Abortion

[gg666]

baleh khob...bache nakhaste bayad sar be nist beshe..chon boodanesh darde sare....khastasham darde sare dige che berese be nekhaste...ama abortion be badane zan asib mizane...va shenidamroo zaymanhaye baadi asare bad dare....akhe aghel chera konad kari..ke baz arad pashimani...abortion daghoon mikone damo dastaghe zanaro...hala ag elegal she hame tepo tep mikhan seght konan...

[Rasputin]

As many of you may be aware, the National Organization for Women recently held a pro-choice rally here in Orange County, California.

The gathering attracted its usual plight of 30-40 year old baby boomers in faded tie dye, along with a variety of women, young and old. The thing about these gatherings that always tends to crack me up as well as depress me is the high volume of 40 + year olds that came from an era in which they were spoiled and did not have to deal with the problems my generation (20-30 year olds) has to face.

There they are, standing along side 19-year-old college kids with signs proclaiming the evils of the “fascist right wingers who want to impose their religious hate and control our reproductive choices”. Down with the man! You can’t tell us what to do! It’s MY choice.

It is no secret that the baby boomers had it good. In case some of you don’t know, baby boomers is a term used to describe people who were born in a pre-war era were the “family unit” was still intact and acceptable. For reference, when I use the term family unit throughout this article, I am not referring to the mythical functional family. I do not believe this exists. All I am referring to are two parents, married with children, and in most cases during the prewar era, women who for the majority stayed at home and raised the children while the men supported the family.

Then Vietnam came. (Or even World War II for the boomers who date back that far).

As in any war, the men were called away to fight. This left many women at home not only to raise the family but to be the primary bread winners as well. It is my opinion that women were never intended to take on this role. But it happened, and the minds of women across America started to change toward the role of wife/mother/homemaker.

I believe women changed when the men had to leave for the war. Then they had to be both mother and father to their children. I also believe that the children of parents in this era were the ones that grew up to flourish in the 60’ and 70’s. This was the era of the sexual revolution. Yep, life was great for the baby boomers. They smoked pot, did acid, danced on the beach to Jethro Tull and everyone was sleeping with each other. Why wouldn’t they? I mean, there really wasn’t AIDS yet, or half of the other serious diseases we now have. Yep, life was good.

Fast forward to 2006. These same people stand in line and hold signs comparing conservative Pat Robertson to Osama Bin Ladin. Down with the man! Down with anyone who will tell me what to do! I have a Right! Me. Me. ME. Forget about future generations. Forget about preserving the concept of the family unit. Who cares? They had a mother and father to raise them. These same people gleefully go to voting boxes and support bills that want it to be legal for two men to get married and raise a child. But, I digress...

What is so destructive about abortion is not only that it prevents new life from entering the world, but the effects it has on the women who have them are devastating. Abortion, by far is the single most anti-woman concept invented. It is truly a contradiction to be a practicing ‘feminist’ in every sense of the word, but to endorse a practice of scraping out our wombs if we have an inconvenience in there. This is selfishness at its epitome. Any woman who shows up at these rallies with a proud feminist t-shirt on hasn’t a clue to what it means to be a woman and what we were created for.

And just what were we created for? According to most contemporary feminist thought, it is to relish in a mythical gender indifference. It is to attain some sort of superiority to men by proving that we can indeed shed years of perceived “repression” by taking on the corporate world full force, delaying children and family, or justifying leaving our babies with strangers while we go out and compete with our husbands in order to afford a newer car, or a second house.

Now, I am not against independent women who work and support themselves. I am one of those women and I think that it is great for any woman to experience this at least once in their life. However, I believe that when a women makes the conscious decision to have sex, she is taking the risk of being responsible for bringing life into this world. Sorry ladies, but this is how it works.

And once we are responsible for bringing another life into this world, it is essential to understand that it is no longer about us. We are responsible for the welfare of the generations who succeed us. Popular contemporary thought does not encourage or even acknowledge this. We live in culture in which we are encouraged to read “Self” magazine and to “Obey our thirst” because, after all, it’s all about us and our urges and what works for us right now.

Many pro-choice believers mistakingly assume that conservatives point a condemning and intolerant judgmental finger to those who either have had abortions or believe in the right to have them. Tolerance has only acceptable if it is directed to the liberal left. It is famously known that there is no such thing as tolerance for conservative-minded people in our society. Speaking the truth about a procedure that is physically and mentally harmful and life threatening to women is not condemnation. We are women and life givers in every sense of the word. To deny that ability or to disregard the pain that is caused when we defraud ourselves as women of that right, is not natural.

I am not condemning anyone who has had an abortion. I have close friends and family members who have had them. I have seen first hand the devastating effects this has on women. I am just inviting you to contemplate for one moment how things could be better. I am suggesting that instead of preaching our ‘right’ for this and that, let us examine the bigger picture.

