world

Providers urge U.S. Supreme Court to reject 15-week abortion ban

6 Comments
By MARK SHERMAN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

6 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

The Supreme Court should remember that religion has no role in forming law in the USA.

Not that the Bible has any views on abortion.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The Supreme Court should remember that religion has no role in forming law in the USA. 

Not that the Bible has any views on abortion

I think they’re aware of that.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Women don't always realize they are pregnant, especially in the early stages.

Not having exceptions for rape and incest doesn't make sense either.

I think that until the baby can survive without any help outside the woman's body, then it should be her choice. That doesn't fit with many Americans and certainly not in the hypocritical states/parties who are FOR the death penalty, but against abortions at any time.

The other side is just as bad. AGAINST the death penalty for someone known to have performed heinous crimes, but thinks killing innocent babies is fine?

Hypocrites on, both sides.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Government has no business coming between a woman and her doctor.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's deceit on both sides of the argument, one side wants on demand and late term claiming to have women's rights of choice as a motivator, while willing to fudge the margins of what stage of pregnancy abortions should be allowed. And the other side of the argument claims that the development of a pulsing cluster of cells is representative of a beating heart and sign's of life in need of protection by the state, when really they're diametrically opposed to the procedure on religious grounds and would prefer to have it completely outlawed. R vs W is a reasonable middle ground, while defending a women's rights to privacy it also recognised the significance of the trimestered gradient in the development of human life and where viability begins and what is recognisable as a person with right's. The unfortunate thing that has come out of this is the emphasis on safety of the mother aspect with no clear guidelines has led to the point where someone can claim on all sorts of ground's that late term termination is in the interests of the preservation of life when quite often it's a matter of convenience. And through that process has lead to the development of business models for companies that trade in human foetal tissue for research facilities, inflaming the other side. And as a consequence resulted with pushback in the form of state law's attempting to ban the practice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites