Legal Abortion Is a Fundamental Right -- Why Do We Often Forget That?

Honky, your irrationality and mis-quoting of women betrays your legal quest. ..... A child's right to have support from both parents has nothing to do with ending enslavement of women to mandatory pregnancy. The only true "pro-life" position is the free woman free to choose her life or risk her life in a chosen pregnancy. ....... forcing either abortion on her as in China or some brutal men dragging women to an abortion clinic, it's rare but it does happen...... such force is rape ...... the threat of force, denial of support, insane religious concepts intimidating women into an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy is the rapist theocrat and brute cultist in action ..... rethink your attack on women and your lack of responsibility to any child a woman flatters you with bearing to term

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

demand it. YOU ARE A FUCKING ASSHOLE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First, no man is ever faced witn an unwanted pregnancy because no man ever becomes pregnant. Second, the Constitution doesn't include any actual words about pregnant men or the right of privacy, but the right of privacy exists just the same, whether you like it or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If over 50% of the population would like to fund the abortions for those who can't afford it, then the elected representatives ought to vote accordingly to allow it.

Vegans who would rather not support any kind of animal exploitation with their portion of the public funds, can't do much about it. Those against dropping bombs in cities with their portion of the public funds, can't do much about it. Similarly, those who would rather their portion of the public funds not be used to support the killing of fetuses in abortions, should come to terms with public funds being used as the majority deems fit. Since we are far from an ideal democracy, we are in a situation, where a minority view can make its way into law on account of deal making towards getting some other laws passed. The sooner more of us learn to think of public funds as public funds, as opposed to taxpayer's money, the sooner related changes can happen.

If we as a society want to give individuals greater control on where their portion of the public funds should go, that would be a welcome change (note that everyone's portion is equal, regardless of how much individuals pay in taxes). When a large portion of the public is strongly opposed to funding something, then those issues should fall under the category that people can opt out of. Hopefully others will compensate in their allocations enough to make up for it. Vegans can opt out of all animal exploitations, pacifists can opt out of funding arms, anti-legalized abortion people can opt out of funding abortions.

Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I still do not get the argument unless this a pseudo socialists plea for more handouts. Or should it be for more federal pork. In fiscal reports the current per capita federal spending on medical issues amounts to $ 7833 per living breathing human within the constituency of these united estates. How the money is disbursed for the target solution is questionable but the results are typically Americana and those at the bottom of the crumb chain in distributions are the least likely to benefit.

The issue comes to not fixing the problem after the fact which sadly to some unreasonably labeled people is an offense to basic human dignity. It is heading the issue off at the pass before it becomes a problem. Whether the issue is taken care of by some seasoned medical practitioner or some coat hanger in a God forsaken alley.

The known demographics of people who seek abortions apart from the poor who just like to be porked without a thought to the consequences. After all it is probably the worlds cheapest and most fulfilling entertainment. Those would be the females reaching their twilight fertility years or the already well brooded inconvenienced types. We should not discount the ever growing triste porks that result in a badly fitting choice within the context of being happily, financially and legally established with a pregnancy resulting in a DNA incompatible baby with what is already secured, jeopardizing the nest.

The ever increasing argument for all children to be DNA tested for familial ties should be a priority for all males.

For goodness sakes the habitual procreative habits are inbuilt at the outset. Despite the dangers, putting a rein on the production of children whether wanted, oopsied or just another inconvenience is getting beyond a joke. Of course the elites don't need the production of children anymore and they don't care who does the deed on their behalf under a clean hands doctrine. After all very few of us are elite to the elite qualification standard, though many would delude themselves into thinking so. That policy would of course be until the elite change their minds. Sure enough the doctrines of necessity as practiced in intercontinental state craft seems to hint at this causal interest. After all it would seem that death is big business in increasing volumes throughout the world whether young or old.

If we read the press correctly a child can be legally aborted by a female until emancipated without much ado. So what is the issue ?. There is no argument anymore whether it is a good thing or not to have an abortion. The trend and legal position is established. So just go and abort yourselves silly nobody is denying the right to do so, other than personally case by case interested parties if disclosed and allowed input.

