What exactly have Republicans done to stop abortion?

[nakitty]

Ok....this is not meant to be ANOTHER abortion debate...and I do hope it does not end up going in that direction. What I want to know is.... many people have stated that the number one reason they don't vote Democrat is because of the pro-choice stance. And what I guess confuses me about this is... is it just that you disagree so much with them being pro-choice that you just can't bring yourself to back them? Or is it because you hope that by voting for Republicans that abortion will be made illegal? And if it is the latter reason.... how do you justify it in your head... when the past 8 years we have had a Republican President...and for most of those years a Republican majority in Congress as well...and don't forget the Supreme Court. And yet, abortion still remains legal. Doesn't this suggest that the likelihood is that it will remain legal for years to come...and that perhaps it should not be the deciding factor in how you vote? Especially since McCain has already stated that he doesn't think Roe vs Wade should be overturned. I am really curious as to how you have justified (for lack of a better word) this in your mind. Thanks!

[Laura in VA]

Well, it certainly isn't going to stop under a Democrat. And the beauty of it is that I don't have to justify my reasons for voting pro-life to anyone. :)

[nakitty]

Well, it certainly isn't going to stop under a Democrat. And the beauty of it is that I don't have to justify my reasons for voting pro-life to anyone. :)
hmmm... well, no...you don't.

[Karen sn]

Well, it certainly isn't going to stop under a Democrat. And the beauty of it is that I don't have to justify my reasons for voting pro-life to anyone. :)

No.....but I think that was her question.
If you are "voting pro life" - she wanted to know in what way because she doesn't think it matters republican or democrat.

(Which I guess is true if McCain says he doesn't care, and I guess neither does Obama....Don't know what Ron Paul thinks, but I sure do wish he was on the ticket).

[battlemaiden]

Republicans have generally fought for the following
(some have fought harder than others, and of course some democrats have agreed, but since you are the generalizing about the Republicans, I'll generalize my answer)


1. Increased informed consent- ultrasounds, information about post-traumatic disorders, and actual physical milestones of the unborn baby.

2. Partial birth abortion bans- including, but not limited to, requiring medical testimony about the pain inflicted during that procedure and other abortions.

3. Increased regulation of abortion clinics- requiring them to adhere to standards and regulations that all other "medical facilities" are subject to.

It isn't a matter of simply making abortion illegal. Women making these decisions should be FULLY informed. And doctors whose business it is (and it is a lucrative business) should be regulated that they are giving desperate women all the information they need.

Jo

[Laura in VA]

No.....but I think that was her question.
If you are "voting pro life" - she wanted to know in what way because she doesn't think it matters republican or democrat.

(Which I guess is true if McCain says he doesn't care, and I guess neither does Obama....Don't know what Ron Paul thinks, but I sure do wish he was on the ticket).

Well, she asked how I justify it, and my response was that things certainly aren't going to change under a Democratic Party leadership. I hope that makes sense.

[Michelle in MO]

Especially since McCain has already stated that he doesn't think Roe vs Wade should be overturned. I am really curious as to how you have justified (for lack of a better word) this in your mind. Thanks!

have phrased with tact and care a good question. Here are a few answers:

1. Conservatives have tried to enhance informed consent laws, including waiting periods, so that a woman doesn't make a hasty decision before getting an abortion.

2. They have fought for parental consent laws for minors in an effort to give the girls' parents an opportunity to make the decision, along with the minor, as to whether an abortion is really in her best interests.

3. They have attempted to appoint conservative judges who believe in a stricter construction of the Constitution.

Not all conservatives are pro-life to the extent that they are fighting to see all abortions made illegal. There are mitigating circumstances, such as the life and health of the mother, as well as other situations, that they are willing to make allowances for. They are not looking for draconian measures; they are looking to reduce the number of unnecessary abortions. I believe some on the "other side of the aisle" would concur with that need.

Even if Roe v. Wade was overturned, what many people may not realize is that the issue of the abortion would be thrown back to the states. Each state would then determine its own laws regarding abortion. It would then be similar to the battle currently taking place in many states over the issue of gay marriage.

[PariSarah]

Yes, I would wish for there to be more legal restrictions on abortion. I'm not optimistic that this will happen any time soon, and I'm very disillusioned with the devil's bargain some conservatives have made. (We don't like W, but we need the Supreme Court justices, so we'll put up with him. We're so pro-life that we'll even be pro-torture to get those justices.)

But in the mean time, what have Republicans done to reduce the perceived need for abortion? Put another way, do Republican policies support people with unplanned and crisis pregnancies, or do they leave such people feeling bereft of alternatives? I don't think Democrats are intentionally working to reduce the number of abortions in this country, but some of the fiscal policies they support do have the effect of giving women alternatives. I've mentioned them here before, but I will again: Feminists For Life is a great example of what a group can do to work for alternatives to abortion without necessarily trying to make it illegal.

I honestly believe that it's more possible to make abortion unnecessary and undesirable than to make it illegal. If people don't want them anymore, the law doesn't matter.

[kaylk in tx]

(don't remember where other than it was online, a reputable source, but don't have time to google anything right now)

that the number of abortions declines when the economy is doing well. (growing the economy?? :tongue_smilie: ) people are more likely to think they can handle the expense of an additional small person when they aren't worried about their jobs, cost of living, etc.

[Danestress]

I think within the next decade, so many more abortions are going to be chemical and will mostly be performed in people's homes. So I think that this is a battle that will eventually be waged more in convincing women not to have abortions, and less in the courts. It's going to be an increasingly private decision.

Because that's ultimately what we need to do - we need to offer young people truly convincing arguments against becoming s@xually active, convince them to use effective birth control if they do decide to be S@xually active, and persuade women that abortion is not a good choice for them when they become pregnant. We need to be a society that values people for their whole lives, and not just when they are unborn.

And that's easier said than done. If young women were assured that they would have paid leave to raise children, that they could depend on decent housing, adequate food, real support, healthcare for their babies, and educational and professional opportunity, I think a lot of them might give birth. Telling women, "Well, give birth, and then give the baby to another woman who has a husband and more money than you, and let her be the mother" is not working out well.

[Ashleen]

We're so pro-life that we'll even be pro-torture to get those justices.

Um. Well, I agree with much of your post, and good point about Feminists for Life, but the above sentence... there has to be a contradiction there.

[Ashleen]

Because that's ultimately what we need to do - we need to offer young people truly convincing arguments against becoming s@xually active, convince them to use effective birth control if they do decide to be S@xually active, and persuade women that abortion is not a good choice for them when they become pregnant. We need to be a society that values people for their whole lives, and not just when they are unborn.