Let us assume, for one moment in the presumably archaic belief that women should abstain from sex until they are married. This concept is completely opposed to what our culture encourages. Sex is everything and everywhere in American culture. Children are allowed less and less time to be children.

For God sakes, Abercrombie and Fitch as well as Victoria's Secret both have a line of thongs that are for children between 5-8 years of age. Newsstands are overflowing with magazines that announce 50 new sexual positions to get a man to love you and stay with you. I can no longer listen to the radio or watch TV without seeing some sexed up ad, or listening to a man on the radio preach about the dangers of marriage, and how women are only “sperm depositories, and good for sex alone”. (To those of you who live in Orange County, you know who I am talking about).

But is it worth it? As popular culture become more and more self-centered, we embrace our selfishness as a ‘right’. This is so very sad. We have a right to sleep around. We have a right to ‘try out’ our boyfriend or girlfriend and decide if they will satisfy us after we are married. It is my opinion that marriage was intended to protect women and children. And believe it or not, there was a time in history when men were taught to want to protect women and children.

Many of you will email me saying that I am repressive and backward and need to get with 2006. Iranians are very passionate about their liberal rights. For Iranian women, I have found this to be most true. As I addressed in a previous article, the preservation of their rights and presumed “independence” is ferociously defended because of a history of true oppression from political Islam in Iran. This is justifiable.

I am not suggesting that we abandon our independence. This is an invitation to at least acknowledge that when sex happens within the safe confines of marriage, and with the understanding that we were created for family and life giving, we can be less consumed with preserving the autonomous rights we have over our womb, and more concerned with how we can better the lives of our children and our children’s children.

[jsmith]

abortion mitoone khoob bashe...baraye hamoon avalesh ke age vaghean doost nadariiin....yani hamin jooori alaki zendegie ye bache ro kharab nakonin...

[Rasputin]

Portugal to Legalize Abortion Although Referendum Was Invalid

A referendum to legalize abortion in Portugal failed on Sunday because the turnout was too low -- but the Socialist prime minister has nevertheless vowed to push the measure through parliament, a plan critics call "disgraceful."

Nearly 60 percent of those who voted said they were in favor of changing the law to allow women to undergo abortions until the 10th week of pregnancy, but the referendum is legally binding only if more than 50 percent of the country's 8.9 million registered voters cast ballots.

Sunday's turnout was 44 percent, and pro-life opponents of the move to lift abortion restrictions said the heavy abstention rate showed that most Portuguese had not made up their minds on the issue.

"Those were not 'yes' votes," said Roger Kiska, legal counsel at the European Center for Law and Justice in Strasbourg, France.

"They do not have, procedurally, the majority of Portuguese registered voters voting [in support of changing the law]."

But repeating a pledge he made while campaigning for the "yes" vote in the referendum, Prime Minister Jose Socrates said he believes he now has a mandate to change the country's anti-abortion law.

"The law will now be discussed and approved in Parliament," he said. "The people have spoken and they have spoken with a clear voice."

"The referendum's purpose was to discuss the views of the public on this very vital, constitutional issue, and then to not respect the outcome of this vote is rather disgraceful in my opinion." said Kiska.

In a referendum, not going to the polls is understood to amount to a "no" vote, he said. Many Portuguese didn't vote because they were undecided, or uninterested in the issue - or even because the weather was poor.

"In essence, it does not mean, as the prime minister is saying, that Portugal is overwhelmingly saying they want to liberalize the abortion laws. Constitutionally, he is committing a strong violation of the current abortion law."

Socrates' Socialist Party holds an overwhelming majority in parliament and will most likely be able to push through the change in legislation without a problem.

Besides the opposition conservative Partido Popular and Social Democratic parties, Portugal's Roman Catholic Church campaigned against the proposition.

Commenting on the results, Father Vincent Feroldi, communications director for the Diocese of Lyon in France, said the high abstention mostly showed an unease in Portuguese society because people were reticent to authorize a law on abortion but also unwilling to go out and say no.

Feroldi said it was now important for Portugal to look at how to improve education about the condition of women, the life of couples, and sexuality.

"The first thing in the Catholic doctrine is respect for life and the act of abortion cannot be justified," he said. "Life must be respected from its conception."

"But there is much work to be done so that women are not faced with the question of whether they should abort or no abort," he added.

Speaking on television, Partido Popular head Jose Ribeiro e Castro said, "Socrates will be responsible for this sad chapter in Portugal's history for insisting on a political move that has split Portuguese society."

Portugal's current law makes abortion illegal except in cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger.