I am personally against one taxpayer dime being spent on this issue, so find another way. Obviously education doesn't work and the simplest of solution appears to have missed the boat. Creating a legal environment producing mass jail bait for males only and Kafkaesque type laws is not working either that well is running dry. So what is next, I suggest we just use the bell curve as the data set and practice what Sangar preached openly before feminism in it's current form replaced it as a panacea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To hell with this ridiculous BS.
If I am forced to endure the pregnancy along with it's own risks and evasive procedures- then men have to be subjected to the same intrusiveness of Gov't.
Mr Johnny Appleseed can't make those Child support payments- snip snip!
The Fact that there is absolutely no discussion from the so called 'Right to Lifers' about reducing Unwanted pregnancies or eliminating reasons for abortions proves they have no real interest other than to increase Births. They are 'Birthers', Not 'Lifers'. If they were they would also be demanding all forms of assistance to mothers and children-Instead of screaming for Cuts in those 'entitlement and welfare' programs that would afford you that Latte a day.
I have yet to hear a Rightwinger ask 'What is happening to the Children during this massive Foreclosure, unemployment and bankruptcy fiasco?'. They would not vote down SCHIP either.

Red or Blue or something inbetween Ladies, It's time the boys are held to task for their end of the situation.
Woman have been left to handle their irresponsiblity as well. Have even be coerced or forced to have abortions. Let's no longer entertain the fallacy that men do not benefit as well by the option of Abortion. oops knocked up the mistress, the one night stand, my secretary.The Mrs ain't gonna like that. Voila, problem solved. And the woman still gets to cope with that aftermath as well.
We have allowed the insinuation- if not the direct accusation- that woman can not keep their legs closed is the sole cause of pregnancies. We have also even heard sick innuendos about woman giving it as much regard as a 'White Sale'- BillO announced with a pitchman's glee that Dr Tiller charged $5,000 for a late term abortion. Like that was the only thing holding woman back.

It is just as Unconstitutional ( and Inhumane) to force a woman to give birth as it is to cut the balls off men, because We both have Birth Certificates- that trumps anyone or anything that does not,Right? Can't have your Cake and Eat it too, Boys!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

to an abortion. The right to privacy was loosely interpreted ( and it was a stretch) to include abortion - as an advisory opinion although they got around that issue in this case.

But regardless of the legality and moral considerations of abortion insurance rarely if ever, pays for elective surgery. Abortions where there are health considerations is a very different matter!

Covering abortions would be the same as covering breast surgery, face lifts, lipo etc..etc...

Use your own money if you want to play!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm a longstanding taxpayer. I believe in legalized abortion as a reproductive right. Abortion is considered immoral by some so my tax dollars cannot go to legalized abortion in a government healthcare plan. I believe war is immoral and evil by any standard. I am against war but my tax dollars go to supporting endless war, anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The whole issue becomes mud until the essence of the issue is examined: When does life begin? It is ridiculous to say that a one-day old fertilized egg is the same sensate, living, breathing, feeling individual as a nine-month old fully gestated baby. Just because it is hard to isolate the dividing line does not mean that the two opposite ends are the same.

Abortion early on is not a "killing" of life. If a person wants to believe it is, its fine for that person. But that narrow view must not be imposed on someone else who believes that life is more than an egg.

The issue isn't "privacy right", it's a matter of definition. And until a person is defined as a person, than the mother has the fundamental right to dispose of it any way that she sees fit. And she should be able to do it in a safe manner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Frances Kissling is right on target. Opposition to freedom of choice on abortion stems from a malignant patriarchalism which uses the unscientific and unbiblical notion that human "personhood" begins before the brain is wired up for consciousness (some time after 28-32 weeks) to build public support for an attack on women's findamental rights. Who can deny the old saw that "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament", or disagree with the view that if women were proportionately represented in the US Congress and state legislatures, the abortion rights controversy would fade away? Women and non-patriarchalist men need to stand up and be counted. -- Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty, www.arlinc.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Genesis 38:24. Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at the time. This was positive proof that she was sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.

Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus.

Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums up the passage:

"Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death."

Halacha (Jewish Law) does define when a fetus becomes a nephesh (person), a full-fledged human being, when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a "partial-life". The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life, it gains full human status after birth only.

Abortions are not permitted for genetic imperfections of the fetus. Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health. With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women. Each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law.

The Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 69b) states: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born. Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and the Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nephesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression, "the thigh of its mother," i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body.

This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic Law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus. If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman is killed, the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.

There are two additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of its mother: One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is owner of both the cow and the fetus. Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion also applies to her fetus.

Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases. one case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except mother's milk, then it would starve. An abortion would be permitted in this case, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.

Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism are formally opposed to government regulation of abortion. They feel that the decision should rest with the woman, her husband, her doctor and her clergyperson. Some Orthodox authorities agree with this stance. Polls show 90% of American Jews supporting abortion rights.

The New Testament is more permissive than the Old. Paul claims Jesus told him three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee" (II Corinthians 12:8-9). Christians misinterpret this verse to mean they're free to do as they please--ignoring Jesus' and Paul's other teachings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"....it sent the message that abortion was immoral and that no taxpayer should be obliged to pay for something they think is immoral."

I believe that war is immoral, yet my tax dollars are being used to fund both of these immoral wars of Empire! There are many things that get funded by tax-payer dollars that are against what many people say they believe, but they are funded never the less! I would be far more willing to have discussions with the pro-life side, if they actually had the convictions of their professed beliefs. For example, pro-life should have them fighting for Single-payer health-care, yet they are silent! Being pro-life they should be vocal against these wars, yet they are silent! Pro-life should mean that they are adopting or fostering kids in the system in droves, yet they are not! Pro-life should have them opposing the death penalty, again silence from them! On and on ad nauseum!

Yes abortion is the law, and in the shouting matches that ensue - this is the reality that has been silenced! And the women that have been really affected by the Hyde Amendment have been poor women, because comfortable middle class woman can/will/and have the money to pay for that service. If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one; and for those men that are so against it well just ensure that your wife/girlfriend/partner knows how you feel up front - because most of the time it is the women that are left with the children! You know the still under-paid, still over-worked, still not quite equal women that have to provide for these children that not enough people are adopting or fostering!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Induced and therapeutic or elective and sponteneous abortions all have the same result, a dead glob of stem cells, embryonic flesh or a tiny fetal mass in the first 12 weeks of any pregnancy....
..................... for any woman to ask for medical help in such a situation, she must have equal access to that help, not just wealthier women who have the cash in our hateful patriarchal society. ..........
................ The less common abortion is second and third tri mester abortions, almost all are done in cases of very young / obese / raped girls or willing moms who learn of defective/dying fetal things or their lives are at risk in deadly pregnancy situations. ...... More than mere sacracment, if men could get pregnant, there would be songs of celebration, ritual and theology classes for fully informed medical facts of every risk in pregnancy and then for their freedom from this pain and imposition, a daily morning prayer as the Jews do have "thank gawd I am not a woman."......
....... Very few would choose to push a ten pound bowling ball out the end of their penis nor have a surgery to remove a "baby" from their swelling penile flesh that would measure 23 inches across when the fetal skull is not poised just inside the glans......
......... and most men would not claim that their gonadal system easily recovered full pleasure and function just days post partum and submit to a woman demanding intercourse with the scarred, sutured and swollen male groin. .... lastly mental health treatment for men suffering post partum depression would be protected by legislation and fully funded in every hospital religious and secular along with abortion, condoms, spermacide, yeast infection and research on male stem cells. ....
.........the bottom line is that we live in hate filled male dominated societies where rape, abuse, honor killings, slavery, live cremation with dead husbands and the objectifications of women as far less than human and that do elevate male embryonic potential far above all other "life." 843-926-1750 Larry Carter Center .......... Dial An Atheist
..........Life begins with a willing healthy mom and her choices must always be for her rights and no parasite can claim supremacy over her nor theocracy force her into submissions

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If a woman doesn't want babies, buy condoms they are cheaper and better for your health, everybody knows where babies come from, better close your legs on time, a baby is not a health "problem" is her choice to be selfish to put pleasure before reason, so using public funds for abortion is as immoral as using them for a lipo, perhaps lipo is more justifiable as obesity is considered a health problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It accepted the racism that lay buried in middle class hostility to poor women, “welfare queens” and the “sexually promiscuous”—all those who might be expected to look to Medicaid to pay for abortions—whom the rest of us should not support.