These are good points. However, I fear that promiscuity is the genie that won't go back in the bottle.

[PariSarah]

Um. Well, I agree with much of your post, and good point about Feminists for Life, but the above sentence... there has to be a contradiction there.

That's the point.

I have staunchly pro-life family members (or so I thought) who had so equated being pro-life with being Republican that they weren't willing to criticize even Abu Ghraib. There's just a wee little something wrong there.

[Ashleen]

That's the point.

I have staunchly pro-life family members (or so I thought) who had so equated being pro-life with being Republican that they weren't willing to criticize even Abu Ghraib. There's just a wee little something wrong there.

Ok, gotcha. I thought you were saying that you personally condone torture if it means the Justices are against abortion.

[Jennifer3141]

Ok, gotcha. I thought you were saying that you personally condone torture if it means the Justices are against abortion.


Me too!! I was truly frightened there for awhile. Ack.

Nakitty, GOOD QUESTION!!!

Jen

[PariSarah]

Ok, gotcha. I thought you were saying that you personally condone torture if it means the Justices are against abortion.

Sorry. Gotta be careful with that "we," don't I?

It was the "you crazy people whom I could never agree with" we, not the royal we. :lol:

[Melinda in VT]

Yes, I would wish for there to be more legal restrictions on abortion. I'm not optimistic that this will happen any time soon, and I'm very disillusioned with the devil's bargain some conservatives have made. (We don't like W, but we need the Supreme Court justices, so we'll put up with him. We're so pro-life that we'll even be pro-torture to get those justices.)

But in the mean time, what have Republicans done to reduce the perceived need for abortion? Put another way, do Republican policies support people with unplanned and crisis pregnancies, or do they leave such people feeling bereft of alternatives? I don't think Democrats are intentionally working to reduce the number of abortions in this country, but some of the fiscal policies they support do have the effect of giving women alternatives. I've mentioned them here before, but I will again: Feminists For Life is a great example of what a group can do to work for alternatives to abortion without necessarily trying to make it illegal.

I honestly believe that it's more possible to make abortion unnecessary and undesirable than to make it illegal. If people don't want them anymore, the law doesn't matter.

:iagree: Great post, especially the last paragraph. I'd rep you, but apparently I need to spread it around first.

[camibami]

;)What PariSarah said!

[Karen sn]

I honestly believe that it's more possible to make abortion unnecessary and undesirable than to make it illegal. If people don't want them anymore, the law doesn't matter.

Good point.
I bet mothers who want to keep their children find more support under democratic rule than republican.
More assistance - both with daycare and foodstamp type programs.

What always kills me is the "right to life" license plates. I just always wonder if these people ever offer to change a smelly diaper and watch a crying infant long enough for the mom to take a bath and/or a small nap....ANYTHING to help her.

Just an aside....Abortion has been around longer than written law. Herbs have been used since the dawn of time.

[Erica in PA]

If young women were assured that they would have paid leave to raise children, that they could depend on decent housing, adequate food, real support, healthcare for their babies, and educational and professional opportunity, I think a lot of them might give birth.

So you're saying that it's the government's responsibility to provide paid leave, housing, food, support, health care, and educational/professional opportunities to every woman who gets pregnant? I have to disagree with you there.

And at any rate, low income women do already have free access to government paid housing, food, and health care.

[Kimberleigh]

I think Democrats have generally done more to support life, even while keeping abortion as an alternative. Not only do Democrats support the social programs and healthcare that make it feasible for a mother to consider keeping her baby, but they have also initiated tax incentives and healthcare policies that make it feasible for other families to adopt unwanted babies.

We can't legislate morality. Some women are going to have unwanted pregnancies, including teens. Saying that premarital relations, abortion, AND birth control are wrong creates an untenable position. Hormones are going to win out. This is particularly true for teens. If we're going to say abortion is wrong, we need to do a better job of educating kids about birth control and a better job of supporting those teens who do become pregnant. Sure, we can encourage them not to engage, but the reality is that many of them will, and we need to prepare them for the consequences. And no matter whether some people abortion is wrong, some women are still going to pursue that option, legal or not.

We can all wish the world were a better place, but we need policies and support systems that are grounded in reality.

[kokotg]

According to this study that came out last year:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/abstract

the legality of abortion in a country doesn't have much effect on abortion rates. The availability of contraceptives is the single biggest factor that drives abortion rates down. I said all of this in another thread, but McCain has a long history of voting against measures that would make contraceptives more available.

My cynical self also thinks that MOST Republican politicians (McCain among them) have no intention of working to get Roe reversed because abortion is far too useful as a political tool.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

According to this study that came out last year:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/abstract

the legality of abortion in a country doesn't have much effect on abortion rates. The availability of contraceptives is the single biggest factor that drives abortion rates down. I said all of this in another thread, but McCain has a long history of voting against measures that would make contraceptives more available.

My cynical self also thinks that MOST Republican politicians (McCain among them) have no intention of working to get Roe reversed because abortion is far too useful as a political tool.

I was a sexually active teen. Contraceptives were readily available at the drugstore (condoms) and at the local health department clinic (bc pills). I remember a few of my friends going to the clinic during lunch and getting the pill. No parent required. My bf preferred going to the drugstore and pulling a box off the shelf. My girlfriends and I had a contraceptive pact. None of us ever went without it. Have we restricted bc in some way. Honestly, I would have NEVER gone to my teacher, counselor, or school nurse looking for bc. If I was smart enough to find a time and place to do it, I was smart enough to get bc on my own. This was 25 years ago. Have we gotten dumber?

I am baffled by the armies of teenage mothers with multiple toddlers I saw at the county fair. My dh works with young men who are some "Baby's daddy" and young, unmarried women, with multiple children from different boyfriends. They are not parenting their children. They party every weekend looking to hook up while grandma, neighbors or friends watch their toddlers. I can't believe they are as careful as we were. One girl is on her fourth baby - her kids have three different fathers. Daddy #2 and grandpa live together and raise her 3 toddlers. She lives with daddy of #4!! I wonder if she's ever considered getting her tubes tied.

As my dh says, "it's a mindset."

[Danestress]

To love and care about every child. And sometimes that means financial sacrifice.

I don't know whose job it is. But as a Christian, I think abortion is wrong, and I also think it's wrong to sit back and congratulate ourselves on rallying against abortion when we have mothers in our own towns who aren't sure how they are going to feed the children they have.

But my point, really, is that if we want to lower the abortion rate, one way to do that is to make giving birth and raising a baby a more viable option.