Portugal, Ireland, Malta and Poland are the only remaining countries in the 27-member European Union to have tight restrictions on abortion.

A referendum in Portugal on the issue in 1998 was declared invalid because of low voter turnout. In that case, 51 percent of those who did vote supported maintaining the abortion law.

Socrates has said that he wants to put an end to illegal and clandestine abortions, which he called "backward," but pro-life activists point out that Portuguese women are free to travel to other E.U. countries to have abortions.

The process to legalize abortion is expected to take about eight months because the bill will have to be voted first in parliament, approved by the president, and then published publicly.

[Rasputin]

Abortion ban upheld by U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court decided Wednesday to uphold a ban on certain types of abortions, leaving Americans to wonder if more restrictions are on the horizon.

In a 5-4 vote, the court legitimized the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. This marks the first time the Supreme Court has upheld a ban on a specific abortion procedure.

This development has left anti-abortion advocates rejoicing and abortion-rights supporters seething.

Amy Kennedy, director of external affairs at Planned Parenthood of North Central Florida, said she's afraid this decision could lead to legislation banning all abortions.

"This is a pivotal ruling for woman's health and safety," Kennedy said. "American women deserve the right to make personal health care decisions free of government intrusion."

The banned procedure, technically called "intact dilation and extraction," also known as a partial-birth abortion, would terminate second-trimester pregnancies by removing the fetus whole.

The procedure is performed when the fetus is too large to be suctioned from the woman's body, as in most first-trimester abortions.

About 88 percent of abortions are performed within the first trimester of pregnancy. During the second trimester, abortions are usually performed because of health risks to the patient, Kennedy said.

Some speculate that the Supreme Court is taking a new course on the abortion issue. That assumption leads abortion rights activists to worry that Roe v. Wade, the case that established a woman's constitutional right to abortion, could be overturned.

The ban indicates a reversal in the Supreme Court's position on abortion since 2000, when the court declared it unconstitutional to restrict abortions without considering the patient's health. Under the new ban, the prohibited type of partial-birth abortion is illegal unless a woman's health risks are severe enough to endanger her life.

"The ban fails to safeguard women because it doesn't contain an exception to protect their health," Kennedy said.

Stephanie Ann Diaz, a member of Vox: Voices for Planned Parenthood, said people forget that choosing to have an abortion is a difficult decision that can scar women both physically and emotionally.

"Most people who are pro-choice want abortions to be rare, safe and legal," she said.

But anti-abortion activists say the fetus's health and safety should be considered equal to that of the mother.

Natalia Pedraza, the president of the Pro-Life Alliance and a UF economics senior, said the ban is a step in the right direction.

"It's a victory for the pro-life side," she said. "In general, abortion is a horrible thing for the baby and the mother."

Partial-birth abortions are more traumatic, she said.

"It's different than all the other abortion procedures, and people should be educated on the different types to really get an understanding of what this ban means," she said.

UF sophomore Steven Hoffstetter said he believes the procedure is "barbaric."

"I've always thought it was a terrible thing," he said. "When it was first banned, I couldn't even believe it was allowed before."

Hoffstetter's feelings echo those of President George W. Bush, who said in a press release that the new law reflects the "compassion and humanity of America."

Bush also said he hoped the law would lead to more serious restrictions on abortion.

"The Supreme Court's decision is an affirmation of the progress we have made over the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life," he said. "We will continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law."

Despite the controversy, UF constitutional law professor Sharon Rush said the implications might not be as serious as many expect.

"I don't see it as such a dramatic decision as everyone else is seeing," she said.

Rush pointed to the 1992 Roe v. Casey Supreme Court decision, which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade.

After researching the justices' majority and dissenting opinions on partial-birth abortions, Rush said she thinks the ban might not lead to more restrictions.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr., the two justices appointed by Bush, are the most likely to vote against abortion if the issue arises again, Rush said.

But, she said, abortion rights are not likely to be overturned under the current justices.

[Rasputin]

Mexican lawmakers vote to legalize abortion

Mexico City lawmakers voted to legalize abortion Tuesday, a decision likely to influence policies and health practices across Mexico and other parts of heavily Roman Catholic Latin America.
The proposal, approved 46-19, with one abstention, will take effect with the expected signing by the city's leftist mayor. Abortion opponents have already vowed to appeal the law to the Supreme Court, a move likely to extend the bitter and emotional debate in this predominantly Catholic nation.

"Decriminalizing abortion is a historic triumph, a triumph of the left," said city legislator Jorge Diaz Cuervo, a leftist social democrat who voted for the bill. "Today, there is a new atmosphere in this city. It is the atmosphere of freedom."

Nationally, Mexico allows abortion only in cases of rape, severe birth defects or if the woman's life is at risk. Doctors sometimes refuse to perform the procedure even under those circumstances.

