Politics Abortion

I find this absolutely ridiculous. I have an American Girl doll. I got one years ago for Christmas, and I absolutely love her. They are great dolls with great stories. The company promotes girls being strong, and donate to a company who shares those values. That company does support a girl's right to choose. If you don't want to buy the dolls for that reason, then that's fine, but to have a protest which was originally scheduled to show aborted fetuses outside of their main store while young children were shopping is appalling.

If people are so against this group, then they need to look at their list of contributers and boycott all of them as well. Which would include CNN and all of the Time Warner media outlets.

Pro-Life Group Protests at American Girl Store Over Abortion Ties

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
November 28, 2005


Chicago, IL (LifeNews.com) -- A pro-life group led a protest on Friday at a Chicago American Girl store protesting the doll company's ties to a girls group that backs abortion. Despite a nearly month-long boycott, American Girl is still working in partnership with Girls Inc., a youth group that supports Roe v. Wade.
Ann Scheidler, the director of the Pro-Life Action League said it chose Friday as the day of the protest because the "day after Thanksgiving is the busiest shopping day of the year."

She said the protest reached thousands of shoppers "with the unfortunate news that American Girl is funding Girls Inc., a group that strongly advocates abortion."

The demonstration including many pro-life girls who would normally purchase the hertiage-based dolls, which are popular nationwide. Instead, they picketed American Girl Place holding "Girls for Life" signs -- along with their Samantha, Kit, Molly and other American Girl dolls, each holding her own miniature picket sign.

In August, American Girl launched the "I Can" bracelet program, pledging to support Girls Inc. with 70¢ for every $1 bracelet sold, plus a $50,000 donation. Girls Inc. supports abortion and opposes abstinence education, Scheidler's group explained.

Girls Inc., which helps girls with scholastic and self-esteem issues, has defended its pro-abortion position.

It posted a message on its web site blasting the pro-life group for the boycott and saying "our mission to help girls develop their self-esteem and self-reliance has become the target of false, inflammatory statements from people who are pursuing a narrow political agenda."
 
i agree with Jamison too. as someone who is Pro-Life (anti-abortion, domestic violence, death penalty, anti-euthanasia, war, famine, and anything else that ends life, prevents life, or degrades life), i find that protesting abortion is useless. if we want to see change, on any issue, we need to educate ourselves on the issue and candidates who run for office and do our best to legally get that candidate in office. only then can change be seen. protesting is wasting energy in exercising our "freedom of speech" (what the word-turned-cliche "freedom" means these days, i'll leave up to your imagination).
 
I don't think abortion is right but in some cicumstances it does become acceptable. If a woman is raped, or maybe her life is at risk with the pregnancy, then I wouldn't judge her if she chose to have it. I do disagree however if she decided to have one because it didn't fit in with her plans.
 
Bill Mears said:
Justices tackle late-term abortion issue
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court wasted little time jumping back into the contentious abortion issue, agreeing Tuesday to review the constitutionality of a federal law banning a controversial late-term procedure critics call "partial birth" abortion.

The case could provide a judicial sea change with new Justice Samuel Alito, who joined the high court January 31, replacing Sandra Day O'Connor.

O'Connor, the first woman on the high court, was a key swing vote for a quarter century, upholding the basic right to abortion.

The views of Alito, a more conservative jurist, could prove crucial in the new debate.

A federal appeals court had ruled against the government, saying the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 was unconstitutional because it did not provide a health exception to pregnant women facing a medical emergency.

'Health exception'

The outcome of this latest challenge could turn on the legal weight given past rulings on the "health exception."

In states where such exceptions are allowed, they include the possibility of severe blood loss, damage to vital organs or loss of fertility. And doctors would be given the discretion to recommend when the late-term procedure should be performed.

The federal law has never gone into effect, pending the outcome of more than two years of legal appeals.

The issue of late-term abortions is not new to the high court, and earlier precedents could play a key role when the justices review the federal ban.

