ProLifeTalk.com

Washington D.C. - Democrats For Life of America (DFLA) announced today that Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) introduced the Pregnant Women Support Act into the United States Senate.  S. 2407, similar to legislation (H.R. 3192) introduced by Lincoln Davis (D-TN) earlier this year in the U.S. House, is designed to reduce the number of abortions by aiding those women who feel they have no other option.

“We applaud Senator Casey for leading the charge to reduce the abortion rate in this country by helping pregnant women,” said DFLA’s Executive Director, Kristen Day.  “Our goal since the beginning was to craft a bill that would find common ground and have a positive chance of not only becoming law, but truly helping pregnant women and their families.  Senator Casey’s leadership will help tremendously with our goal to reduce the abortion rate by 95 percent in 10 years.”

The battle over abortion in the United States has long been characterized by bitter partisan rhetoric and suspicion.  This bill will help shape a common-sense solution that people on all sides of the political spectrum can support.  DFLA believes that it should be the goal of all people to end abortion in this country and to help mothers and young children.

“The Pregnant Women Support Act is about showing that it is possible for people from different ideological positions to come together and help those who are in need,” said DFLA Executive Director Kristen Day.  “All Americans should be strongly in favor of helping mothers and saving babies, regardless of their political ideology or position on the legality of abortion.”

One of the key provisions of the proposal calls for banning the discriminatory practice against pregnant women in the health insurance industry by removing pregnancy from all “pre-existing condition” lists in health care. Other provisions call for making adoption tax credits permanent, provides grants for low-income parenting college students, fully funding the federal WIC program, increased funding for domestic violence programs, and provides free home visits by registered nurses for new mothers.

Since its founding, Democrats For Life has propounded what they see as a more consistent approach to being pro-life, challenging both the pro-life community to broaden its view of defending life and also the Democratic Party to come back to its roots of defending those who cannot defend themselves.  They hope that this bill will further both objectives, as well as create common ground for all to stand on in the fight to defend human life.

The 95-10 Initiative is a comprehensive package of federal legislation and policy proposals that will reduce the number of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years.

 

Pro-life individuals generally believe that human life should be valued either from fertilisation or implantation until natural death. The contemporary pro-life movement is typically, but not exclusively, associated with Christian morality (especially in the United States), and has influenced certain strains of bioethical utilitarianism. From that viewpoint, any action which destroys an embryo or fetus kills a human being. Any deliberate destruction of human life is considered ethically or morally wrong. Such an act is not considered to be mitigated by any benefits to others through scientific advancement or, in the case of abortion, by ending the hardship of a woman with an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy, as such benefits come at the expense of the life of what they consider a person. In some cases, this belief extends to opposing abortion of fetuses that would almost certainly be unviable, such as anencephalitic fetuses. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are also opposed by some pro-life people based on a belief that life is sacred and must be protected even against the wishes of people who want to end their own lives.

Pro-lifers are frequently (but not always) in opposition to certain forms of birth control, particularly hormonal contraception such as ECP’s, which may prevent the implantation of an embryo. Because pro-life advocates largely believe that life begins at conception, they often regard these forms of birth control as abortifacients. The Catholic Church recognizes this view, but the possibility that hormonal contraception has post-fertilization effects is currently disputed within the scientific community.

On the issue of abortion, pro-life campaigners are opposed by pro-choice campaigners who argue that the central issue is a completely different set of rights. The pro-choice view does not consider a fetus to have the full legal rights of a human being, so the issue is instead considered to be the human rights of the pregnant woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy or carry it to term.

The movement in the United States largely began after Roe v. Wade, the 1973 United States Supreme Court decision that held abortion to be a constitutional right.

Attachment to a pro-life position is very often but not exclusively connected to religious beliefs about the sanctity of life. Exclusively secular-humanist positions against abortion tend to be a minority viewpoint among pro-life advocates

The major stated goal of the pro-life movement is to “restore legal protection to innocent human life.” This protection would include fetuses and embryos, persons who cannot communicate their wishes due to physical or mental incapacitation, and those who are too weak to resist being euthanized.

