English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Nor should any religion or priest have any say over what is a medical condition and what is not a medical condition. They have no authority or education in such matters. And, another example as to why abortion should NEVER be made illegal. Read the article before you comment.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071105/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/nicaragua_abortion_ban

2007-11-05 06:06:16 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

Moon Child: You didn't read the article did you? I didn't think so judging from your answer that really doesn't answer my question.

2007-11-05 06:13:35 · update #1

Freedom for all: You didn't read the article did you? I didn't think so. Your dogma, ignorance and hatred toward women are showing.

2007-11-05 06:29:00 · update #2

Supercell: Sorry to inform you, but Pedophilia is not the same issue or even in the same catagory as abortion. NOT EVEN CLOSE to being an analogy to choice and the issue of abortion and a woman's body.

2007-11-05 06:50:22 · update #3

Adyari... So what you are saying is that you care if the woman is raped but you don't care if the woman dies when and if she has a dangerous pregnancy that could kill her if the fetus isn't aborted. You're a perfect example of human rights gone wacko in the hands of the Catholic church. If you care so much about the woman if she is raped, why don't you care if she dies due to a threatening health condition due to the pregnancy. It makes no sense. Did you even read the article?

2007-11-06 17:59:41 · update #4

BTW Adyari, the Catholic church nor any government should have the right to dictate medical treatment to anyone when it comes to a life threatening issue such as this. That is called tyranny. And, it needs to go back to the dark ages where it belongs.

2007-11-06 18:01:28 · update #5

I stand corrected, you're not for choice if a woman is raped. You're worse than I thought. Sorry, but you are no feminist.

2007-11-06 18:03:01 · update #6

30 answers

The people who are equating this article with "abortion on demand" are not thinking clearly. The expression "abortion on demand" usually implies that the procedure is being done for superficial reasons like convenience, selfishness on the parents' part, or correction of carelessness in use of birth control.

A tubal pregnancy can cause infertility at least and death in worst case. Would they think this were "convenience, selfishness or carelessness" if it were a daughter or sister faced with the reality of an out-of-womb pregnancy?

I also don't understand the insistence that the simple availability of abortion will cause an increase in the number. I'll never ever have one., nor will most of the women I know. It won't matter if they are publicly funded or if they cost a king's ransom in private treasure. It won't matter if they are legal or illegal. It won't matter if they are restricted or if I can get one in the WalMart parking lot.

I know NO ONE who believes in abortion access who equates an abortion to a beauty treatment to be experienced casually before she gets her hair done. That comment was demeaning, and I really thought more of the integrity of that poster than the comment illustrates.

I just don't get the whole debate: Most conservatives used to want to get the government off people's back. How is getting between a woman and her doctor not riding her back with spurs!?

I want the government out of my pocket,out of my bedroom, out of my cupboard, off my reading list, out of my Internet, and out of my doctor's office. I don't expect the government to pay for my well being, but I do expect to know for myself what will enhance my well being without the government checking over my shoulder. HOW is this position "liberal"?

Edit -

Supercell - I support all sorts of age restrictions. I don't let my 4 year old chose his own diet, and I don't let my 82 year-old mother who is blind drive. You are arguing apples and oranges. It really isn't a slippery slope at all.

2007-11-05 08:28:14 · answer #1 · answered by Arby 5 · 6 0

Many pro-lifers here are for abortion when the woman's life is in danger and they should be outraged over this. Nicaragua's ban on all abortions even to save the woman's life is horrible and anti-woman I have to say. I'm not a liberal by any means but to let a woman die because your religious beliefs say abortion is wrong is stupid. Religion should have no say in medical procedures, many Catholic hospitals have denied rape victims the morning after pill! To the people that are answering your questions: read the article. As a libertarian I believe the individual should be fully in charge of their body. No church or political organization can say what they should do. Nicaragua's president should be ashamed of himself.

2007-11-05 08:58:41 · answer #2 · answered by cynical 7 · 7 0

We tend to think of Dominionism as an American thing. But this proves that it's also alive and well wherever the Catholic Church has influence and ready to renew it's 2 Millenia old war against Cvilization. No exceptions to save the Mother's Life in 35 countries? Not the first time Chtistianity has murdered women.

Kinda makes you wonder when they intend to fire up the Inquisition again. Abortion Laws are really just a form of Human Sacrifice. And Fascism is always ready to give the Churches free reign for it.

2007-11-05 09:16:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5 1

AS simply as I can put it, the government should not infringe on my rights to make my own decisions. As long as the decisions I make do not infringe on the rights of another. I am anti abortion and I have been in a position where I had to make that choice, I have 2 beautiful girls now and I work my butt off to provide them the life they deserve, but think god I live in a country where I (along with my girlfriend at the time) was able to make the decision.

2007-11-05 07:15:48 · answer #4 · answered by labken1817 6 · 5 0

That really is sad. I know a woman who suffered an ectopic pregnancy and was doubled over in pain because of it. There are times when the procedure is necessary, and that is why I am pro choice. Blanket laws that affect the entire female population as a whole would not work when the decision and situations are of an individual nature.

2007-11-05 06:43:53 · answer #5 · answered by MishMash [I am not one of your fans] 7 · 8 0

Although I oppose abortion I think the greater evil would be to impose my values on someone else as law. Thankfully I will never have to make the choice whether or not to abort a pregnancy, however, I feel that choice should be left up to the woman and her caregiver.

No, I didn't read the article, just my opinion. God didn't give us free will for us to impose our wills on each other.

2007-11-05 06:45:24 · answer #6 · answered by loginnametaken 3 · 6 1

I was all for the law. I'm glad it went through. However, i do not support the fact that abortions are not granted for woman who are raped. I am involved in a feminist and abortion group here in Managua, Nicaragua and we are doing what we can to tell our President that the abortion law need to be changed but kept illegal.

2007-11-06 15:52:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Perfect example of why religion needs to be kept out of medical matters.

And the objection law is just as dangerous.
If you're going to choose your faith's dogma over your sworn duty to preserve life and ease suffering, you have no business in the medical field.
Otherwise, what would be next? Patients dying because their attending physician is a Jehovah's Witness, and objects to ordering blood transfusions?

tll: Then I hope you enjoy reading the daily tally of how many dead women are in the local morgue, and how many back-alley aborted fetuses and strangled/suffocated newborns found in allies, dumpsters, garbage cans, etc. in the newspaper with your morning coffee.
If perpetuating suffering and death is the religious view of "morals & values" I want no part of it.

2007-11-05 06:20:44 · answer #8 · answered by tiny Valkyrie 7 · 12 1

Religion and government have no legal jurisdiction over what a woman can and cannot do with her body. The same can be said over a pre-existing medical condition. (Terri Shaivo ring a bell?)

My wife had ovarian cancer and she almost died of it. (16-pound ovarian tumor.)

Heaven forbid if it was Doctor "I don't know if she's clinically braindead or not" Frist that was the one whom had to initially diagnose her.

(shudders)

2007-11-05 06:53:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6 0

Amen! In some cultures and reglions, a woman's life has less value than a man's. It's not right, but there it is.

I do not believe in second or third trimester abortions unless a woman's life is in danger, but under no circumstances should abortion be made illegal.

2007-11-05 06:16:23 · answer #10 · answered by slykitty62 7 · 12 1

fedest.com, questions and answers