teachers, admins, janitors, etc, who'd going to pay for the additional school buses and the free breakfasts and lunches? Who's going to pay when there's probably more kids in low income areas causing crime? Who's gonna pay for all the medical attention those low income kids need?
If you looked at it in a cost effective manner, you'd be all - give them abortions. And let's be realistic, our country needs to start looking at things cost effectively.
It's time people. We must outlaw menstruation. All those cute, cuddly pre-born half-babies having their lives mercilessly cut short, ending up in a sanitary napkin or tampon. It's just so cruel. They suffer half-pain at that age you know, my religious leader told me so. And then we must outlaw men ejaculating more than one sperm at a time, thus saving millions more of those cute, cuddly pre-born half-babies, which we desperately need to keep our under-populated species going. Join me at Phacekook.calm and help save the half-babies!
At the same time take responsibility for your own actions. If you didn't want to get pregnant, than don't do it. She had option since she already has children to support.
You've obviously "forgotten" that diaphragms and condoms sometimes do not work. Same with "the pill" (birth control). Oh, right, nobody should ever have sex at all, ever, unless they "happen" to have a job, a spouse (of the opposite gender, of course) and a house with at least three bedrooms and two bathrooms...............
Tell you what, you don't tell me that I can't get a tattoo -- and I won't tell you that you can't get that nipple piercing. It means stay the @!$%# out of other peoples' personal decisions.
Amen to that. and how about you don't tell me not to kill my born baby, and I won't tell you not to kill your unborn baby.
Everyone knows this. So again the choice was made at conception. You know there is a chance you can get pregnant no matter what precautions you take.
You do the crime you do the time.
Having sex isn't a crime. Most people, married included, have sex without wanting a child. Prude.
Wow talk about missing the point totally.
Your point seemed to be that if you have sex you risk pregnancy, which is true. But you wrote:
which implies you think one should be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against their will simply because they had sex...which is wrong. Medical science has created options.
Birth control (pill) is actually extremely effective if women would use them correctly. I have heard failure rates between 5-8%, but the failure rate would be under 1% if they were used CORRECTLY. That means taking them at the same time every day and not missing days.
I am pro-choice, but with all the effective, safe, and easily available options for birth control there should be fewer abortions than there are (and do not try to tell me all those pregnancies result from failed birth control).
argumentative...HUGE difference between the born and unborn. You kill a baby that has been born and yes, that is murder just a if you had done so to a living, breathing human.
I don't necessarily approve of abortion but knowing that accidents that casue injury or issues with the developing fetus may casue issues, abortions can NEVER be outlawed. Let me give you a couple of scenarios. One was in talking with an OB-GYN nurse who participates in deliveries, the other happened to a friend of mine.
1. Mother is told her developing fetus has no lungs or a lung size that will not allow the fetus to survive birth or will die within minutes. She is told the child, if born alive, will suffer as they basically suffocate. They offer the choice to abort and the mother flatly refuses. Child is born alive and placed in her mother's arms where she dies, in agony, in the space of just a few minutes. Family is obviously upset but say it was a beautiful moment as the mother got to hold her daughter as the baby died. Not one talks about the sorrow over the pain they caused the child.
2. A happily married mother of two children, in her fourth month of pregnancy, is hit by a drunk driver while driving to her doctor's appointment. The resultant injury to her abdomen is fairly severe and doctors indicate that without surgery, which would result in aborting the heealthy/uninjured fetus, she won't survive. If she dies, the fetus would as well since a fetus at 16 weeks geatation could not survive outside the womb. Mother makes the obvious choice to have the surgery and abort the fetus; after all she has a husband and two children. Her parents and sister refuse tot alk to her or even acknowledge her as their relative due to the decision she made. She has gotten more emotional issues from that than the decision to dare to live to be there for her already existing children.
In the first case pro-lifers would say the choice was fine and the child wasn't aborted and was allowed to live even for a scant number of minutes, even if in absolute agony..in case 2, they would say the mother made the wrong choice as the fetus was healthy and uninjured and should not have been aborted regardless of the fact that if the mother had died, the fetus would have also.
Pro-life is a great concept but unrealistic as other incidents exist. Being a pregnant woman, a living, breathing AWARE woman, should not be a felony death sentence in the event of a required abortion to survive as in case 2 or for a humanitarian reason like in case 1, just because people out there would say no abortion, no time, no exceptions.
So what you're saying is that the entire pro-life movement is punitive. It's not about the unborn, it's about punishing the woman who made the mistake, or "crime".
That's something you might want to think about.