Some pro-life advocates, such as those subscribing to the philosophy of a Consistent Life Ethic, oppose virtually all acts that end human life. They would argue that abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and unjust war are all wrong.

Others argue that the death penalty can be a fair punishment for murder, justifiably inflicted by lawful authority, whereas abortion is an attack on innocent human life that could never be considered because it lacks the same due process protections that a criminal trial requires before any imposition of the death penalty. In recent years, the issue of the death penalty has gained more attention because some pro-life advocates wish to create a more unified pro-life ideal that prohibits the death penalty. The Roman Catholic Church is one of the strongest proponents of this unified position. The increasing attention paid to this controversial position may result from the large Roman Catholic membership of the pro-life movement, a membership that is also striving to adhere to recent religious statements from the Vatican on the death penalty.

While some pro-life advocates are opposed to euthanasia of humans under all circumstances, others believe that individuals, especially adults, should have the right to choose to end their own lives if they become terminally ill or severely disabled. Because many such individuals are unable to communicate their wishes, euthanasia will likely remain controversial within the pro-life community. While some believe that direct euthanasia should only be an option for persons with the ability to communicate at the time the procedure, others believe that individuals should be allowed to state their wishes in advance, such as in a living will, or that family members and/or persons with power of attorney or guardianship should be allowed to make decisions regarding euthanasia for persons who are unable to communicate.

Cessation of life support for an individual who is unable to live without life support is sometimes referred to as indirect or passive euthanasia. Although many pro-life advocates support indirect euthanasia for persons judged by their doctors as having little or no hope for recovery, other pro-life advocates oppose indirect euthanasia, even under those circumstances. Some pro-life advocates strongly disagree with the court decisions which allowed Terri Schiavo’s husband to have her feeding tube removed. Indeed, most pro-life advocates familiar with the Terri Schiavo case framed the issue as one of direct euthanasia on the grounds that nutrition and hydration, in their view, do not constitute “life support”.

In contrast, there are yet others who find that the pro-life movement’s focus on legislative means is heading down the wrong track, believing that working through means of sex education, birth control, and aid to single mothers will more realistically reduce abortions while also drawing others into the movement. Rather than causing a political divide by arguing what can and cannot legally be done and what laws should be passed about it, such non-legislative pro-life goals are sought in order to bridge the gap with those who may consider themselves against abortion but pro-choice, because they cannot agree with passing restrictive laws–whether concerning gestation or anything else. Two prominent groups holding this ideology are Anarchists for Life–a pro-life anarchists group–which objects to legislative solutions to any problem by definition (since anarchists in general are anti-government) and Feminists for Life.

After more than forty years of debate, the abortion issue remains one of the broader and more controversial societal issues. A broad spectrum of positions exists on this issue, from those who advocate abortion-on-demand on the one end (100% pro-choice), to those who oppose every form of abortion on the other (100% pro-life). Between these two there are a considerable range of positions. Some oppose abortion, but are content to work at reducing the number of abortions through prevention of unwanted pregnancies, a task they accomplish through targeted sex education and/or increased availability of contraception. Current legislation in United States Congress, the Pregnant Women Support Act, seeks to reduce the abortion rate in the U.S. without making any procedure illegal and without overturning Roe v. Wade. There are also some who support legal abortion within the first two trimesters but oppose late-term abortions. Some oppose most abortions but make exception for cases where the woman’s life is in serious risk. In this category, some likewise make an exception for severe fetal deformities. Others make exceptions when the pregnancy was not caused by consensual sexual activity or may violate social taboos, as in cases of rape and incest. Some allow for all these exceptions, but stop short of abortion-on-demand.