[kokotg]

I was a sexually active teen. Contraceptives were readily available at the drugstore (condoms) and at the local health department clinic (bc pills). I remember a few of my friends going to the clinic during lunch and getting the pill. No parent required. My bf preferred going to the drugstore and pulling a box off the shelf. My girlfriends and I had a contraceptive pact. None of us ever went without it. Have we restricted bc in some way. Honestly, I would have NEVER gone to my teacher, counselor, or school nurse looking for bc. If I was smart enough to find a time and place to do it, I was smart enough to get bc on my own. This was 25 years ago. Have we gotten dumber?



I don't know if we've gotten dumber, but a whole lot of people were just never as smart as you were ;). The specific measure I know of off the top of my head that McCain has voted against was one that would require insurance companies that cover prescription medication to cover birth control. Certainly it's not only about availability but also about education.

[Jennifer3141]

I think Democrats have generally done more to support life, even while keeping abortion as an alternative. Not only do Democrats support the social programs and healthcare that make it feasible for a mother to consider keeping her baby, but they have also initiated tax incentives and healthcare policies that make it feasible for other families to adopt unwanted babies.

We can't legislate morality. Some women are going to have unwanted pregnancies, including teens. Saying that premarital relations, abortion, AND birth control are wrong creates an untenable position. Hormones are going to win out. This is particularly true for teens. If we're going to say abortion is wrong, we need to do a better job of educating kids about birth control and a better job of supporting those teens who do become pregnant. Sure, we can encourage them not to engage, but the reality is that many of them will, and we need to prepare them for the consequences. And no matter whether some people abortion is wrong, some women are still going to pursue that option, legal or not.

We can all wish the world were a better place, but we need policies and support systems that are grounded in reality.

:iagree: And I'm outta rep for the day. Drat!

Jen

[6packofun]

Well, promiscuity schmomiscuity.
If we just admited we all like sex, and kids do as well....it's natural and blah blah blah......we could begin to teach birth control practices that would be practiced prior to pregnancy.


So promiscuity has to do with loving sex? Uh, how about self-respect or the lack of it? How about thinking of the future instead of only and ever "in the moment" so that you have MORE choices later about how you will raise a family in the best way possible? It's called delayed gratification that makes healthy *sense*, people.

I believe the problem is that it's always someone else's job to teach these generations of children about sex, self-respect, and responsibility. It's hard to legislate involved parenting. Let's face it, plenty of kids get through their teen years without giving in to the temptation of sex and they aren't all children of uber-religious, strict parents. So what went right for THOSE children? I'm betting it's got something to do with how they were raised. Can't bottle that up and sell it, though! LOL

Have you ever sat in on a sex ed. class that includes all of these great birth control methods? The kids' eyes are glazed over, when they aren't goofing off, they only want to know if there are free condoms and then they leave to go do whatever the heck they wanted to do before they heard the lecture.

Republicans have tried to pass legislation that would try to make unborn children seen as human and with rights of their own and to reduce the more cruel, cold abortion practices. But all of that seems to get stalled or held up, doesn't it? Outlawing it altogether cannot be at the forefront of the fight in such a self-centered, rights for one but not for ALL, kind of climate. So much of what pro-lifers in the government try to accomplish is not given attention (media or otherwise) anyhow.

[Peek a Boo]

Ok....this is not meant to be ANOTHER abortion debate...and I do hope it does not end up going in that direction. What I want to know is.... many people have stated that the number one reason they don't vote Democrat is because of the pro-choice stance. And what I guess confuses me about this is... is it just that you disagree so much with them being pro-choice that you just can't bring yourself to back them? Or is it because you hope that by voting for Republicans that abortion will be made illegal? And if it is the latter reason.... how do you justify it in your head... when the past 8 years we have had a Republican President...and for most of those years a Republican majority in Congress as well...and don't forget the Supreme Court. And yet, abortion still remains legal. Doesn't this suggest that the likelihood is that it will remain legal for years to come...and that perhaps it should not be the deciding factor in how you vote? Especially since McCain has already stated that he doesn't think Roe vs Wade should be overturned. I am really curious as to how you have justified (for lack of a better word) this in your mind. Thanks!

I tend to agree with you, which is why I'm not voting Republican... OR Democrat.

I might have been able to vote for Duncan Hunter --he was trying to get a bill passed that would legally define PERSON at conception. That is the kind of thing I'm looking for: the recognition of the developing human as a PERSON and given the basic Right to Life. But due to the way Congress operates he certainly can't push through a bill on his own.

What I think is bigger than abortion, tho, [and something most pro-choice people might want to focus on] is that even if you have an undeniable recognition that this developing human is a person w/ a right to live, you STILL have to deal with the fact that you now have TWO lives with rights that you have to reconcile. So from that perspective, there will always be a time and place for abortion. Tubal pregnancies, partial-birth abortion to save the life of the mother in extreme cases of severe hydroencephalacy, and other serious medical conditions where if the pregnancy continued neither the mother nor the child would survive.

I never understood the line of thinking that we can't legislate morality --we do it all the time. Murder, slander, plagiarism, libel, copyrights, theft.......
We TEACH kids and humans to control their anger, their wants, their emotions. What makes sex any different? Are we saying that people are incapable of being taught to control themselves sexually? that seems a bit insulting.

As for caring for the women-- I have to say I think Republicans and Christian conservatives have that cinched-- there tend to be more organizations reaching out to pregnant moms and counseling moms who were given an abortion and sent home. I've known a few families who took in a pregnant teen and gave her a safe place to stay [and lots more help] even after the baby was born. That sure smacks of a lot more help than driving a friend to an abortion clinic and back home. It is difficult to find a secular crisis pregnancy center that focusses on abortion alternatives. I would really like to start one in our own county, cuz while i appreciate the religious ones I think there are ways to reach even more women. I do think it would be cool if someone could offer links to some of the liberal abortion-alternative organizations like Feminists for Life.

But in general conservatives tend to be more free w/ their own money than liberals are:

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

and I think Arianna Huffington makes a good point:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/charity-may-begin-at-home_b_115082.html?page=2

My realization that the private sector alone would not do what is necessary to overcome poverty and address America's social problems played a major role in the transformation of my political thinking. I saw that while conservative Republicans talked a good game about compassion and social responsibility, they didn't put their money where their mouths were.

I also got a window into the world of charitable giving when I discovered how much harder it is to raise money for groups and community activists trying to turn lives around than it is for fashionable museums and already well-endowed universities.

the problem is they DO tend to put their money where their mouth is [per other articles], but it's not enough --more people need to be willing to do that. I don't see many conservative-driven museums either. I tend to hear more criticism from the left that the right ISN't supporting the arts.....