We kill the unborn and call it choice, how about being truthful and call it what everyone is afraid to say, MURDER!
then we shot the abortionists and call it justifiable ...... everything is what it ain't anymore just out of convenience and political correctness, like black is white and evil is good!
Are you advocating the murder of abortion doctors?
"We" kill people whose only "crime" is to be different from "us" -- and "we" call it "pro-life"........................
Agnon Mema: like your pic there (trail of tears). So it's ok to slaughter unborn children--then I guess you believe trail of tears was ok--essentially the slaughter of native americans. ????? OK.
Well just to play devil's advocate so to speak. If it's ok to kill children and people we don't agree with, why not doctors too?
Maybe we should outlaw killing amoebas as well. They are cellular entities as well. They may not grow up to be a person, but cellular none the less. Trying to legislate things that happen on a cellular level ends up being too complicated to enforce. If you believe life begins at conception, then how will you enforce a no abortion law when held up against a egg that was fertilized but didn't implant itself onto a uterine wall? How will you one know that they have conceived at the very moment of conception? Do we insert electronic sesors in the uterus of every female before she hits puberty? Is that really where you want to go? Do you really believe that would be small gov't.? Or should we just put cameras in everyone's bedrooms to see when, where, and with whom each woman is having sex with, just to get a better idea of when a conception takes place? Think about it.
Gorion,
It's not o.k. to kill children. What a sick idea.
Move to California Idaho is the state of crazy people.
True that.
right, because we all know California has everything under control. I mean just look at how well they're balancing their budget.
Matter of fact, Idaho wasn't such a bad state until those californian who believe their state was going to fall into the ocean back in the 70s migrated. Plus the land & taxes were cheaper.
Here is a story we learned in fourth grade about personal responsibility:
Once upon a time there was a school girl named Sally. She was generally a good student and never got into trouble.
There was also a boy named Tim. Tim was a lousy student. He always got into trouble. Tim's parents always told him that school was only important if you wanted to be a doctor or a lawyer.
One day Tim offered Sally offered Sally a cigarette. Now, it was against school policy and the law for her to smoke, but she accepted. Just as she was lighting up they heard the administrators coming down the hall. Tim quickly ran away. Sally tried to run but tripped and fell. The administrators caught her with the cigarette. She was suspended.
After the story, we the students were asked to identify who was ultimately responsible that Sally got caught and punished:
A. Tim
B. Tim's parents
C. The administrators.
D. Sally
Now you would think that Sally would be the correct answer.
now here's where I add a little to the story:
Sally didn't think she was at fault. I mean after all, Tim pushed her to the decision to smoke. Shouldn't he at least receive the same punishment? In fact, in order to maintain fairness, she believed she should not be punished because Tim was not. Now she wouldn't be able to go to the school dance. But Tim could if he wanted. To her that was unfair, and as long as Tim got away with it, so should she. Also there was this really cute guy she wanted to go with, but now she couldn't. Therefore it would inhibit her sex life. Plus the administrators were being unfair anyway by forcing their values on her and telling her what (not) to do with her body by saying she couldn't smoke at school.
Now for my sequel to the story:
Sally grew up and graduated from college. She met a man named Tom. One day Tom asked her to have sex. Now, she new there was a risk of getting pregnant, but she accepted.
She did indeed get pregnant. But when she asked Tom if he would support the child, he said no. Now she believed the situation was entirely not her fault. After all, Tom pushed her to the decision to have sex. Now she was being punished with a child. And he was not. Now she couldn't go to med school. But he could if he wanted.Also there was this really cute guy she wanted to date, but a child would get in the way. Therefore the child would inhibit her sex life.To her this was unfair because as long as Tom got away with it, so should she. But fortunately, the government was more fair than the school administrators, so she was able to get an abortion.
You see, Sally was a liberal, and the first rule of liberalism is that there should be no negative consequences for your actions if there was someone who helped you in the action who doesn't have to share in said consequences. This is true even if you knew before taking the action that the consequences for you would be different.
For example:
If you get pregnant, you should not have to support the child, because the person who helped you get pregnant isn't pregnant himself.
If you have child out of wedlock, you should be treated as the victim and not be blamed for the situation, since someone else contributed.
If you take out a loan that you know you can't pay back, you shouldn't have to deal with the negative consequences, since the bank gave you the loan.
Likewise, if you are a government and borrow too much money, your country shouldn't have to deal with the negative consequences of austerity, since it's all the fault of the banks who loaned you the money.
Now, there are still a lot of extremely judgmental people out there who would blame a smoker for his poor health even though we all know it's all the cigarette company's fault for selling him the cigarettes. But hopefully after a few more years of society becoming more progressive, that will change.