So let me get this straight...we don't want to pay for abortions, so we want these same "welfare queens" to have more babies, particularly those they don't want, so we can what, complain that they're sucking up more welfare dollars? Which is less of a taxpayer burden? An abortion that costs a few hundred dollars or a child that will have to be supported for its life? How do we expect these women to get jobs and get off of welfare if we're forcing them to have these babies? Even if they work up until the last minute before they give birth, they won't be able to work while taking care of the kids if they don't have anyone else to do it. Last I heard, a three month or one year or two year old baby couldn't be left alone.

It will, in some onerous way, make it exceedingly difficult for women who get their insurance through whatever “exchange” exists to get coverage for abortion.

And sadly, not just those women, either. Any woman who is paying for her own insurance out of her own pocket. What a great deal - we just gave another free pass to the insurance companies, who shouldn't have to cover anything, lest their poor dear executives end up in the poorhouse with tens of millions instead of hundreds of millions.

I think "penny wise and pound foolish" certainly applies here. Pay out the big money for a far longer time, bitch about doing so, then bring up your phony "morals" to keep the "welfare queens" you so despise. And while we're at it, let's create more, from the pool of women now who aren't on welfare, but will be forced to birth unwanted babies, without enough income to support them.

Oh, yeah, this makes sense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The pro-life movement desperately needs religious diversity. Pro-lifers should welcome people of other faiths and those of no faith. Not everyone in the United States is a Christian. This country wasn’t founded by Christians; many of America’s founding fathers were Deists. There are other faiths, besides the Abrahamic faiths. There are other holy books out there besides the Bible or the Koran, like the Bhagavad-gita, which also claim to be the word of God.

I really have a problem with pro-life Christians who adhere to double-standards: e.g., they insist their stand against abortion be applied to everyone, including others who may not share their faith, but then they embrace moral relativism when it suits them, e.g., “Your religion says it’s wrong to kill animals for food, clothing or sport; mine doesn’t.”

There are Christian vegetarians and vegans, of whom I have the deepest respect. I don't take it seriously when meat-eaters say, "The Bible permits us to eat meat," because the Bible was also used to uphold human slavery. The Bible can also be used to justify abortion.

Can you imagine 18th century Christians telling abolitionists, "We don't need to free our slaves...That’s 'good works’…we don’t have to ‘work’ for our salvation...All we have to do is accept Jesus...Paul said Jesus told him three times, ‘my grace is sufficient for thee,’ ...we don't need to free our slaves..." ?

Or how about an 18th century Christian preacher who tells his followers, “You don’t have to free your slaves…All you have to do is accept Jesus.” ?

None of the religious arguments pro-life Christians make to justify the status quo with regards to animals would make any sense if this were 300 years ago, and we were discussing the abolition of human slavery instead of animal slavery, and I think the same holds true with regards to abortion. I'm surprised pro-choice Christians haven't tried to deny rights to the unborn using the same religious arguments pro-life Christians use to deny rights to animals!

We really live in a secular society. Secular arguments are religiously neutral and are thus applicable to everyone, including atheists and agnostics. The pro-life movement already has the support of organized religion. Instead of preaching to the choir, i.e., wasting time with religion, pro-lifers should focus on prenatal development, genetics, DNA, RNA, etc. to make their case to mainstream secular society.

Again, the pro-life movement desperately needs religious diversity. It's already stereotyped as being predominantly Christian (Catholic, fundamentalist, born again, etc.) and will need to become completely secular as it attempts to extend human rights to the unborn, i.e., convince the courts, legislatures, universities, philosophers, ethicists, etc. that human zygotes and embryos should be regarded as legal persons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If this can be argued as true
"no taxpayer should be obliged to pay for something they think is immoral."