So what have republicans done to stop abortion?
the politicians have done little as far as I can tell, but the grassroots efforts and social helps have stepped up to help quite a bit. They could use more help from both sides of the aisle tho.

[PariSarah]

We can't legislate morality.

. . . you're going to be legislating morality.

And no matter where you come down on the issue, you're going to be forcing one person/group/religion's idea of morality on others who don't share it. The law is morality, enforced with the sword (or gun, or whatever prison guards carry these days).

So I can't agree with your point about trying to avoid legislating morality.

But I do agree that people who are insistently pro-life should either fight for laws that support families, or implement pro-family policies in their businesses, churches, community centers, and personal conduct if they don't believe that it's the government's job to do it.

[PariSarah]

We TEACH kids and humans to control their anger, their wants, their emotions. What makes sex any different? Are we saying that people are incapable of being taught to control themselves sexually? that seems a bit insulting.

Yes, I think this is an oft-missed point.

The law is about controlling behavior that is incompatible with the common good. And personal morality is about controlling behavior that is incompatible with personal or interpersonal good. Setting sexuality outside of those behaviors that may need controlling, for either reason, is ludicrous.

I also think, Peek, that you're right to point out that conservatives have done a better job at the community level on offering aid to women in crisis pregnancies. I don't think that national and state-wide Republican policies help such women, but I do think that conservative pro-lifers tend to put their money where their mouths are when it comes to small-scale efforts.

[Michelle in MO]

What always kills me is the "right to life" license plates. I just always wonder if these people ever offer to change a smelly diaper and watch a crying infant long enough for the mom to take a bath and/or a small nap....ANYTHING to help her.

We have a crisis pregnancy center in our small town, which is supported by both Democrats and Republicans alike. There are many, many volunteers who work at this center, whose jobs are the following: change diapers, arrange for childcare, arrange for reduced-income housing, give free prenatal care and counseling, give free parental counseling, help with food stamps, organize clothing drives, help both young moms and dads find jobs, help them further their own educations (i.e., GED or post-h.s. education). You name the need, and these people gladly give of their time and money to help. Every year this center organizes an annual fundraiser, which brings in a huge amount of funds to help with all of this. There is an accountant and auditing agency to make certain that funds are properly allocated. Only the director, who works there pretty much full-time, receives a salary; a minimal one at that. The wife of our family doctor (the family is Catholic) is very involved with the center; she's there almost every day. On the days that she's not there, she gathers up baby clothing and maternity clothing and launders it at home, and then brings it to the center.

Yes, there are plenty out there who are helping. There is usually one in every major city, and many in smaller towns, like ours. Our family is also involved.

[PariSarah]

What always kills me is the "right to life" license plates. I just always wonder if these people ever offer to change a smelly diaper and watch a crying infant long enough for the mom to take a bath and/or a small nap....ANYTHING to help her.

I've already said below that I think pro-lifers are more forthcoming with personal assistance at the local level than are pro-choicers. And I've also said that I think pro-lifers still have some room for improvement on this issue.

But pro-choice advocates really need to be careful about throwing this argument around. Because the obvious retort goes something like, "Well, you're not exactly offering to do that either. You're only telling her you don't mind if she kills it." And then it descends into the sort of character assassination that gets no one anywhere.

[astrid]

Well, it certainly isn't going to stop under a Democrat. And the beauty of it is that I don't have to justify my reasons for voting pro-life to anyone. :)

No, you don't HAVE to. I think NaKitty just asked a question, and is looking foward to answers from those who wish to share.
But thanks for playing.

Astrid

[astrid]

We can all wish the world were a better place, but we need policies and support systems that are grounded in reality.


:iagree::iagree::iagree:

astrid

[cathmom]

Saying that premarital relations, abortion, AND birth control are wrong creates an untenable position.


More birth control = more people having relations

More people having relations = more birth control failure

More birth control failure = more unintended pregnancies

More unintended pregnancies = more abortion

That is how contraception does not reduce the abortion rate.

[Karen sn]

We have a crisis pregnancy center in our small town, which is supported by both Democrats and Republicans alike. There are many, many volunteers who work at this center, whose jobs are the following: change diapers, arrange for childcare, arrange for reduced-income housing, give free prenatal care and counseling, give free parental counseling, help with food stamps, organize clothing drives, help both young moms and dads find jobs, help them further their own educations (i.e., GED or post-h.s. education). You name the need, and these people gladly give of their time and money to help. Every year this center organizes an annual fundraiser, which brings in a huge amount of funds to help with all of this. There is an accountant and auditing agency to make certain that funds are properly allocated. Only the director, who works there pretty much full-time, receives a salary; a minimal one at that. The wife of our family doctor (the family is Catholic) is very involved with the center; she's there almost every day. On the days that she's not there, she gathers up baby clothing and maternity clothing and launders it at home, and then brings it to the center.

Yes, there are plenty out there who are helping. There is usually one in every major city, and many in smaller towns, like ours. Our family is also involved.

Yes, this I know. My favorite aunt is huge in the movement. She helps womyn get clothing, cribs, all kinds of support, etc.... She has even been a foster mom to babies (she herself was in her late 50's).

She does not have a license plate. The few people I know personally that do have plates - do nothing.

[Perry]

More birth control = more people having relations



Is this true, or conjecture?

[kokotg]

More birth control = more people having relations

More people having relations = more birth control failure

More birth control failure = more unintended pregnancies

More unintended pregnancies = more abortion

That is how contraception does not reduce the abortion rate.

...except that if you look at the studies that have been done, it does. Do you have any evidence that "more birth control=more people having relations"?

The data also suggested that the best way to reduce abortion rates was not to make abortion illegal but to make contraception more widely available, said Sharon Camp, chief executive of the Guttmacher Institute.

In Eastern Europe, where contraceptive choices have broadened since the fall of Communism, the study found that abortion rates have decreased by 50 percent, although they are still relatively high compared with those in Western Europe. “In the past we didn’t have this kind of data to draw on,” Ms. Camp said. “Contraception is often the missing element” where abortion rates are high, she said.

....The wealth of information that comes out of the study provides some striking lessons, the researchers said. In Uganda, where abortion is illegal and sex education programs focus only on abstinence, the estimated abortion rate was 54 per 1,000 women in 2003, more than twice the rate in the United States, 21 per 1,000 in that year. The lowest rate, 12 per 1,000, was in Western Europe, with legal abortion and widely available contraception.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.htm

[Karen sn]

More birth control = more people having relations

More people having relations = more birth control failure

More birth control failure = more unintended pregnancies

More unintended pregnancies = more abortion

That is how contraception does not reduce the abortion rate.

The married moms of years gone by who had 12 kids or more (and didn't necessarily want that many) would have been different if birth control were available because they would have had less children.