You made some very good points.
However, you lost me at the government loans. Europe has proven austerity leads to bankruptcy. Besides until the military budget is on the table all this talk of austerity is merely a charade to make the poor even more so.
We spend waayyy too much on the military and if you even talk of cutting their budgets you would think the country was going to collapse.
As an example. The Republicons cried like babies when Clinton cut the military. We were going to be defenseless they cried. This is the same military that jr. took into two wars. Funny how that military that was too weak to defend us because of Clinton, has successfully prosecuted two wars while maintaining all of its other duties.
Until you fox news fed righties figure out you're being lied to we're all in trouble.
So, the GOP is like the guy who pushed the cigarette on the girl and then ran and left her holding the bag. Reminds me of what Bush did, only he tossed the mess to President Obama on the way out the door!
I agree. Military funding is one of the few issues where I lean left. Can you believe we have ELEVEN aircraft carriers patrolling the oceans.
One good thing would be for us to close all our overseas bases and stop trying to occupy the whole world.
The military does need to be cut, I would say by as much as one half or even three-quarters. But that alone won't eliminate the budget deficit when we spend our entire revenue on entitlements.
close the bases in europe for sure. let them worry about their own defense... and cut everything across the board, including entitlements...
Argumentativebutfair, you are anything but fair. Also, just for your information, liberals are just as diverse in their opinions and actions as conservatives are. When you lump them all together and generalize you lose the argument. Your story examples don't fly. Did you know you spelled "she new" when it should have been "she Knew"? Just wondering.
Have you heard of soft porn? Could you be practicing soft hate??
Fine. I meant she knew. And maybe I'll change my name. Happy now?
You know what Obama's new slogan is for this year?
Yes, we can, but (insert excuse here).
Abortion should be legal until the age of the 'fetus' is 18. What's the difference? You're killing a kid, for your own selfish convenience. I'm all for a woman controlling her body. Control it, tramp! DO NOT get pregnant!!!
You're ignorant.
I agree with Meghan about your ignorance, why in the heck does everyone blame the woman, unless she "forced " the man to have sex with her? By the way how does one know if a woman is a tramp, are you pschic Kamille?
Kamille, you are living in a fantasy world. In the real world, contraception fails, women get raped, incest is rampant and some women cannot afford to have a child. You need help.
more rights, more options make the woman ultimately responsible.
If you want males to be more responsible for abortions, then they need to have more reproductive rights.
If you're not willing to trade, go cry somewhere else about it not being fair.
What I don't understand is why are the liberals so quick to get pregnant, when according to the Obama Administration they are given all the free birth control they want. Sandra Flucke who spoke at the DNC, said in her speech that an average female liberal needs $3000 a year to pay for her birth control. LOL (I don't know how she even had time to speak)! Now that's a huge amount of taxpayer money that is going twoards birth control. So, in my thoughts, there is absolutely no reason a woman should be getting pregnant with that amount of birth control unless it is just pure negligence. There are no mistakes in getting pregnant with two consenting adults. Only laziness and pure neglect.
You really like to throw the word liberal around. You should step away from fox news for a bit. I think they corroded your mind.
Isn't it kind of contridicting when you say pay for my birth control, but if I get pregnant and don't want to be the taxpayer can pay for the abortion also? Go figure! Sounds pretty liberal to me and a little bit on the socialistic side, wouldn't you say?
I highly doubt you could define socialism without google.
So, when the liberals (me being one of them) want the ability to have their insurance cover bc at no extra cost to the employer, the right wingers say the boss should get to decide. Since bc would prevent most pregnancies, you would think the anti-choice camp would be all for it. There would be less need for abortion if bc was easier/cheaper to obtain. The far right also wants to cut social welfare (but not corporate welfare) and yet also wants more mouths to feed due to their stances on not getting bc from insurance if the boss objects on religious grounds or not allowing abortions if the bc fails or someone get pregnant and realizes they can't go through with it.
BTW - at no time did Sandra Fluke or President Obama say that bc should be provided by the govt but I hear that lie spread every day saying the liberals want free bc paid for by the taxpayers.
so you want the government out of your vagina when it comes to telling you whether or not you can have an abortion, but you want the government in your vagina when you want them to pay for your birth control or your abortion? if your boss has to pay for your birth control, does he get to use it too? maybe he gets round one from that trojan 3-pack? as a taxpayer, do i get to take my turn on you with one of the condoms my tax dollars pay for?
Bd
All we want is for our insurance coverage to cover birth control. Which, btw, most have for years. Insurance companies actually like to because they know full well that the cost of birth control is much, much less than a pregnancy. Especially when the pregnancy is complicated.
