7 opinions about Alabama's ban on abortion

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 20, 2019 11:38 a.m.

    To 'Shaun" most people agree that in cases of rape, incest, physical danger to the mother, or severe deformities on the baby, abortion should be allowed. However, that is not the situation where a woman has been engaged in premarital sex and ends up pregnant. She made her choice when she decided to sleep around.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    May 18, 2019 4:18 p.m.

    I think abortion in the case of race and incest needs to be on the table. I know all the ultra-conservatives have their positions and all, but there are inherent health risks in pregnancy. Plus, there is the trauma of the being a victim of rape and incest in the first place. At this point, I support the pro-choice position, especially if the pregnancy is terminated in the first few weeks. I think any law that would prevent that is heartless. And if the woman chooses to keep her baby, I would also support this. But not all pregnancies are chosen and those that aren't it should be obvious that the woman should have the right to terminate the pregnancy.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    May 18, 2019 2:21 p.m.

    @Shackleford Rusty - St George, UT
    May 18, 2019 12:36 p.m.,

    You've taken the argument that there are only two people involved, the rapist and the mother. What about the 3rd person, the unborn child? Who speaks for the child? You and I and everyone who has ever lived was once that "child", helpless to act and easy prey for those who might have acted upon us. Were we just "lucky" that our mothers decided that our lives were important enough to allow us to live?

    Every criminal who has been found guilty of a crime that deserves death is given many opportunies to appeal. Who hears the unborn child cry out for life? Who is the child's advocate? Who acknowledges that there are three people involved; a rapist, a woman who was the victim of a rape, and an innocent child who did no harm to anyone, whose heart is beating.

    If that rapist had killed a pregnant woman, he would be charged with two murders. He would be charged with killing an unborn child. That law shows that the child has great worth in our society. That child is not a "by product" of a rape. It is a living unborn child who has committed no crime. Would you destroy that unborn living child?

  • Shackleford Rusty St George, UT
    May 18, 2019 12:36 p.m.

    @jthompson

    It is coercion to force a women who has been raped to carry on pregnancy she did not want. The child isn’t hers because she had no choice in the matter.

    Also your argument about my mom giving me life is totally different because she made that choice. Compelling women to carry a child because she is raped is a punishment beyond the punishment rapist would receive.

    Do you also propose she pays for all the healthcare around the pregnancy?

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    May 18, 2019 10:26 a.m.

    @Shaun - Sandy, UT
    May 18, 2019 9:50 a.m.

    I fail to see how destroying a third person solves the problem of rape. What did that unborn baby do to merit death? What crime did it commit? How is it moral to destroy its life? It's heart is beating. It has its own DNA. It is a separate person from the mother.

    I also disagree that giving life to a child is punishment. It is the greatest gift that a mother can give. Each of our mothers suffered more than we can imagine to give us life. My mother did not think that giving me life was a punishment. I doubt that your mother thought that she was being punished when she gave you life.

    Next you reverse yourself by saying that children have worth, enough worth that they deserve to be fed and clothed by the government. Is the government their mother? Is the government their father? The government is their protector, just as it is your protector, but nothing in the Consitution requires or even allows the government to feed us or to clothe us. The 10th Amendment clearly passes that responsibility to the State or to the People. In this case, that responsibility goes directly to the people, as per YOUR Constitution.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    May 18, 2019 9:50 a.m.

    @mike richards

    I disagree with you. Making a women carrry a child she had no decision in is coercion. Further more it punishes her more than the person that raped her.

    Also if the child is just a innocent bystander then that means all children are innocent bystanders and therefore it blows the whole conservative argument against programs like chip, snap and school lunch programs. After all the children are just innocent bystanders and are not responsible for the action of their parents.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, UT
    May 18, 2019 9:10 a.m.

    @Frozen Fractals - Salt Lake City, UT
    May 17, 2019 7:13 p.m.