In 2000, the justices threw out Nebraska's version banning the "partial birth" procedure. Using an earlier legal standard, the court concluded 5-4 that the state law was an "undue burden" on women because it lacked the critical health exception.

Despite that ruling, the Republican-controlled Congress -- backed by the Bush White House -- passed its own version three years later.

'Act of hostility'

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America was quick to denounce the court's decision to hear the case, calling it "a dangerous act of hostility aimed squarely at women's health and safety."

"Despite 33 years of Supreme Court precedent that women's health matters, the court has decided it will once again take up this issue," Cecile Richards, the organization's president, said in a written statement.

"Health-care decisions should be made by women, with their doctors and families -- not politicians," Richards added. "Lawmakers should stop playing politics with women's health and lives."

Abortion rights groups object to the term "partial birth," and even "late-term abortion," saying the procedure is done before the fetus is viable and is performed only in the second or early third trimester, usually within 12 to 15 weeks of the start of pregnancy.

Since the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, various states have tried to place restrictions and exceptions on access to the procedure, prompting a string of high court "clarifications" over the years.

South Dakota's state Senate plans to vote Wednesday on a controversial bill to ban abortion in nearly all cases -- except to protect the life of the mother.

The high court last month passed up a chance to issue a major ruling in a separate abortion-related case.

In a unanimous but narrow ruling written by O'Connor, the last opinion she authored, the court concluded that a federal appeals court went too far by blocking enforcement of a New Hampshire law requiring minors to notify their parents before receiving an abortion.

Justice Department urged review

On the federal late-term abortion law, the Justice Department urged the justices to accept the case, saying the lower courts viewed the issue incorrectly.

"That decision overrides Congress's carefully considered finding, following nine years of hearings and debates, that partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve a mother's health," Solicitor General Paul Clement said in a legal brief.

Abortion rights groups have been vocal on the issue, tying the case to last month's confirmation of Alito.

"Today's actions by the court are a shining example of why elections matter," Richards said in the Planned Parenthood statement. "When judges far outside the mainstream are nominated and confirmed to public office by anti-choice politicians, women's health and safety are put in the danger."

Planned Parenthood and other groups opposed Alito and launched an aggressive media blitz.

The federal late-term abortion case will likely be argued in the fall.
can someone please give me some arguments in favor of partial birth abortion? this is the first time i have ever read a news article that almost made me cry.
 
can someone please give me some arguments in favor of partial birth abortion? this is the first time i have ever read a news article that almost made me cry.


I think the article summed it up. Partial birth abortions were banned in all cases. So a who was carrying a child and had something happen to where her live was endanger would not be able to get an abortion past a certain point. This is concerning, because you're basically giving the woman a death sentence, which isn't right.

And I don't think you can be "in favor" of partial birth abortion, just like you aren't in favor of abortion. I'm pro-choice, but that does not mean pro-abortion. I think it's really sad that there are woman who have to resort to an abortion, but it's an option that should be there for them. That being said, I think a woman who's life is in danger should be given the option on whether or not she wants to go through the pregnancy, and not given a death sentence.
 
I think the article summed it up. Partial birth abortions were banned in all cases. So a who was carrying a child and had something happen to where her live was endanger would not be able to get an abortion past a certain point. This is concerning, because you're basically giving the woman a death sentence, which isn't right.

And I don't think you can be "in favor" of partial birth abortion, just like you aren't in favor of abortion. I'm pro-choice, but that does not mean pro-abortion. I think it's really sad that there are woman who have to resort to an abortion, but it's an option that should be there for them. That being said, I think a woman who's life is in danger should be given the option on whether or not she wants to go through the pregnancy, and not given a death sentence.
but partial birth abortion has only been shown to be helpful to those women who have cancer, heart disease, or high blood pressure.
 
but partial birth abortion has only been shown to be helpful to those women who have cancer, heart disease, or high blood pressure.