Add to that the fact that birth control is actually used for many more medical reasons than just preventing pregnancy the question becomes why not cover it. We pay premiums.
Oh, and why aren't the MEN who seem to be running this issue not squalling about insurance coverage of Viagra and other impotence drugs? Might it be a double standard? Men should be able to have sex whenever they want but women should do it only for procreation! That, my friend, is most certainly a middle ages attitude.
Sorry, women have been searching for birth control methods and abortion methods since they figured out why their tummies grew and a baby came out. Science has finally done away with the need for the ineffective herbal remedies or a visit to the 'old lady who lives on the put skirts of town'. And we're not about to let some uptight old Bible thumpers send us back into virtual slavery.
hey dsb! Goodaseeya still kickin'.
It is interesting that there are those who are using the religious angle on this. If we are to believe that sex is only for procreation then mybe if man can't get a stiffy mybe that is "God's" way of telling him that his time reproducing is done so there for there is no need for Viagra. Just a thought.
well, if you are paying for your own abortions or birth control, do as you please. if you are paying for your own insurance, great. but when you ask or expect your employer, or the taxpayers, to foot the bill, then they get a say in the matter. and i sure as hell dont want, and dont think anyone else should be footing the bill for someones boner pills either.
i'm not an uptight buble thumper, i'm just a fed up taxpayer. tired of both sides making it a public issue. there are certain things people need to take responsibility for themselves, and sexual relations and baby making (or not making) are two of them..
BD-540164
Your statement does not take into account, rape, incest, trafficking, and molestation by priests that result in pregnancies. The history of this issue is primarily that men do not want to take responsibility. Some men do take responsibility; but many, many, many do not.
Umm...wow BD - I find your attitude that employee or govt-sponsored insurance means that either of those parties get a say frankly shocking.
If you are not an uptight bible thumper, then certainly you understand that people have sex for reasons besides procreation. The people who use birth control are taking responsibility for themselves, and if they didn't use birth control we'd have a lot more abortions and/or unwanted children in this world.
Health insurance companies pay for birth control because it is a matter of reproductive and general health. Women who take birth control pills for 5+ years dramatically reduce their risk for ovarian and endometrial cancer (up to 80%, depending on how long birth control is taken). The pill also improves conditions such as pelvic inflammatory disease and dysmenorrhea, reduces symptoms of polycystic ovary syndrome, and lessens the risk of anemia. So remember the other benefits of the pill when you start complaining about paying for other peoples' "sexual relations and baby making".
@Diana
Does Birth Control cost money?
Does the HCA expect employers to cover the cost for free?
What business have you ever seen, not pass the TAXES, Costs, And Insurance on to their employees?
So maybe the govt is not paying for them, but You and I are, out of our base salary/pay. Why in the F#$% do I get stuck with paying for your birth control, when I've already taken care of my own with a one time surgery. Why am I going to be forced to lose "tax" money for your's or any other person's Birth Control?
Why am I going to be "forced" to "lose" tax money for your's or any other person's...
... blood-thirst to wage war on Muslims ...
... science-rejecting education ...
... venue subsidization for scouting ...
BD,
And when my tax dollars go to funding the Boyscouts via the DOD, Fire Departments & Public Schools? An organization that's not even ashamed of being bigoted, but get away by doing so under the realm of being a "private" organization? I personally find them distasteful, so why should I pay anything for them?
And why should I pay for Romney (and many others) so that he can take a $4 million tax deduction to give to the Mormon church so that they can send boys out to talk to people about a 6 foot 2 deity from the planet Kolob. (Did the math, and seriously, I pay $50 per year for that???)
Why should I pay so that the Catholic Church can get billions in tax breaks each year so that they can preach their message of bigotry and hatred?
Why should I pay into the trillions of dollars that we fought in a useless war?
Why? Because I live in a pluralist society. It means I don't get to agree with every idea out there. I don't get to "not pay" for things just because I personally find them distasteful. But I don't see pluralism as a problem that needs solving. We don't need a Sharia-like law that forces everybody to think and act the same way. Yeah, sometimes you're going to have to listen to people that you consider to be idiots, and pay for things that you find idiotic, but that's the price of freedom.
And I will go to war to protect that freedom - even if it is to just protect your right to talk to your imaginary friend.
So, suck it up. I most likely pay much more for your ideas than you pay for mine.
.