Are you saying they would have had more children because bc is not 100%? Are you saying they would have fooled around with other people because bc = more people having sex?

This really makes no sense to me and sounds like it comes from the vatican. Which is even more interesting because if you research pharmaceutical company stock you can find the Catholic church has shares. These pharmaceutical companies manufacture birth control....

Having been quite successful with various forms of birth control myself, I can assure you that it has prevented unwanted pregnancy for me!

[Karen sn]

Well, she asked how I justify it, and my response was that things certainly aren't going to change under a Democratic Party leadership. I hope that makes sense.

Ok - since you have admitted to having abortions in your past (please correct me if I am wrong) - why is it not a viable option for others to choose as you yourself did have a choice? I am just wondering why the complete opposite position on the matter now in trying to censor the choice of another.

[nmoira]

We seem to have strayed a bit from the OP.

Here's a summary of Federal policies undermining abortion rights (http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_art_mosaic4.html), both globally and domestically.

A less dense summary of policies the Christian Right (http://atheism.about.com/od/abortioncontraception/p/UndermineAbort.htm) generally is pushing for, and often has succeeded, in obtaining. Many of these battles are more typically played out at the state level.

An excerpt: The Christian Right has demonstrated growing interest in "protecting" fetuses from various sorts of abuse. They want laws that treat attacks on women that lead to the death of the fetus as murder cases. They want to punish women who drink, smoke, or do drugs while pregnant. The point of all this is to establish in the law that a fetus is a person with rights — especially a right to live. If it's murder to attack a woman and kill her fetus, why not when a doctor kills the fetus in an abortion?

The bolded text is crucial. Often this type of language is inserted in bills that are so emotionally charged it is often potentially politically damaging for pro-choice politicians to vote against them -- because the spin is of course they are voting against the major thrust of the bill rather than the women's rights eroding language.

I know the question was specifically about abortion rights, but it's only one part of the larger conflict over reproductive rights generally. If the OP show an interest in broadening the discussion, IMHO, it's a better place to start.

[cathmom]

I apologize for posting on this thread. I got very little sleep last night and am way too tired to participate in a discussion like this. Please forgive me.

[Peek a Boo]

We seem to have strayed a bit from the OP.

Here's a summary of Federal policies undermining abortion rights (http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_art_mosaic4.html), both globally and domestically.

A less dense summary of policies the Christian Right (http://atheism.about.com/od/abortioncontraception/p/UndermineAbort.htm) generally is pushing for, and often has succeeded, in obtaining. Many of these battles are more typically played out at the state level.

An excerpt: The Christian Right has demonstrated growing interest in "protecting" fetuses from various sorts of abuse. They want laws that treat attacks on women that lead to the death of the fetus as murder cases. They want to punish women who drink, smoke, or do drugs while pregnant. The point of all this is to establish in the law that a fetus is a person with rights — especially a right to live. If it's murder to attack a woman and kill her fetus, why not when a doctor kills the fetus in an abortion?

The bolded text is crucial. Often this type of language is inserted in bills that are so emotionally charged it is often potentially politically damaging for pro-choice politicians to vote against them -- because the spin is of course they are voting against the major thrust of the bill rather than the women's rights eroding language.

I know the question was specifically about abortion rights, but it's only one part of the larger conflict over reproductive rights generally. If the OP show an interest in broadening the discussion, IMHO, it's a better place to start.


Thanks for bringing the OP's question back into focus.

But I'd also add that it's less about reproductive rights and more about when it is legal to kill a developing human: the reproduction has already occurred. Abortion is about dealing with the outcome of that reproduction --a developing human.

I already spelled out my agreement with exactly what you bolded, so i'll just point back to my post earlier in the thread on that.

[Peek a Boo]

Ok - since you have admitted to having abortions in your past (please correct me if I am wrong) - why is it not a viable option for others to choose as you yourself did have a choice? I am just wondering why the complete opposite position on the matter now in trying to censor the choice of another.


this seems pretty easy for me to comprehend. Plenty of people have done stuff that they either regret or now acknowledge as "not ideal." It's not a concept limited to abortion, but certainly includes it.

[nmoira]

Thanks for bringing the OP's question back into focus.

But I'd also add that it's less about reproductive rights and more about when it is legal to kill a developing human: the reproduction has already occurred. Abortion is about dealing with the outcome of that reproduction --a developing human.Is it? From my vantage point, I see the same political forces pushing to limit the right to abortion also pushing to limit access to birth control (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/07/30/a_new_attack_on_birth_control/).

I already spelled out my agreement with exactly what you bolded, so i'll just point back to my post earlier in the thread on that.You agree with it, and you are upfront with your intentions. I have not seen an instance of a politician inserting such language into a bill while explicitly declaring his intent to use it as a springboard to further limit reproductive rights.

[Karen sn]

this seems pretty easy for me to comprehend. Plenty of people have done stuff that they either regret or now acknowledge as "not ideal." It's not a concept limited to abortion, but certainly includes it.

Well yes, I am smart enough to get that.
If I do something - say move to Alaska or pick up a new hobby or sport - and say after doing it twice, I decide it's not for me...... I just don't think I would be comfortable mandating that no one else have those options just because I decided it wasn't right for me.

If you spend your life speeding on the highway, and one day decide to slow down - it seems a little hypocritical to then complain that others are speeding.

[Laura K (NC)]

Last election I voted for the Libertarian candidate because I knew that abortion, not having changed in the first four years of Bush's presidency, would not change in the next four years of it. And it hasn't. And I think Bush cared slightly more about unborn babies than McCain would. Obama's voting record is horrific, but will he be worse than McCain? I don't think he will. On foreign policy, maybe, but on issues of the dignity of the human person they're both losers as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think a pro-life Republican is electable by the Republican party. I have no idea why that is. I think some well-meaning pro-life Republicans cling to the idea of the party being pro-life, pro-liberty, and pro-family like some well-meaning old-school Democrats believing that theirs is the party of the working and middle classes. Neither one is the party it used to be.

If one believes abortion is murder, then one could never defend it. Neither party has treated abortion as if it was murder. Bush has not elected justices that defend life. I've heard a very convincing argument (http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2008/05/name_a_prolife.php) that there are currently no pro-life Supreme Court justices. If anyone has any proof that I'm wrong, please post it, because I'd feel a lot better if there was even one.

[Michelle in TX]

What always kills me is the "right to life" license plates. I just always wonder if these people ever offer to change a smelly diaper and watch a crying infant long enough for the mom to take a bath and/or a small nap....ANYTHING to help her.


I don't have a license plate like that but I am do consider myself in the "right to life" camp. I don't think anyone expects all women who find themselves pregnant and unable to care for a child to have the child and raise it. There is always the choice to give the child life and then put the child up for adoption.

And someone said that we can't legislate morality. Huh? I think many of our laws do just that. Dry towns, can't buy alcohol before noon on Sunday, murder, robbery, rape, etc. I think most of our laws stem from some kind of moral code.

And to answer the orginal question....I also would like Pro-life politicians to support laws that protect life when it comes to prohibiting the use of aborted babies for medical research/purposes, prohibiting partial birth abortion, laws that support adoption and adoptive parents. I also think there is a connection between those that are pro-life when it comes to abortion and those that oppose euthanasia (not currently an issue in America but could be some day). Those kinds of things.

[Julie in CA]

But as a Christian, I think abortion is wrong, and I also think it's wrong to sit back and congratulate ourselves on rallying against abortion when we have mothers in our own towns who aren't sure how they are going to feed the children they have.



If there are mothers in your town who aren't sure how they're going to feed their children, then they're just not looking very hard, I think. Even my teeny tiny town has a food bank, and none of the 4 churches I'm involved with would *ever* turn away a hungry family. Even mentioning in an offhand way that your children were going hungry would result in bags of food pretty much arriving on your doorstep, no strings attached.

People in this country who are actually going hungry, aren't trying all that hard, imo. (Though I realize this may be an *unpopular* opinion.)

Even with financial and social cutbacks, there are a wealth of services available.

[Patty Joanna]

These are the things I can think of; I tried to stay on topic.
1. Cut government funding for abortions
2. Passed ban on partial-birth abortions

The second part of your question brings me to my answer about why I vote pro-life: it's because of the mindset that comes with it. It's the same reason I chose a pro-life OB/GYN--I wanted a doctor to help me bring a baby (not "tissue") into the world, someone who didn't have a dualistic view, but a unified view of what is going on with a pregnancy. I want lawmakers who have a high view of the value of life as they write laws that affect the society in which I live.

As a corollary, it is hard to prove a negative, but I do wonder what would be the current status of laws and practices if the pro-life representatives had not been elected.

-------------------------------

This next statement is an aside, somewhat off-topic, but addressing points others in the thread have made about the more progressive government assistance programs benefiting women, being more likely to reduce the need for abortions, etc. This is most likely not the case, as has been recorded in one study after another and for many many years. If anyone is interested in learning about this, a good place to start is by Googling "Dalrymple underclass". Frederica Mathewes-Green wrote in this essay her move from pro-choice to pro-life, and why, and has expanded this essay into a book as she researched what could be done to reduce the number of abortions--something *everyone* wants. http://www.frederica.com/writings/from-pro-choice-to-pro-life.html.

Kind regards,

[nmoira]

People in this country who are actually going hungry, aren't trying all that hard, imo. (Though I realize this may be an *unpopular* opinion.)

Even with financial and social cutbacks, there are a wealth of services available. Hunger Facts (http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-domestic.html).

Excerpts:

The U.S. Conference of Mayors reports that in 2006 requests for emergency food assistance increased an average of 7 percent. The study also found that 48 percent of those requesting emergency food assistance were members of families with children and that 37 percent of adults requesting such assistance were employed. Unemployment, high housing costs, poverty or lack of income, and high medical costs led the list of reasons contributing to the rise.

Almost half the cities surveyed in the Mayors' report (45 percent) said they are not able to provide an adequate quantity of food to those in need. And 63 percent of surveyed cities reported they had to decrease the quantity of food provided and/or the number of times people can come to get food assistance. An average of 23 percent of the demand for emergency food assistance is estimated to have gone unmet in the survey cities, up from 18 percent last year.
The "last year" referred to above is 2005... well before the current economic slowdown.

[Jenny in Atl]

I don't have a license plate like that but I am do consider myself in the "right to life" camp. I don't think anyone expects all women who find themselves pregnant and unable to care for a child to have the child and raise it. There is always the choice to give the child life and then put the child up for adoption.

And someone said that we can't legislate morality. Huh? I think many of our laws do just that. Dry towns, can't buy alcohol before noon on Sunday, murder, robbery, rape, etc. I think most of our laws stem from some kind of moral code.

And to answer the orginal question....I also would like Pro-life politicians to support laws that protect life when it comes to prohibiting the use of aborted babies for medical research/purposes, prohibiting partial birth abortion, laws that support adoption and adoptive parents. I also think there is a connection between those that are pro-life when it comes to abortion and those that oppose euthanasia (not currently an issue in America but could be some day). Those kinds of things.

After watching that 20/20 show the other night, I'm surprised that all the pro-life advocates are not out in droves helping the poor mothers of Memphis be able to carry their babies to term; to see them grow-up healthy and happy. Where is the outrage, the Money, the interest in helping these woman who have chosen to carry their babies to term?

More babies die in Memphis TN than those who are murdered as adults each year, I believe the figure was double. These are not aborted babies, they are lost to preterm labor or low birth weight. But these are poor black women & babies, hidden and forgotten.

Until every baby born in this country has a caring home to call there own, that there is a shortage of babies, both healthy and not, up for adoption, I can't get all hot under the collar about women choosing not to carry a pregnancy to term. I see lots of outrage, but very little action on the part of those who are so determined to outlaw the practice.

[Julie in CA]

Hunger Facts (http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-domestic.html).

Excerpts:

The U.S. Conference of Mayors reports that in 2006 requests for emergency food assistance increased an average of 7 percent. The study also found that 48 percent of those requesting emergency food assistance were members of families with children and that 37 percent of adults requesting such assistance were employed. Unemployment, high housing costs, poverty or lack of income, and high medical costs led the list of reasons contributing to the rise.

Almost half the cities surveyed in the Mayors' report (45 percent) said they are not able to provide an adequate quantity of food to those in need. And 63 percent of surveyed cities reported they had to decrease the quantity of food provided and/or the number of times people can come to get food assistance. An average of 23 percent of the demand for emergency food assistance is estimated to have gone unmet in the survey cities, up from 18 percent last year.
The "last year" referred to above is 2005... well before the current economic slowdown.

Not trying to be argumentative here, but according to the website you linked, 4% of U.S. Households experience hunger.

Also according to the website you linked, 23% of the food needs of those in hunger are unmet.

Is it correct then that in the U.S. we are meeting the needs of 77% of that 4% of hungry people? If so, then that means that less than 1% of hungry people are unable to get the help they need. According to those figures, we as a society are doing pretty doggone well at providing food for those who need it.

The abortion issue is not about people being unable to provide for the basic needs of their children.

(As an aside, I'm not so sure that the U.S. Conference of Mayors is a really great source of real, hard numbers regarding hunger. The link to the actual report was broken, and makes it impossible to know how the U.S. Conference of Mayors compiled those statistics. The numbers listed could have been reported on a "survey" of the Mayor's *perceptions* regarding hunger, we just don't know...)

[Laurel-in-CA]

Patty Joanna, thank you very much for putting in the link to that article.

[Perry]

Not trying to be argumentative here, but according to the website you linked, 4% of U.S. Households experience hunger.

Also according to the website you linked, 23% of the food needs of those in hunger are unmet.

Is it correct then that in the U.S. we are meeting the needs of 77% of that 4% of hungry people? If so, then that means that less than 1% of hungry people are unable to get the help they need. According to those figures, we as a society are doing pretty doggone well at providing food for those who need it.



I haven't looked at the report, but I'm not following your numbers. 4% of households is different than 4% of people. You can't draw any conclusions about numbers of hungry people if you only know the proportion of hungry households. I'll see if I can find some other data.

[kokotg]

The abortion issue is not about people being unable to provide for the basic needs of their children.



there are other "basic needs" besides food. Safe, affordable housing for one. Medical care. Child care for working women. 73% of women cite "can't afford child" as their reason or one of their reasons for choosing abortion, so I don't think it's accurate to say there's no link between poverty and abortion.

http://www.mccl.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=400&srcid=183

[SFP]

U.S. Mayors Hunger Survey (http://www.usmayors.org/hungersurvey/2005/HH2005FINAL.pdf).

Discussion of methodology included within survey.

[Nakia]

This is a little off topic, but can someone please explain to me why they think it is so hard to get birth control. I know, for a fact, that I could walk into the county health department today and get free bc pills and a bag of condoms. I really am not trying to be hateful or snarky, but I truly want to understand the argument that birth control is hard to get.


FWIW, I am pro-birth control, pro-life, and Republican. Just to clear up any questions. :)

[nmoira]

Not trying to be argumentative here, but according to the website you linked, 4% of U.S. Households experience hunger.

Also according to the website you linked, 23% of the food needs of those in hunger are unmet.

Is it correct then that in the U.S. we are meeting the needs of 77% of that 4% of hungry people? If so, then that means that less than 1% of hungry people are unable to get the help they need. According to those figures, we as a society are doing pretty doggone well at providing food for those who need it.If the figures are correct, we're talking (in 2005, when the data was compiled) about not meeting just the food needs of 1% of all households, not 1% of the households experiencing hunger. I don't have the data, but I suspect that food is the most readily obtainable of all basic needs.

[Jolie]

I obviously meant mind-changing. That doesn't happen with posts that name-call and make snide innuendo. But, whatever. Eh, I'm not offended, LOL. (This last not directed to you, Pammy.)

[kokotg]

This is a little off topic, but can someone please explain to me why they think it is so hard to get birth control. I know, for a fact, that I could walk into the county health department today and get free bc pills and a bag of condoms. I really am not trying to be hateful or snarky, but I truly want to understand the argument that birth control is hard to get.




I don't mean to suggest that birth control in incredibly hard to obtain in this country--although I doubt if every county health department is as generous with it as yours (at my college, at any rate, the health department was not handing out free birth control pills, and that was a not-negligable monthly expense for someone like me who was going to school full time and working 2 minimum wage jobs). But certainly there are those who would seek to make birth control and information about birth control less accessible (and yes, I count pushing abstinence-only education) . And when bills designed to make birth control easier to get come up, John McCain votes against them. My main point was that the legal status of abortion in a country is not a closely correlated with abortion rates, whereas the availability of contraceptives IS....and Democrats are more invested in the widespread availability of and education about birth control. Now, others have pointed out that, for them, birth control is part of the problem and/or they see it as an ends justifies the means situation. I can understand and respect that position, but it's not mine.

[Debbie in OR]

Republicans have generally fought for the following
(some have fought harder than others, and of course some democrats have agreed, but since you are the generalizing about the Republicans, I'll generalize my answer)


1. Increased informed consent- ultrasounds, information about post-traumatic disorders, and actual physical milestones of the unborn baby.

2. Partial birth abortion bans- including, but not limited to, requiring medical testimony about the pain inflicted during that procedure and other abortions.

3. Increased regulation of abortion clinics- requiring them to adhere to standards and regulations that all other "medical facilities" are subject to.

It isn't a matter of simply making abortion illegal. Women making these decisions should be FULLY informed. And doctors whose business it is (and it is a lucrative business) should be regulated that they are giving desperate women all the information they need.

Jo

:iagree: What she said...!

[LizzyBee]

Hunger Facts (http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-domestic.html).

Excerpts:

The U.S. Conference of Mayors reports that in 2006 requests for emergency food assistance increased an average of 7 percent. The study also found that 48 percent of those requesting emergency food assistance were members of families with children and that 37 percent of adults requesting such assistance were employed. Unemployment, high housing costs, poverty or lack of income, and high medical costs led the list of reasons contributing to the rise.

Almost half the cities surveyed in the Mayors' report (45 percent) said they are not able to provide an adequate quantity of food to those in need. And 63 percent of surveyed cities reported they had to decrease the quantity of food provided and/or the number of times people can come to get food assistance. An average of 23 percent of the demand for emergency food assistance is estimated to have gone unmet in the survey cities, up from 18 percent last year.
The "last year" referred to above is 2005... well before the current economic slowdown.

Did the report include private organizations or only what the government is giving away? I know that our church food pantry has given away drastically more food in the past year or two. If other private organizations are also increasing the amount of food they're giving away, the Mayors' report may not be reflecting the whole picture.

[Julie in CA]

If the figures are correct, we're talking (in 2005, when the data was compiled) about not meeting just the food needs of 1% of all households, not 1% of the households needing hunger. I don't have the data, but I suspect that food is the most readily obtainable of all basic needs.

Ah, see, you're right! At least about my math being faulty--even at 1% of households, that still sounds like we're doing pretty well, though no hunger would obviously be better, not to mention the hunger in other countries.

I'm still not convinced that lack of practical resources is the reason why most women choose abortion. I'm still sickened at the lack of value placed on life, and sickened even more by the atrocities committed in the name of "choice".
We live in a country that generally seems to have forgotten the idea of self-sacrifice.

I will bow out of this, because it's unlikely in the extreme that what I think would ever change someone's mind regarding abortion, and for the most part I think it's hopeless to try.

