Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'abortion'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Canadian Political Discussions
    • Federal Politics
    • Provincial Politics
    • Local Politics
  • United States Political Discussions
    • US Federal Politics
    • US State Politics
  • International Political Discussions
    • Canada / United States Relations
    • The Rest of the World
  • Moral, Religious and Political Philosophy
    • Moral & Ethical Issues
    • Religion & Politics
    • Political Philosophy
    • Sex and Gender Issues
  • Off-Topic Discussions
    • Arts and Culture
    • Health, Science and Technology
    • Business and Economy
    • Travel, Leisure and Sports
    • Media and Broadcasting
  • News and Help
    • Support and Questions
    • News and Announcements
  • DataVis's Events
  • Sudo Intellectuals Club (by Michael Hardner)'s The Clubhouse
  • Sudo Intellectuals Club (by Michael Hardner)'s Suggest A Topic
  • Sudo Intellectuals Club (by Michael Hardner)'s Where is the World Headed ?
  • Sudo Intellectuals Club (by Michael Hardner)'s Media Hot and Cold
  • No Rules/Free Speech Club's General Talk
  • No Rules/Free Speech Club's Club Suggestions
  • No Rules/Free Speech Club's Canadian Politics
  • No Rules/Free Speech Club's US Politics
  • No Rules/Free Speech Club's World Politics
  • Jah Rules / Talk Is Cheap comedy club's No comment.
  • Democratic Dictatorships's Countries
  • Whatever I damn well want to talk about.'s Topics
  • Ice Hockey's NHL Hockey Talk
  • Anything Off Topic's Climate Cultists
  • Anything Off Topic's U.K. Europe and Illegal Migration
  • Anything Off Topic's Israel BDS Movement
  • Anything Off Topic's Trudeau and Senate
  • Anything Off Topic's Affirmative Action and Diversity
  • Anything Off Topic's A Tax on Home Equity is wrong
  • Anything Off Topic's Affirmative Action
  • History's General History
  • News of the Day's 2 more Catholic churches burned down in B.C.'s Interior
  • News of the Day's Topics

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 5 results

  1. This article speaks of the divisions within the pro-life movement as they are marching today in Washington and how some on the other side are expressing concern in terms of prosecution. As anti-abortion activists gather in Washington, D.C., on Friday to celebrate the overturning of Roe v. Wade — a singular cause that united abortion opponents for decades — some factions are split on the movement's next steps. The big picture: While mainstream anti-abortion messaging still revolves around sanctioning doctors or clinics, a small but growing group of self-described abortion abolitionists are taking steps to single out and punish those seeking to end a pregnancy. Major anti-abortion groups like Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, the National Right to Life Committee and the March for Life organization — which is organizing Friday's anti-abortion rally — have urged state lawmakers crafting anti-abortion bills to consider abortion patients as "victims" immune from prosecution. But Abolish Human Abortion, one of the most high-profile abortion abolitionist groups, states that abortion "is an act of murder and should never be considered an acceptable solution for any difficult circumstance." Between the lines: There are currently no laws in effect that allow a pregnant patient to be prosecuted. In fact, many state laws stipulate that only providers can be punished, through fines, jail time or loss of a medical license. But as state legislatures start to convene their 2023 sessions, some lawmakers are embracing the idea that those who get an abortion when it is illegal should be punished or penalized. In Oklahoma, state Sen. Warren Hamilton (R) introduced a bill that would modify the state's abortion ban, specifically getting rid of the law's clause that guarantees that pregnant people cannot be prosecuted. If the bill is enacted, "it will allow for those accessing an abortion to potentially be prosecuted for that abortion," said Tamya Cox-Touré, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma. In Missouri, state lawmakers are currently considering a bill that would define a fetus as a person and could allow prosecution of patients — unless a patient argues they have been "coerced" into getting an abortion. A bill was introduced in Louisiana last year that would have allowed prosecutors to charge a person with homicide for getting an abortion. The sponsor wound up pulling it from consideration after state lawmakers amended it to remove the language that would have enabled the prosecution, among other changes. What they're saying: "Women should always be held harmless," said Marilyn Musgrave, vice president of government affairs at SBA Pro-Life America, which regularly works with lawmakers to draft abortion bills. "The focus for prosecution" should be on those that provide abortions, not the patients, said Kristi Hamrick, chief media and policy strategist for Students for Life of America. Moving to punish those who seek abortions where the procedure is illegal could also prove to be politically unpopular. While most Americans remain in the middle of the debate — believing that abortion should be legal in some cases and illegal in others — the midterm elections brought wins for abortion rights even in red states. But the debate over individual liability has intensified as more people access abortion pills through telehealth and mail. Last week, the Alabama attorney general's office suggested to 1819 News that pregnant people who take abortion pills could be charged under a state chemical endangerment law that's been used to punish patients for consuming drugs during pregnancy. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall later walked back the comments, saying only those who provide abortion pills should be punished. Yes, but: There is a history of prosecuting people for getting an abortion, often under state laws that are not abortion-related, Elizabeth Nash, lead state policy analyst for the Guttmacher Institute, told Axios last year. However, many of these charges have not held up in court. In 2022, prior to the Dobbs decision, a Texas woman was charged with murder for allegedly causing "the death of an individual by self-induced abortion." The charges were ultimately dropped, with a Texas district attorney that while the issue was "clearly contentious ... it is not a criminal matter" under state law. Purvi Patel was sentenced to 20 years in prison in Indiana in 2015 for "feticide" and "child neglect." Her conviction was overturned a year later. While prosecutors alleged that Patel had induced her abortion with pills ordered overseas, there was no sign of the pills in toxicology reports. Abortion rights advocates say the debate over prosecuting individuals reveals the anti-abortion movement's actual goal, which is to ultimately punish those who seek abortions. "I think they're just biding their time," said Jennifer Dalven, director of the Reproductive Freedom Project at the ACLU, in a press call. https://www.axios.com/2023/01/20/anti-abortion-roe-anniversary-divide-prosecution
  2. Over the past few years I have learned that some pregnancies were accidental and not entirely preventable. But I have also learned that a lot of those accidents ended in full term pregnancy and birth with the intent of only the woman. For example : We have a man and a woman, they agree to have sex with each other for the sake of pleasure, thus a strong birth control is used. However due to potential statistical birth control failure it turns out two months later she finds out that she is pregnant. Now legally speaking she has a few options, she can abort the pregnancy or allow a full term pregnancy with post birth options. However, in this case the man has no options, in fact the woman forces actions upon him, infringing on his freedoms as a would be father or none father. Given that the man and woman do not stay together as a family, If the would be “mother “decides to raise the child, the would be “father” would have to pay child support. If the “mother” decides to get an abortion the “father” has no rights to deny the abortion. (Now I am not going to say the “father” should have a right to force the “mother” to give birth to a child she does not wish to have, although some arguments could be made for such cases. For instance, if she does not wish to have the baby and wishes to abort, then she would be liable for compensation to the “father” as he has lost the ability to have that child, “denial of child” support. So basically if the woman wants to abort she would have to pay the man “denial of child support for the next 18 years, a reverse of the situation. ( again this is too extreme and would never happen)) Lets look at a different option, say the woman wishes to have the baby, however the man does not wish to have the baby (he does not wish to become a father). Could a system be in place where when accidental pregnancy happens and the woman wishes to have a child, the man can optionally pay the abortion equivalency financial amount or give a certain amount of time so that he is released of all liabilities to the baby after birth as a father/caretaker? In other words, the would be father pays a certain amount equivalent to an abortion, to ensure that he is not legally the father and he has no duty to pay child care. This gives semi rights to both parties involved vs a system were all decisions are made by the woman. Current system: Sex Abortion? Accepting pregnancy? agree? Result? Woman> yes/no yes/no they both agree equal, mother/none, success Man > yes/no yes/no they both agree equal, father/none, success Woman> no yes NO Mother, gets child support +18 Man > yes no NO Forced fatherhood, forced child support +18 Woman> yes no NO She has abortion, no further action Man > no yes NO He has no father rights, no ability for further action Amendment recommendation: Sex Abortion? Accepting pregnancy? agree? Result? Woman> no yes NO Mother gives birth to the baby, accepts abortion financial aid equivalency Man > yes no NO He has no fatherly rights to the baby, pays financial abortion aid equivalency Thoughts?
  3. Aside from the ideological war, the question is, who might have leaked this draft opinion? Alito: Leaked draft opinion endangered lives of justices Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said that the unauthorized disclosure of a draft landmark Supreme Court majority opinion on abortion put some justices at risk of assassination. Speaking at a Heritage Foundation event, Alito said the release of his draft opinion made the justices presumed to be in the majority “targets for assassination because it gave people a rational reason to think they could prevent that from happening by killing one of us.” The draft from Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was published by POLITICO on May 2. “It was a grave betrayal of trust by somebody,” Alito said. Full article: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/26/justice-alito-abortion-decision-disclosure-00063491
  4. There are currently zero restrictions on when an abortion can take place in Canada, including up to the expected birth date. Most countries/states set the limit as the first trimester (first three months), or at the very least, the week beyond which the fetus could survive outside the womb (viability). In Canada a woman can have a fetus destroyed one day before the expected date of birth, a viable baby that would survive outside of the mother. https://nationalpost.com/news/as-abortion-debate-becomes-increasingly-polarized-poll-shows-the-views-of-many-canadians-are-more-complicated
  5. Guest

    Dr. Kermit Gosnell

    I’ll admit, for most of my adult life I’d have considered myself “agnostic” concerning the abortion “third rail”, tending to fall on the side that it is none of my business and something “other people do”……. But now with this criminal case involving Dr Kermit Gosnell’s abortion clinic in Philadelphia, I’m truly starting to reconsider my “stance” on moral grounds. Now I’m fully aware that there are many instances surrounding legal abortion that more then morally absolve such practices (In my opinion) like rape or health concerns for the mother………..But this case or other late term abortions for that mater have really forced me to reconsider my stance on the issue: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/ I just can’t square this circle and help to feel this practices is approaching Josef Mengele type levels………utterly disgusting: So my question, if “bad abortion” is considered anything past 24 weeks, is a child aborted at 23 weeks ok? Where is the moral “cut-off”? And for the record, I’m not a religious person but I am parent.
×
×
  • Create New...