............................................_____— __
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?........................... ...........................\,
.................../.................................................. .........,}
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}
.............../.................................................. .,:"........./
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`..... ..._/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.\`~,......"~.,....................`..... }............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|........... ...`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,.............. .............`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\........ ..._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\
Hey Gorion, you with the potty mouth, is that a picture of Obama saying, "What have I done now?"
The truth is the Republicans are a hybrid Conservative / Liberal Radical in the true sense. They do not want to let gov dictate much but force conservative values on people from the gov. The Democrats really are not the Liberals here if you follow the actual definition in the study of political science. The are a hybrid Progressive Socialist view in that gov should be there to help the week and needy. Now the real socialist was Jesus Christ he felt we should help each other where ever we can. So if I advocate that we have more gov to help the sick and poor how is that bad. Does it not follow the teachings of Jesus?
Unconstitutional law is unconstitutional. Its time to stop kow towing to religious zealots. I dont give a damn whether they are offended, or dont approve. Too bad.
We non-religious want our freedom.
Right. In that case, shouldn't you be able to steal and commit murder and perjury, too? I mean after all, those things are forbidden in the ten commandments, so wouldn't making them illegal be forcing religious values on others?
LMAO! dont confuse them...
Crimes are crimes, and have nothing to do with zealots trying to force their religion on others. This isnt about the ten commandments, which by the way dont apply either. The law is based on the constitution and the bill of rights. Your religion has nothing to do with it.
That's funny, I don't remember it specifically saying in the Constitution that it's ok to make murder and stealing illegal but not abortion.
Abortion isnt murder. According to the law. Until it is, then its no ones business. Take it up with the courts if you disagree.
Our laws are based on the constitution and rights. Not the ten commandments. Every civilization one earth has laws against stealing, rape, murder, etc. Its nothing special.
Why? Because you say so?
No,.. because the law says so, try reading it some time.
So you agree then that if it was made illegal, then it would be murder?
Of course it would be, but you'd have to change the U.S. Constitution in order to take away individual liberty of people and give government power it does not have. I'm opposed to that.
P.S. I'm right with you so far Freedom4Everyone (love that name!)
No. Its already been decided that its not murder. Theres no undoing that. Science has already determined when a fetus becomes a person and has rights. All that can happen is adjust the point a little based on more science.
It will never be murder to kill a fetus. A woman will always have control over her own body.
Actually, a fetus is still classified as an organism. And all organisms have species. And the only species a fetus can have is homo sapien. therefore it is a human.
Thats your opinion. You dont get to decide. The people decide, and they decided its legal to have an abortion. This fight cant be won. Infact abortion is what will give the election to Obama. The majority of woman will not support abortion being made illegal. That goose was cooked long ago.
The people decide? But I thought you said science decides. And if the people decide, then you would agree that abortion would be murder if it was made illegal, because "the people" would then be deciding?
"The people" is not the electorate. Its the government. And the Courts (part of the government), are ultimately responsible for deciding law. They decided this law based on science and constitutional law, mothers rights vs babies rights, vs societies rights etc. Thats what I meant be "the people" decide. But how much the courts can change laws is not without limits. Thats why abortion can never be made illegal as long as America is America, and the constitution is upheld.. So yeah, if the country no longer exists, then yes maybe abortion will be illegal then. But even then, you Christians are the minority. So dont count your chickens.
Hey Freedom, yeah, pretty much the way I see it. Except it isn't that Christians are the necessarily the minority, it's just that you'll never meet two that believe exactly the same thing (which is why we rely on the Constitution). You're right, they'll never succeed in overturning Roe, because it's theocracy - and chaos.
First you say it's science, then you say it's the people, now you say it's the courts?
So the electorate isn't the people but the courts are?
You know the Supreme Court has the power to reverse its decisions? Are you also aware that the Supreme Court once ruled that states couldn't outlaw slavery because it was considered unconstitutional? Did America stop being America when that changed?
But let's say America does stop being America and abortion is outlawed. Would it then be murder?
The Supreme Court has overturned decisions in order to afford liberty previously (wrongly) denied, but never to take away individual liberty already found to exist in the Constituion. I don't wish you luck in your effort to do so (argumentative Republicans). Freedoms lost are extremely difficult to regain.
Okay, so suppose a constitutional amendment was passed declaring outlawing abortion. Would abortion then be murder?
If you're talking to me, I've already answered. If you make the law say abortion is murder, then it is; but you have to change the Constitution to do that. You have to take away individual liberty and empower government to dictate that women must endure pregnancy and childbirth against their wills simply because they had sex. Bad idea! If I were to attempt to change the Constitution, it would be over corporate 'personhood' - not over of the perfectly sane and solidly based Roe decision.
argumentativebutfair,
You seem to have a bizarre fascination in trying to get someone to say that if your own personal opinion gets legislated, then suddenly everyone else's morals must immediately change and all should yell 'murder most foul' at the top of our lungs.