And these women under this ban would not have been able to get one if needed. Plus I would never rule out that someone without one of those conditions could potentially need one to safe their life as well.
 
just a note: South Dakota passed a law a few days ago that would make almost all abortions illegal. it's widely seen as a test case for Roe.


It's definitely a test for Roe. I'm sure the governor of SD realizes that this is unconstitutional. Conventional wisdom is that it was introduced to directly challenge Roe.
 
i'm honestly pro-choice, but to a certain extent: i think that teenage girls who were raped or sexually abused in some way and got pregnant should be able to make the choice to abort. why should we let the 15 year old high school girls that don't know how to use a condom take the easy way out? either put up for adoption or raise the child yourself.

if you've got the notion to have sex without protection, then you need to take responsibility for your actions and their subsequent consequences.
 
i'm honestly pro-choice, but to a certain extent: i think that teenage girls who were raped or sexually abused in some way and got pregnant should be able to make the choice to abort. why should we let the 15 year old high school girls that don't know how to use a condom take the easy way out? either put up for adoption or raise the child yourself.

if you've got the notion to have sex without protection, then you need to take responsibility for your actions and their subsequent consequences.


I agree to a point. I don't think abortions should be a continual means of birth control for woman. But I don't think a 15 year old who didn't use protection should have to go through a pregnancy. It is very likely that this 15 year old had no idea about proper means of protecting herself. If she had taken any of the health classes that I had in middle and high school, they she wouldn't have had a clue. We were not taught anything about birth control. My first real taste of different types of birth control was reading a section about it in some stupid teen magazine. I don't think she should be faulted for that. Now if that is behavior that continues, then that's another story. I also don't think women who take active measures in protecting themselves should be faulted for getting an abortion if the protection fails to work.

Plus I certainly don't think that an abortion is "the easy way out". Nobody should take the issue of an abortion lightly. It is a medical procedure, that comes with it's share of complications and consequences. Just because it doesn't involve carrying a child for nine months, doesn't mean it's easy.
 
Plus I certainly don't think that an abortion is "the easy way out". Nobody should take the issue of an abortion lightly. It is a medical procedure, that comes with it's share of complications and consequences. Just because it doesn't involve carrying a child for nine months, doesn't mean it's easy.

I do very much agree with you on that, but some girls see that as the figurative "easy way out" rather than giving birth to the baby and raising it on their own.
 
I am just going to say one thing.... but I fear that, that will be enough to pretty much piss everybody off

Abortion is murder, so I am against it. I believe it should be outlawed.

Only 1% of abortion is rape and incest. The other 99% are people who are not willing to live with their choice. Yes, when they decided to have sex, that was when they had the choice.

The only instance where abortion is understandable is if the mother's life is in danger, because it is considered self defense. It is an extremely selfish to choose yourself over your child, but in some cirsumstances slightly understandable.
 
I am just going to say one thing.... but I fear that, that will be enough to pretty much piss everybody off

Abortion is murder, so I am against it. I believe it should be outlawed.

Only 1% of abortion is rape and incest. The other 99% are people who are not willing to live with their choice. Yes, when they decided to have sex, that was when they had the choice.

The only instance where abortion is understandable is if the mother's life is in danger, because it is considered self defense. It is an extremely selfish to choose yourself over your child, but in some cirsumstances slightly understandable.


I'd like to see where you got your statistics showing that only 1% of abortion is due to rape and incest. I feel pretty certain that it is likely higher, and as far as I'm aware you don't have to give a reason for getting an abortion, so it's quite possible that the percentage would be higher if women reported the reasoning.

People may choose to have sex, but that doesn't mean they choose to get pregnant or are emotionally and physically ready for a 9 month pregnancy. There are women who have abortions who used methods of protection that failed. There are also teenagers who get abortions who were not made aware of proper ways to protect themselves. I'd be curious to see where you stood on teaching sexual education in schools. Because, to me at least, it seems irresponsible to tell someone that abortions are bad and to not have sex, when they know very well that teenagers are having sex. A better way to go about it is to teach sex-ed so they can at least know ways to protect themselves and have a better understanding of the various issues that go along with having sex.
 