Then I want my tax dollars out of Iraq!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have absolutely no sympathy for women who can't afford an abortion, not being able to get the government to pay for it. Are women really just that stupid? That's what liberals are claiming it seems. Do women not know where babies come from? Do they not know how they are conceived? Act like an intelligent human being and do what you need to do before starting a life, instead of expecting everybody else to fund the murder of your child after you acted so irresponsibly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are you kidding me, "Legal Abortion Is a Fundamental Right"??? In what universe? The Universe of Death. If that's a fundemental right then long live the Fatherland! This whole web-site is full of stories about abuses, injustices, corruption, hypocrisy and you don't see the evil and the degradation of human life (for both the baby, the parents and society) that endorsing Abortion causes. How can you expect any kind of justice in this world when the US alone has snuffed out 50-60 Million innocent defenseless lives (since R vs W). If you get pregnant do the right thing and don't kill the baby. And watch-out for any government that sponsors abortions, they will never have your interests in mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interference in a legal medical procedure of any kind is getting between a doctor and the patient. To restrict public funding of a legal medical practice due to religious concerns is a violation of the separation of church and state. The moral refusal to sell a legal product that is part of one's job is an open invitation to any religious or ethical refusal to do ones job such as a grocery clerk refusing to ring up meat if they are a vegetarian. You should not be able to force your religious views on others or restrict their legal freedoms in this way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I will honestly never understand why men don't understand this very simple argument: I am pregnant. If society doesn't pay for my abortion, MY BODY will suffer. Therefore, SOCIETY MUST PAY FOR WHAT I WANT FOR MY BODY.

Frankly, I don't know how I got pregnant. It must've happened to me when I was walking down the street, minding my own business. These sort of random things just HAPPEN and I had no say in the matter. But whatever it was, whatever unknown thing that caused me to get pregnant, ignore that. Leave that alone. That's not the point here.

MY CHOICES REQUIRE SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY.

If society doesn't pay for my abortion, my body will suffer. And if my body suffers, I won't be able to enjoy my party-hearty, condom-free lifestyle. So it's desperately important that my choices get financed by someone else. Preferably by all of you.

Forcing me to give birth is sex discrimination. That would be as unfair as forcing men to fight in wars! And the government never forced men to-- er-- bad example.

Well, still, it's MY BODY we're talking about. MY BODY will suffer. So open-up them wallets. Time to pay for MY CHOICES so I can be freed-up to search for the perfect orgasm.

And while you're at it, I need me some new sneakers, too. Don't want me to go barefoot now, do you? The soles of my feet will get all cut-up and MY BODY will suffer.

So you'd better write two checks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pretty nice concern has been added..!!!

Eileen
======================
Lemonade diet

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm thinking no one and nothing actually has a right to life. Everyone and everything living dies at some point. Is anyones rights being violated when they die of old age or other causes?

I believe people have a right to live the life they do have free from harrassment, violence, or other negative influences instigated by other people. You have the right to do whatever you want with your own self. Including controlling your reproduction. As far as I can see the foetus never had a right to a life. None of us do. Just a chance at it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let no one accuse this propagandist of being a journalist. S/he does not have even a clue what the term "fundamental" right means. The ONLY rights that are "fundamental" rights are those SPECIFICALLY enumerated in the Constitution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

samsung sgh-d780: обзор функций меню nokia 1208: услуги сети nokia 2323 classic: антенна nokia 2680 slide: приложения flashforward nokia 6700 classic: зарядка аккумулятора samsung sgh-b300: дисплей fly hummer ht2: приложения nokia 2760: информация об аккумуляторах samsung sgh-i200: сообщения seropol5

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Best iphone ringtone maker, a smart iPhone ringtone creator and uploader, provides an all-in-one iPhone Ringtone custom solution.. DVD to iPhone Converter | Video to iPhone Converter，*iPhone RingTone Maker for Mac

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]