No. It would just be another in a long line of bad decisions. Legislating a bad idea (e.g. the famous Governor Vaginal Probe one), doesn't change my view of morality just because suddenly the law now rules one way or the other.
If my 10 year old daughter gets pregnant after being raped by a priest, I'm not going to sit down with her and say: "Oh, honey, there are these old white guys that live 3000 miles from here and has never met you, nor anybody else in your situation, but they knows SO much better than we do on how to handle this situation. So thank God we have the GOP looking out for you and forcing you to carry this baby to term."
Of course not (And I dare you to say that YOU will). But even if you get your way and make abortion a crime, we will find other options. We're not going to abide to "morality according to 'argumentative'". Luckily for us most other countries in the world are sane on this one, and this isn't even a discussion. So hey, road trip! But a lot of people don't have this option. So you're really just enforcing your view on poor people - but any chance for the GOP to screw the poor, right?
G-Dog, I'm not so sure the constitution alone is ironclad enough to hold this up. There were 350 anti-abortion bills introduced in the states in 2011, and likely 2012 will have even more. It won't be long before some tea party nutcase finds a loophole (like the attempted Mississippi anti-abortion law) that abides to Roe v. Wade in word but in practice makes it impossible to operate an abortion clinic, and if at that point you have a right-leaning Supreme Court... well, you connect the dots. So we actually have to keep electing a congress that will uphold sanity, and can't rely on the Supreme Court alone. Sad, but it's the reality right now.
It wouldn't be murder. It would just be illegal.
Murder is killing a person. A fetus is not a person.
Hey Creeker! I believe if you learn to read you will see I was quoting the idiot above me and responded with a face palm.
By the way PBS still airs sesame street you should get back to it.
Gorion, you are very immature. It's funny how all of your posts don't make any sense at all and most of them get deleted. Your language is totally unacceptable. You need to go onto the next article and waste your time by trying very hard to exercise your brain; as you will be deleted there also......
I am pro choice but, I think it's reasonable to have some sort of cut off. I'm sure, if we left it to the women, most would be responsible but there would always be some who would see no problem with aborting after 30 weeks. Women, certainly, have the right to control their body but, at some point there is more than one body involved. I believe that, with help, most 24 week fetuses will survive. Do we draw a line at 24 weeks? Almost certainly, as our medical technology gets better, even younger fetuses will be expected to survive. As someone who is pro choice, this is a really tough issue for me.
Just for the record, I don't believe in abortion simply as a means of birth control, which seems to be what this woman is doing.
Unless you know more about her and her situation than I do, you don't know that she is using abortion as bc, If that were the case, she would have gotten one sooner when it was cheaper and easier. You don't know if there was a job loss or other financial setback. She could have had an illness in her family or lost her only means of babysitting, allowing her to work. There could be many reasons why she needed to have an abortion. I would prefer it be done much sooner, but I have not walked a mile in her shoes. I thought that Jesus said that judgement was his and not for humans to be doing in his place?
@ Diana: This article actually links to the court documents regarding this case. Taken from the court documents, the following statement is found: "McCormack does not want to have additional children. If she became pregnant, she would seek an abortion again." It is obvious she is using abortion as a means for birth control, and she is being irresponsible at best.
Roe v. Wade and the companion cases addressed that, tired, when the crux of the matter was pivotal upon viability. From a legal perspective, it was a wise move. The absolutists risk opening a rather radical and risky can of worms with the "personhood upon conception" idiocy, that would have long-reaching implications in a variety of legal situations. Rather frightening when thought out fully, actually. It would impact so many other situations, not just abortion.
As to your query regarding improved technology altering that window of viability, most medical specialists concur that it is unlikely that the window will ever be shortened much more than it is now, for an extensive list of biological reasons. You may want to check it out, some interesting reading there.
Ro Mar go back an read the story. Did you note her income and that she already had 3 children, that she no doubt has difficulty feeding and providing for and was undoubtedly thinking of them. Where was the father with respect to responsibility in this picture?? She probably couldn't even afford birth control on that income and still feed her children. If it were easier for her to access abortion services perhaps she would have gone sooner. Abortions legal or illegal have gone on forever and will go on even if made illegal; so much better to provide free birth control to any and all. History tells us that many men do force themselves on women even when unwanted; but, they do not take responsibility for this, or rarely do.
I am pro-choice and I personally think, as long as the woman's life isn't in danger, 16 weeks should be the cut off date.That's plenty of time to decide.
