'Health' of the Mother

As I've always suspected... 'pro-life' believers are not really about life. They are about unborn fetuses. If they were really PRO life they would not indorse laws or votes that causes Death, such as death penalty or war funding. Being FOR life would require that. But exposure to this argument for years has not convienced me at all that pro fetus believers even considers life beyond the womb. They will even vote against funding of support toward programs that enhance life after birth, such as Headstart, Breakfast programs, medical benefits, educational aid, and after school programs. 18,000 children starve or die through illness due to malnutritian every singe day, day in and day out, on this planet, and we are carrying on about what constitutes a Mother's health needs related to her unborn fetus. Time to call it what is really is... PRO FETUS, only that. Don't get all uppity about LIfe when you do not endorce it exclusively but cherry pick your belief in it's sanctity. Time to put your vote where your conviction is if you really and truely are prolife.

I'm not necessarliy pro-life or pro-choice, but I do believe that a child is a child long before it's born. Isn't it such a tragedy when an unborn child is killed in a car accident or by an abusive partner? I have to wonder why so many of you are making such arrogant remarks about the mother's rights and completely ignoring the rights of children. As a country, we need to come together to make a decision about when life begins. We know what the bible says and we know what science says. Both of these point to life well beyond birth. When do babies have heartbeats, brain activity, the ability to sense their surroundings...and feel the pain of the procedure that may be ending their life or permanently disfiguring them. This is a reality for babies every day. It's no less important than the health of the mother, however you define that. One last point is that I wish we would talk more about how abortion affects women's emotional health. The rates of depression post-abortion are disturbing. Why is that & how can we REALLY help both women and children?

I don't want politicians to micromanage precisely what constitutes the "health of the mother" exception. Why can't we just trust our nation's licensed doctors, and the conscience of each woman, to privately decide this difficult matter without partisan intrusion?

I'm not necessarly pro-life or pro-choice, but I think we are fundamentally asking the wrong questions and ignoring those who's lives and health are truly at stake. Children are children long before they are born. Don't we consider it a tragedy when a car accident or abusive partner kills an unborn child?? As a country, we need to take a hard look at who that baby is inside it's mother's womb and decide at what age of gestation that child has rights that can be taken into consideration with the rights of it's mother. We need to stop having arrogant arguments about what we think we know, and look at the truth of life. When there's a heartbeat; when there's brain activity; when the unborn child can feel the pain of it's life being ended. We need to stop asking, "when can mothers decide about their own health" and start asking, "when is it okay to kill a baby"? There are rights to be considered, and it is and should be more complicated than just the rights and privacy of the mother.

McCain is the one who expressed an "extremist" position--one in which he derided consideration of a woman's health in connection with her right to terminate a troublesome pregnancy. So much for him standing up to the extremist elements of the Republican right.

I'm disappointed in Senator McCain's choice to use quotes, it didn't seem appropriate. This issue is so frustrating. On average, girls at 13 become aware of the fact that they are now living in a world where there is the possibility they could get pregnant and somebody will always have something to say about that. Something men will never understand or have to deal with. Men will most likely never have legislation passed or decisions made that elicit control over their reproductive systems and that is what truly divides us as men and women.

Yes, I said my son's grandmother encouraged me to abort him. He was conceived out of wedlock but her concern was that she was too young to be a grandmother. I hated to tell her that since her son was 21 and obviously old enough to procreate, she was old enough to be a grandmother.

Before roe v wade there were abortions, there are abortiions now, if roe v wade were overturned tomorrow there would be abortions still. If you make it illegal women/girls will go to back alleys or unlicensed doctors. If a woman/girl is convinced she wants to get an abortion, as in the past the law (law of the land) will not stop her.

Barack is not killing babies, we have to make it comfortable for the woman/girl to talk about her pregnancy so she can make an intelligent decision to keep it (with her priest, doctor, parents, or partner) instead of forcing her to make a decision alone and in private. Once she knows it is illegal she'll fear that anyone she confides in CAN turn her in and she will make her decision alone WITHOUT consultation from loved ones..

For those who feel the support of roe v wade kills babies, I feel its reversal kills (permanently damages) mothers.

The idea that there are lines of women waiting months and months to have their abortions is ludicrous. The health of the mother argument does come into play, however, when the fetus is determined to be extremely malformed. In our modern medicine world, we forget that childbirth has inherent risks to the mother and that at the beginning of the last century, maternal death rates were very high. These days, the risk is low and the odds of delivering an infant that can survive is very high. But if a fetus is discovered to have a malformed brain or heart that is not compatible with viability, the inherent risk of childbirth to the mother becomes greater than the chances of having the infant survive at birth. This very painful decision must be made by the woman and her doctor without government interference.

McCain has always voted for less government in our lives when it comes to regulating banks and wall street and there is a buck to be made for large corporations, but more government in our lives when the lives of women are at stake.

First and foremost, I am for educating prevention of pregnancies. Too many women take it too lightly and just simply terminate pregnancy. However, it is a woman's right to do so, as there are many circumstances when decinding on abortion. It is unapropriate to quote from a Bible, not everone a beleiver and what about Muslim and Jewish people. We seem to be so obsessed with the right on an uborn, yet we care less about human beings throughout its differnt life cycles. I see, so many dirty, hungry 2-3 year olds, I see not well mentally middle aged people, and completely abandoned older folks. Why don't we care more and speak more for these people??? Just as, Sarah Palin has her right to have 5 children, I have a right to terminate my pregnancy. I find this an absurd when old men, have so much to say about bringing up a life to this world and protecting it, whle at the same time "men are never faced with missing a period".

It has been the stated goal of the religious right to appoint conservative judges to overturn Roe vs. Wade for years. Bush is on board with this plan. Every single judge that Bush appointed to every single Federal bench that came open during his tenure was a right wing Christian conservative. The Democrats were stymied when the GOP controlled congress, and Bush got to appoint two right wing Supreme Court Justices.

First Bush appointed John Roberts to replace Sandra Day O'Connor when she stepped down. When Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist died in 2005, Bush appointed Roberts as Chief Justice, and then filled O'Connor's empty chair with Samuel Alito. Both Roberts and Alito are Catholic, and both are outspoken against abortion.

Bush has appointed two of the nine Justices, including the Chief Justice. The current Supreme Court has been sharply divided on a number of high profile issues, including abortion rights, affirmative action, eminent domain, gay rights, the separation of church and state, sovereign immunity, and states' rights. The number of close votes in cases involving these areas suggests that a change of one or two key justices could completely shift the thinking of the Court on such issues.

Right now there are four Justices who are elderly and will soon either retire or die. The next President will get to appoint at least two new Justices. If the next President is McCain, those two will both be conservative right wing Christians. McCain has publicly PROMISED to do this, and explicitly said that his goal is to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Supreme Court Justices are not being paid to interpret the Bible. They are being paid to interpret the Constitution.

Most Americans, even most Republicans, value the separation of church and state. That clause is in our Constitution to protect us from exactly what is going on in America today! Allowing any religious group (especially a radical one) to control the interpretation and application of our laws in the highest court in the land is NOT democratic. Nor is it wise.

I don't care if you are a disappointed Hillary supporter or an undecided Independent or a life-long Republican or are pro-Obama. ANYONE, regardless of stripe, needs to vote against a candidate who had declared his intention of appointing partisan judges. Judges are supposed to be impartial. That is the basis of our legal system. Without that, you might as well live in a dictatorship, without recourse to law.