Another issue is that of mandatory notification and consent. Some believe that a pregnant minor should not be allowed to abort her pregnancy without the notification or consent of a parent or guardian. Likewise, some believe that notification or consent of the woman’s husband or the child’s biological father should be required. These sorts of restrictions are often seen within the pro-choice movement as attempts to limit access to abortion and to violate the right to privacy. Reasons cited are that mandatory notification of the father could put the woman’s social standing at risk, while mandatory notification of a girl’s parents may cause the parents to react abusively. However, among the public, there is some support for these measures. In a 2003 Gallup poll in the United States, 72% of respondents were in favour of spousal notification, with 26% opposed; of those polled, 79% of males and 67% of females responded in favour. In many states, such restrictions are mandated by law, though often with the right of judicial oversight.

Generally speaking, the pro-life position regards abortion as a form of infanticide, and thus seeks legal restrictions on abortions. Pro-life advocates typically argue that if a pregnant woman is unable or unwilling to raise the child, there is the option of placing the child up for adoption. Two polls were released in May of 2007 asking Americans “With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?” May 4th through 6th, a CNN poll found 45% said pro-choice and 50% said pro-life. Within the following week, a Gallup poll found 49% responding pro-choice and 45% pro-life.

South Dakota is considered one of the most politically pro-life states in U.S. In 2004, a law to completely ban abortion failed to pass by one vote. The state’s Legislature passed five laws restricting abortion in 2005. In March 2006, the state passed a ban on all abortions, except to protect the life of the woman, sending the measure to the voters. However, in the 2006 midterm elections, the ban was defeated in a popular referendum vote.

Although the pro-life movement in the United States is generally associated with the Republican Party, this is not always the case. The Republican group The Wish List supports pro-choice Republican women just as EMILY’s List supports pro-choice Democratic women. And the Democrats for Life of America are a group of pro-life Democrats on the political left who advocate for a pro-life plank in the Democratic Party’s platform and for pro-life Democratic candidates. The late Robert Casey, a former two term governor of Pennsylvania, is among the most well-known pro-life Democrats. His son, Bob Casey, Jr. is now a pro-life Democratic US Senator. There are also Republicans who have taken stances in favor of allowing abortion, such as Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City and the late former President Gerald Ford.

In many nations, such as Canada, the nations of Europe, Australia, the nations of Asia and Africa, and even in the U.S. there are many on the economic left-wing and political centre who either have personal disagreements with abortion or who oppose legal abortions outright. Both groups generally consider themselves pro-life.

Bush voices support for abortion rights opponents. Read the CNN Bush Pro-Life Article.

There exist a point in any subject when a debate must end for one of the players. Sometimes this comes from defeat and other times it comes as a means to breath a moment and collect ones thoughts. The course of things can change and suddenly you find yourself fighting against a wholly different idea. I look at the collection of Pro Choice individuals and I see a distinct difference in the people as compared to the actual idea. The right to choose is a lofty goal, especially when it preserves an individuals ability to survive. Sadly however I have seen a desperate struggle to fight against a Pro Life Movement by means of total dis-compassion.

The claim that a fetus is nothing but a disease so long as mommy says so. the claim that a choice is more important then any life. The claim that law is everything and the only means to judge a subject come to mind most predominately. These things, all of them lack compassion, they lack reasoning and rational capability. No one is wanting slaves. No one is wanting hatred. What I seek is equality, I seek the choice of responsibility.

I choose to make the right choice in the beginning so I do not place myself in a position to force my flaws onto others. That is the spirit in which Pro Life exists. Not to force, not to be the law makers, but to give natural law back to the innocent. To continue everyone’s right to life over the minorities wish to destroy it without just cause.

Posted in forums by comedic’n'dramaticlynn

Whether you are for Roe vs Wade or not, how did you spend the 34th anniversary?

If you are pro-life, did you participate in any pro-life activities like the March for Life or did your own individual rallying?

If you are pro-choice, did you attend any candle light vigils, rallied with any groups, or did any individual activism?

If you are on the fence or in the center, did you do anything in particular or just shook your head at the whole thing?

Visit the free Snowboarding Forum for discussion about extreme snow sports, snowboarders and ski resort reviews.