My son was born at 23 weeks via emergency c-section due to life threatening pregnancy complications. Today he is a happy, mostly healthy 8 year old. Not long after he was born, while being given a laundry list of tests they had run on him that day and seeing his tiny little body (the size of a Barbie doll) covered in wires and tubes, I asked the nurse, "Does he feel what you are doing to him? That has to be excruciating." The nurse's response to me was simply, "He'll never remember it."
Idaho is such a place of beautiful wilderness and abject poverty. From the extremes of right wing militias to hippies that love nature. The Republican Party has a real solid foothold in this state of contrasts. Their problem is that of education and the populace needs a lot more of it.
What a woman does with her own body is not up to you. It's not your business. If she had access to an adequate and safe abortion, she would not have taken the action she did. It takes two people to get pregnant, but only one person is usually responsible for the care afterwards. Your beliefs mean nothing. What you consider murder, others consider a medical procedure which will prevent needless suffering. And don't tell me adoption is an alternative! None of you care about the living child!! You want to cut food programs for the poor, cut education for the poor and everything else you can think of that benefit the living child, but you claim to have compassion for the unborn zygote!! Hypocrites! All of you! If you don't have a vagina, you don't have a right to an opinion in this matter!! Go ahead, let me have it. Show me how truly ignorant you are!!
Well Theresa, I fully agree with the "my body, my medical decision" philosophy; but I think you're wrong to say men don't have a right to an opinion and their own decision making ability in "the matter". We're talking about individual liberty here, and I do have an opinion when anybody espouses taking it away from any American.
theresa, if i have to pay for your vagina, then i am entitled to an opinion, i'm a part owner. the government, i.e. the people, do not belong in your vagina, either to tell you you can't have an abortion, or to pay for it. do whatever you like, on your own dime!
This has nothing to do with religion at all, that's just an excuse you all use. Murder is Murder period, vagina or no vagina. Once the fetus is a baby that's it, if you abort that's Murder and you should be charged and punished for Murder. As for cutting food, education, etc. for the poor, well we don't have much choice now do we. After all the Illegals, etc. coming into this country and eating us out of house and home, paying mostly no taxes. I would have to think you are a Democrat, you talk like one that is for sure. You all just want to take and take and take from those who do well for themselves and give it to those who should not be in this country, or those who are mostly lazy and don't want to work. Being poor does not give you the right to commit Murder. You sound like someone who does not think a government should have the right to make a person where a helmet to ride a motor bike. After all a person who rides a bike should have the right to do with their body what they want, right. Heck no, when these person's fall off that bike or are in an accident and get brain damaged, who do you think has to pay that bill for ever that runs into the millions, us good people that had nothing to do with it. So, you can take your it's my body, I'll do what I want, and put it where the sun don't shine. I for one am sick of paying for other people who don't care about what they do. Laws have to be created for those people, so the others don't have to foot the bill.
I pay taxes too, moron!! What gives you the right to pick and choose what it pays for? If I am willing to contribute to the whole society through my taxes, IE: wars I don't believe in and tax cuts for the rich I don't believe in. Then I should be able to contribute to the well being of the woman who is pregnant. If we all pay taxes, what gives you the right to say your opinion is better than mine, or should count more because you don't agree with me? As stated above. If you can't carry a pregnancy, you really don't have a right to an opinion. And, if we get to pick and choose what our taxes go for, I choose not to fund wars, tax cuts for the rich, subsidies for oil companies. I choose to give free lunch to children who's only meal that might be. I choose to contribute to education so we don't produce even more ignorant people such as yourselves. Or should I say selfish! It's not your business. It's not your choice. It's legal. FEDERALLY LEGAL! States that hinder a woman's access to care, are in violation of the law. How utterly ridiculous. You care more about the unborn zygote than you do about a living child!! Go ahead, keep it up. If you really think women are going to take this crap much longer, you've got another thing coming. All of us are going to remember this in the voting booth.
Yes, this election will be settled by the female vote - and the Republicans are going to get a whoopin'! They deserve it.
you want the government out of your vagina if it comes to telling you what you can and cant do with it, but you want the government in your vagina when it works to your financial benefit? taxes should only go to things that the public has an interest, an equal share in, nonexcludable. so, are you telling me that your vagina should be public property, an essential government owned service for all? uncle sam better stock up on condoms...
BD Are you really that ignorant? Nevermind. I know the answer to that.
nope, i'm just fed up and want a little "return on investment"
Well sure, men have a right to their opinion - and that's all it is, an opinion. They should not have a right to be part of a decision whether to seek an abortion.