    Sorry, but the law disagrees with you:

    "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, passed in 2004, defines a fetus as a "child in uterus" and a person as being a legal crime victim "if a fetal injury or death occurs during the commission of a federal violent crime." In the U.S., 38 states have laws with more harsh penalties if the victim is murdered while pregnant. Some of these laws defining the fetus as being a person, "for the purpose of criminal prosecution of the offender" (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2008). Laci Peterson, murdered in 2002, is one of the more high-profile homicides." (Wikipedia)

    Simply put, if you kill a pregnant woman, you will be charged with two homicides, one for the woman and one for the unborn child inside her.

    You have twisted the 14th Amendment to say something that it does not say. It gives citizenship to anyone born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of the mother. It does NOT define life nor does it define the moment when life starts.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    May 17, 2019 7:13 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    The 14th Amendment defines citizenship as all persons born or naturalized. 5th and 6th amendment protections do not apply to those in the womb.

    @RedShirtUofU
    "the business owner didn't choose to do business with you. "

    They chose to open the doors, let people in, and had an unplanned result.

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    May 17, 2019 3:33 p.m.

    To "Ranch" the business owner didn't choose to do business with you. You choose where you will go to make a transaction. When you think about it, forcing a business person to do something they don't want to do could be comparable to rape.

    Yes, business owners more or less know what to expect. However, you can't go into a business and expect them to go against their own policies. For instance you wouldn't go to a photographer that has a policy of no nude photos and demand that they take nude photos of you.

    Don't you have to know what policies a business has before you enter the door? Do you demand that Smiths accept Visa Credit cards, despite their policy of not accepting them any more?

    You are right, having sex does not mean you must carry a baby to term. As long as a woman's egg is not fertilized she can have sex as often as she wants. However, once an egg is fertilized and begins to develop normally and is able to do all of the things required to grow, then a woman lost her gamble with her body, and should carry the baby to term.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    May 17, 2019 2:49 p.m.

    @RedShirtUofU;

    "...when she is pregnant? Didn't she CHOOSE to engage in sexual relations? Don't women know what causes pregnancy?"

    --- Likewise, didn't the Business Owner CHOOSE to engage in commerce? Don't (religious) Business Owners know what laws apply when they open their doors?

    -- Choosing to have sex doesn't require you to carry a fetus to term if you don't want to. Opening a business does, in fact, require you to follow the laws pertaining to it.

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    May 17, 2019 12:33 p.m.

    To "Ranch" when does a "blob of cells" become a baby? Are you just a blob of cells that your mother can abort at any time? If survival outside of the womb is the defining condition, is that when a baby can feed itself and take care of its own needs?

    Other than rape and incest, how is a woman "enslaved" when she is pregnant? Didn't she CHOOSE to engage in sexual relations? Don't women know what causes pregnancy? Aren't women taught math in school, which would include statistics that would explain the pregnancy risks even when using contraceptive means?

    You make it sound like women have no choice when becoming pregnant, almost as if they can become pregnant by standing outside on a windy day.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, UT
    May 17, 2019 10:47 a.m.

    @Shaun - Sandy, UT
    May 17, 2019 9:14 a.m.

    Do you stand for the Constitution? The 5th Amendment states: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury," The 6th Amendment states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,"

    That unborn baby, with a beating heart and DNA unique to itself has committed no crime, therefore it cannot be executed (aborted) for any crime. At the very least, a Grand Jury must indict that unborn child before any legal action can be taken to deprieve him or her of life.

    In cases of rape or incest, it is the rapist who has committed the crime, not the unborn baby. Let the innocent baby live and then be adopted by a loving and kind family that yearns for a child. If the choice is between the mother's life and the baby's life, then let the mother decide. The two lives are intertwined. She and only she can decide whether she or the baby lives.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    May 17, 2019 10:41 a.m.

    You conservatives think that asking a baker to spend a few hours making a cake for a gay couple is "slavery" but you have no problem at all enslaving a woman to a blob of cells for 9 months. Talk about hypocrisy.

    FYI. A blob of cells isn't a baby; if it can't survive on it's own, outside a womb then it doesn't have the "right" to utilize the woman's body unless she wants it there.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    May 17, 2019 10:38 a.m.

    @no names

    I don’t know the statistics on abortion and like most things any facts can be skewed towards ones point of view.

    To answer your main question. I don’t believe abortion should be a form of birth control. However I think this whole debate would change if men were held responsible for their part in it.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    May 17, 2019 9:57 a.m.

    @Shaun: "So you do not feel that rape, incest or the health of the mother should be an exception?"

    Lets be honest in our communication. Before asking others about exceptions, you should state your position.

    Do you think purely elective abortions should be limited or banned?

    If yes, then asking about exceptions in the fewer than 5% of cases involving rape, incest, the life of the mother, or fatal fetal deformity is fair and honest.

    However, to use the 5% case to drive a wedge to justify the 95% that are simply convenience isn't honest dialogue.

    Where do you stand on the 45% of abortions that are repeat abortions and indicative of a woman using abortion as after-the-fact birth control?

    What about the 95% of abortions that have nothing to do with rape or life of the mother or other such exceptional circumstances?

    Do you support legal limits on late term or partial birth abortions? What about denying medical care to a baby that survive abortion attempts and is born alive?

    Are any legal limits acceptable to you? Which ones?

  • Flipphone , 00
    May 17, 2019 9:46 a.m.

    All unborn babies deserve the right to be born.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    May 17, 2019 9:14 a.m.

    @mike richards

    So you do not feel that rape, incest or the health of the mother should be an exception?

  • oldbasketball Draper, UT
    May 17, 2019 8:44 a.m.

    Abortions for rape and incest and when the mothers life is at risk is a yes. All other reasons are a no. That is what they make the pill for.

  • milquetoasty Salt Lake City, UT
    May 17, 2019 8:33 a.m.

    Tomi Lahren reminds me of Serena Joy from The Handmaid's Tale.

    Is helping to create a monster that eventually eats you too worthy of pity, scorn, or both?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, UT
    May 17, 2019 7:51 a.m.

    I agree with Alabama. The unborn children have a right to live. The Declaration of Independence states:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    A terrible war was fought so that those unalienable Rights could continue to flow from our Creator to a people who were willing to self-govern themselves with a very limited Federal Government.

    Since Roe v Wade, some people seem to think that the Court has given them a license to destroy an unborn baby at any time for any reason. That is morally reprehensible.

    The editorial stated that one member of Congress stated, in part: "finding the law to be consistent with past legislation". We must expect the Court to rule on the Law as allowed by the Constitution, not as ruled on by other judges. Just because otherjudges ruled that the life of an unborn child has no value does not mean that the Consitution allows that person to be deprived of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

  • stevo123 Driggs, ID
    May 17, 2019 7:36 a.m.

    @ We the people, I think you hit the nail on the head, this is all about punishing people you disagree with.

  • WeThePeople Sandy, UT
    May 16, 2019 11:07 p.m.

    The Alabama Law is the Right Decision, and it is what our Nation has been Wating For for a Long Time!

    We need to punish the promiscuous libertines who have no respect for the Consequences of their Actions. We need to draw a moral line in the sand! It stops here! No further!

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    May 16, 2019 5:12 p.m.

    The Alabama law is too restrictive to be good public policy.

    However, it may well be perfect to challenge Roe.

    The very folks who defend unlimited access to elective abortion at any stage often attack laws protecting unborn babies by pointing out that children conceived via rape are no less persons than any other baby and should not be punished for the crimes of their fathers. So this bill presents a clean challenge to Roe. No doubt the pro-abortion folks will attack it as not taking into account the extreme emotional difficulty of carrying a baby conceived via rape. And they are not wrong there. But at least we then talk about 5% of abortions as an exception, rather than using it as a wedge to justify 90% of other abortions.

    It is time to return this issue to the peoples of the several States as the 10th amd clearly mandates.

    Want a nationwide right to elective abortion? Get a ConAmd. Otherwise, the matter is best left to the States like gambling, prostitution, speed limits, alcohol, zoning, age limits for ear piercings and tats, and most other matters.