The new law will require city hospitals to provide the procedure in the first trimester and opens the way for private abortion clinics. Girls under 18 would have to get their parents' consent.

The procedure will be almost free for poor or uninsured city residents, but is unlikely to attract patients from the United States, where later-term abortion is legal in many states. Under the Mexico City law, women having an abortion after 12 weeks face punishment of three to six months in jail. Those performing abortions after that period would face one to three years in jail.

Mexico City is dominated by the leftist Democratic Revolution Party, at odds with President Felipe Calderon's conservative National Action Party, which opposed the abortion measure.

"We go to great lengths to protect (sea) turtle eggs," said city lawmaker Paula Soto, a member of Calderon's party. "Lucky turtles! It appears they have more people willing to defend them than some unborn children."

The law alarmed Calderon's party and prompted authorities to send ranks of riot police to separate chanting throngs of opposing demonstrators outside the city legislature.

A crowd of abortion-rights supporters chanting "Yes, we did it!" gathered at a monument to 19th-century anti-clerical reformer Benito Juarez in downtown Mexico City after the vote.

"I feel happy, because this is a step forward, not backward, for a woman's right and freedom to choose ... about her body and her life," said demonstrator Gabriela Cruz, 36.

The Roman Catholic church has protested the measure and Mexico City Cardinal Norberto Rivera led a march through the capital last month in opposition. The Archdiocese said Tuesday that it would "evaluate the moral consequences of the reforms" and said Rivera would have no public comment on the vote until Sunday.

The only countries in Latin America and the Caribbean with legalized abortion for all women are Cuba and Guyana. Most others allow it only in cases of rape or when the woman's life is at risk. Nicaragua, El Salvador and Chile ban it completely.

The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, the legal arm of the reproductive rights movement globally, applauded the Mexico City law as "historic."

"This will serve as a model to get abortion accepted not only nationwide, but also in Latin America and the Caribbean, where women who interrupt their pregnancies are still sent to jail," said activist Elba Garcia, 24, who rode a flatbed truck in an abortion rights caravan through downtown Mexico City on Monday.

Recent newspaper polls showed that a majority of Mexico City residents support legalized abortions, at least in the first weeks of pregnancy.

The proposal has created an emotional confrontation in a country where the majority of people are Roman Catholic.

Calderon has opposed the proposal, and church leaders have led protests that pushed the limits of Mexico's constitutional ban on political activity by religious groups.

Opponents argue that life begins at conception and say the law would violate the Mexican Constitution's protection of individual rights. Supporters say the law would save the lives of thousands of women.

The city and its suburbs are home to about one-fifth of the country's population, and many Mexicans travel to the capital for medical treatment. Opponents fear the local law could attract women across Mexico seeking abortions.

An estimated 200,000 women have illegal abortions each year in Mexico, based on the number who show up at hospitals later seeking treatment for complications, said Martha Micher, director of the Mexico City government's Women's Institute.

Botched abortions using herbal remedies, black-market medications and quasi-medical procedures kill about 1,500 women each year and are the third-leading cause of death for pregnant women in the capital, Micher said.

[Rasputin]

Vatican urges end to Amnesty aid

The Vatican described abortion as "murder"
The Vatican has urged all Catholics to stop donating money to Amnesty International, accusing the human rights group of promoting abortion.
The Vatican, which regards life as sacred from the moment of conception, said it was an "inevitable consequence" of the group's policy change.

Amnesty said it was not promoting abortion as a universal right.

But the group said that women had a right to choose, particularly in cases of rape or incest.

"No more financing of Amnesty International after the organisation's pro-abortion about-turn," said a statement from the Roman Catholic Church's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

The Church's request covers funding from Catholic groups, non-governmental organisations, parishes, schools and individuals.

'Misrepresented account'

The council's president, Cardinal Renato Martino, described abortion as "murder".

"And to justify it selectively, in the event of rape, that is to define an innocent child in the belly of its mother as an enemy, as 'something one can destroy'," the cardinal said.

According to Roman Catholic doctrine, life - which begins with conception - must be respected.

Amnesty says it does not take any position on whether abortion is right or wrong.

But it defended its new position in support of abortion for women when their health is in danger or human rights are violated, especially in cases of rape or incest.

"We are saying broadly that to criminalise women's management of their sexual reproductive right is the wrong answer," Amnesty's deputy Secretary General Kate Gilmore told Reuters news agency.

"The Catholic Church, through a misrepresented account of our position on selective aspects of abortion, is placing in peril work on human rights," Ms Gilmore said.

Some 45 million unintended pregnancies are terminated around the world every year, the World Health Organisation says.

Nearly 70,000 women die annually from unsafe abortions, it says.