When men can carry a child and are the primary caregiver of children (as a societal norm, not the exception), thereby delaying their careers, incurring high medical expenses, and enduring the risks that come with pregnancy, THEN they get a say.
I agree, PDL, the decision to carry a pregnancy or abort is completely up to the female and if she decides to carry - that is her decision alone. The male, under Gender Discrimination Law, is equally entitled to individual decision making ability as to whether or not they wish to accept parental responsibility. We do not tell women they must accept parental responsibility simply because they had sex, and we should not say that to men.
I agree with you G-Dog, even though unfortunately that is not the case.
Well said Theresa.
BD,
Your questions are confusing. How are we taxpayers paying for abortions?
I know that a few are payed for by taxpayers in the case of a rape or incest, but other than that, I've heard nothing about taxpayer money funding abortions.
It's one of those many lies the Republicans have to tell to rationalize their existence.
This would be fine, if men could opt of of being fathers of children they don't want; however, it's ultimately the woman's choice if a man becomes a father.
Men are only sperm donors until it comes time to collect that child support check.
Save the whales, Kill the unborn humans!
I am not religious at all, and I still think that this has nothing to do with morals. It has to do with when the fetus is a human being. If there is no medical reason for the mother to have an abortion, and the fetus is at a stage when it is a person legally, then I think it becomes Murder. Murder is a crime and the mother should be charged and punished. I do not think that abortion should be used as birth control at all, and those who just figure..oh well, if I get pregnant I will have abort, that is wrong.
Raddar, under the law, it is not murder, because the fetus was not viable. Thus, she cannot be charged with murder. Perhaps you have noticed in various news articles over the years, for example, when a pregnant woman is hit by a drunk driver and killed. In some cases, the drunk is charged with two deaths and in other cases, the drunk is charged with a single death. Whether or not the drunk is the recipient of multiple charges will depend on "viability." The drunk cannot be charged with terminating a life that may or may not have come into being. Many pregnancies do not end in birth for natural reasons, such as miscarriage. Once the fetus is viable, however, the drunk has indeed terminated two lives, which now can be proven, and is charged accordingly. Conversely, if the pregnant woman was only 22 weeks along, the fetus would not have survived as a viable person, so the drunk has only, with certitude, terminated a single life and is charged with that. Absent that certitude, prosecution would be impossible on the fetus. It simply could not be proven in a court of law that a homicide had occurred.
My question is if she wanted an abortion why did she wait so long into the pregnancy??....After all she was well over the half way point.. and why would she keep the fetus on her porch.??? That sounds more like there is something mentally wrong with her...And now she has filled suit even though the chares were dropped... That doesn't sound right.....
Well the article doesn't go into it much but I suspect it's due to the fact that the nearest clinic was so far away. Sounds like she simply coulldnt afford to do it so she took a cheaper way out.
But it brings up a good point. Had she been given better availablity would she have used it. I suspect she should have her tubes tied. I would be willing to pay for it to keep her from getting pregnant again.
Well that's just it, if you are poor then you may or may not have Medicaid in the state you live in. You can ask to have your tubes tied but even with the best insurance they will turn you down unless you meet certain criteria. I think it probably took a lot of desperation to do what she did. I don't like it. I'm pro-abortion because I don't believe in bad childhoods but I believe in prevention first and foremost. And I'm a little freaked out about how far along the pregnancy was but still I can't judge her. I have witnessed first hand how women live in poverty like conditions with their unsupported children and how it's near to impossible to keep your self-esteem intact. She probably survives from day to day and her quality of life is very low. What we are doing as a society is not helping. Wouldn't it be great if there was some sort of sterilization that did not harm the body like the pill, was a one time procedure - no daily drug taking - side effect free and completely reversible. If it could be cheaply done and freely given it may change the world.
She's a cold-blooded murderer.
To throw her 5-month old baby's body in the trash like that is just sick.
Have you read what some southerners think about her pregnancy? Not allowed, can't do it.. No chance of finding a clinic to help find a family to adopt... The whole thing in Idaho smells of INTOLLERANCE!!
It's too bad people become so full of their mind control faith that they can't see their way clear to make a choice that would be good for the girl... They start thinking about the baby and don't even hear the story about the conception and the problems surrounding the birth...
It makes me sick to think that we have so many conservative right wingers in the nation.... NO wonder the idiot GW Bush got elected a SECOND TIME!!
Too many idiots, and it's time to put them to rest...
Wasent a baby, it was a fetus. Do you feel guilt whenever you have your period that that could have been a baby if only it was fertilized?