I am just going to say one thing.... but I fear that, that will be enough to pretty much piss everybody off

Abortion is murder, so I am against it. I believe it should be outlawed.

Only 1% of abortion is rape and incest. The other 99% are people who are not willing to live with their choice. Yes, when they decided to have sex, that was when they had the choice.

The only instance where abortion is understandable is if the mother's life is in danger, because it is considered self defense. It is an extremely selfish to choose yourself over your child, but in some cirsumstances slightly understandable.
right because teenage stupidity should be forgiven, because a condom breaking is the girl's fault. I mean come on! I would like to see this data of only !% of abortion is because of rape and incest.

My goodness, very rarely do early stage pregnancy put mother's life in danger (although there are cases where women are "allergic" to pregnancy) and how is choosing yourself over an unborn baby extremely selfish? It's all about self preservation. If you save yourself and your uterus you can continue to have kids! To put it in a primordian view, human reproduction is all about passing on genes. We are animals and basic animal instincts is to pass on as much genes as possible. Since we are intelligent and we can save ourselfs it's only natural to want to save yourself.

Not to say that girls should use abortion as a birth control. Abortions, just like giving birth will have an effect on the body and excess number of it will harm the body, but ultimatly it is their choice.

Quite honestly, I know some people who carry through with the pregnancies who don't deserve to be parents yet child protective services haven't done a thing about it yet so....
 
Concerning, rape, incest and any other kind of sexual abuse it's hard to get accurate statistics since many of the victims don't report it. Look at Teri Hatcher, she was molested by her uncle as a child but she didn't come forward until he was recently tried and she testified against him. If victims of sexual abuse are that reluctant to report their victimizers, I couldn't imagine how forthcoming they'd actually be when getting an abortion. Since I know women who had have abortions, I know that they weren't asked for their reasons by the doctor and anyone else involved in the procedure.


Since pro-life folks believe that these women should deal with the consequences of having sex by staying pregnant, I'd like to ask a couple of questions pertaining to choices.

Should smokers who are diagnosised with lung cancer be denied treatment since they willingly chose to put toxins in their body while knowing the health risks? How about those who eat fatty foods like bacon, cheeseburgers, and anything that's fried on a daily basis? When they have a heart attack or require surgery should they just be ignored and told to deal with the consequences of their unhealthy eating habits? Alcoholics can potentially damage their livers due to their excessive drinking, should they be allowed to receive transplants? In all these instances, each individual made their choices knowing the risks, should they be punished for it by being denied medical treatment?


From what I gather, pro-life supporters believe that abortion "disrupts" or "interferes" with "life's/nature's" course but if one really thinks about it, most if not all medical procedures "interferes" with "life's/nature's course". And abortion is surgery that requires anesthesia like most medical procedures.

As the lovely mystery chick mentioned it's about preservation which is what folks on the both sides are for, the obvious difference is where our support lies, for pro-choice folks it's about the woman and her right to live and also to choose what is best for her.
 
Should smokers who are diagnosised with lung cancer be denied treatment since they willingly chose to put toxins in their body while knowing the health risks? How about those who eat fatty foods like bacon, cheeseburgers, and anything that's fried on a daily basis? When they have a heart attack or require surgery should they just be ignored and told to deal with the consequences of their unhealthy eating habits? Alcoholics can potentially damage their livers due to their excessive drinking, should they be allowed to receive transplants? In all these instances, each individual made their choices knowing the risks, should they be punished for it by being denied medical treatment?
Your analogies are flawed because smoking and obesity are things that affect the health of one person. Getting pregnant creates another person, and yes, in most instances getting pregnant is a choice, but it was a choice that made another person in the process, so yes, she should be denied the opportunity to abort the pregnany.
 
Back
Top