I guess I'll leave it at the idea that I could *never* vote for a....."candidate" who thought abortion was anything less than repugnant. So, yep! I'm a proud one-issue voter. Once a candidate believes that our society's most innocent aren't worth protecting, what more do I need to know about them? {That was a rhetorical question---}

[Mrs Mungo]

This is a little off topic, but can someone please explain to me why they think it is so hard to get birth control. I know, for a fact, that I could walk into the county health department today and get free bc pills and a bag of condoms. I really am not trying to be hateful or snarky, but I truly want to understand the argument that birth control is hard to get.

There have been a couple of threads where this has been mentioned, you might try searching for them. There are many people who believe birth control is the same as abortion. Those people believe in restricting access to birth control. It isn't that it's hard to get, it's the fact that some of the people who are anti-abortion are also anti-bc and want to pass measures to stop people from using bc, just like they want to stop abortion.

[Julie in CA]

73% of women cite "can't afford child" as their reason or one of their reasons for choosing abortion, so I don't think it's accurate to say there's no link between poverty and abortion.

http://www.mccl.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=400&srcid=183

That would make sense to me if there weren't long waiting lists of people willing to adopt those babes. Not only are they willing to adopt & provide for those babies, but they're generally willing to support the mother completely during the entire pregnancy and provide means for her to get back on her feet.

[6packofun]

I was a sexually active teen. Contraceptives were readily available at the drugstore (condoms) and at the local health department clinic (bc pills). I remember a few of my friends going to the clinic during lunch and getting the pill. No parent required. My bf preferred going to the drugstore and pulling a box off the shelf. My girlfriends and I had a contraceptive pact. None of us ever went without it. Have we restricted bc in some way. Honestly, I would have NEVER gone to my teacher, counselor, or school nurse looking for bc. If I was smart enough to find a time and place to do it, I was smart enough to get bc on my own. This was 25 years ago. Have we gotten dumber?

I am baffled by the armies of teenage mothers with multiple toddlers I saw at the county fair. My dh works with young men who are some "Baby's daddy" and young, unmarried women, with multiple children from different boyfriends. They are not parenting their children. They party every weekend looking to hook up while grandma, neighbors or friends watch their toddlers. I can't believe they are as careful as we were. One girl is on her fourth baby - her kids have three different fathers. Daddy #2 and grandpa live together and raise her 3 toddlers. She lives with daddy of #4!! I wonder if she's ever considered getting her tubes tied.

As my dh says, "it's a mindset."

Yep. It's much more acceptable to be a teen mom--among teens and, probably, to some degree their parents,. It's "inevitable", they're "going to do it anyway" and so the government is supposed to pick up the tab for irresponsibility.

As a society it seems we've given up the fight on this issue and it's more and more acceptable to legislate "assistance" for the results of any and all choices rather than get smart and tell families and kids that it is NOT in their best interest to be having sex, even as carefully as they think they can have it. And heaven forbid that anyone feels badly about themselves for being stupid (because teens and single women *know* they are taking a chance with pregnancy) or has to work hard to take responsibility on their own for the choice they made to create a life.

What about all of the grandmas and grandpas who aren't legal guardians of these grandchildren but are spending their retirement income and TIME on them? They should probably get assistance, too... It's a mess.

[kokotg]

That would make sense to me if there weren't long waiting lists of people willing to adopt those babes. Not only are they willing to adopt & provide for those babies, but they're generally willing to support the mother completely during the entire pregnancy and provide means for her to get back on her feet.

Well, there are waiting lists for healthy, white infants, at any rate. I wish it were true that there were plenty of homes available in this country for EVERY child who needs one.

[Jenny in Atl]

This is a little off topic, but can someone please explain to me why they think it is so hard to get birth control. I know, for a fact, that I could walk into the county health department today and get free bc pills and a bag of condoms. I really am not trying to be hateful or snarky, but I truly want to understand the argument that birth control is hard to get.


FWIW, I am pro-birth control, pro-life, and Republican. Just to clear up any questions. :)

Actually this was address in the 20/20 show. Birth control is hard to get for many in the inner cities. Clinics are few and far between, and multiple bus rides are needed to reach these clinics. I would gather it's even harder for the rural poor, who may have no access at all.

I know for the area in which I live (burbs) there is only one county health department. It's on a limited bus route and many who go there for general family care, walk for miles (many) to reach it. We have a large poor hispanic population here. Many of them have little to no education. I worked with a number of the local mothers as a breastfeeding support person, and from this experience I learned of many of their misconceptions about their bodies, reproduction, breatfeeding, and general infant care. In order for someone to make educated decisions about one's body, one needs to understand how it works.

Now I'm a libertarian, so I'm on shaky ground here, but we will never lower rates of unwanted pregnancies, abortion, and abuse if we don't work to improve the educational system for all. And this includes people really learning about their plumbing!!!

[Danestress]

If the question is "how do we end abortion" then yes, convincing women to consider adoption is certainly part of the picture.

But it seems horrid to me to tell a woman who would actually like to raise a child she conceives but is scared about the finances, "Well, there's people with more money than you who will take your baby." If she doesn't WANT to give the baby up, then this will just lead to a life of grief and loss for her, and while many women choose to endure that for the sake of their babies, others would prefer an abortion to that incredibly hard journey.

My only point was that if women felt more empowered to bear and raise the children they conceive, that also would reduce abortion. As would abstinence education. As would availability of birth control. As would reducing the fear of judgment for being pregnant in the first place. It's not just one magic wand.

If we really want to get serious about ending abortion, I believe we are going to have to get serious about loving the women who consider it. We have to really search for ways to convey the truth that sex outside of marriage carries powerful risks (not just of pregnancy), convince them to use birth control, and when both of those fail, we have to really look at their situation of their perspective and ask "how can we make abortion a less attactive alternative?" I guess there are no easy answers. But saying, "Well, there are food banks if you can figure out how to get to them, and if you can't, there are wealthy women who would will take your baby from you" just doesn't cut it.

It's NOT working.

[Laura in VA]

Ok - since you have admitted to having abortions in your past (please correct me if I am wrong) - why is it not a viable option for others to choose as you yourself did have a choice? I am just wondering why the complete opposite position on the matter now in trying to censor the choice of another.

I deeply regret the decisions I made to abort. I know many, many women who are in the same position. We just don't like to talk about it.

I don't know many people whose beliefs about certain issues, or about life in general, are the same as they were when they were teenagers.

[Jennifer3141]

I can understand that YOU have regrets. But to deny someone else a right (that you've already exercised) seems incredibly selfish to me. If you don't want more abortions, then don't get them!

Jen

[Mom2legomaniacs]

You have every right to change your mind and have a different opinion. I think we all change (at least I hope I have) as we go through life. But is banning something that we later have come to regret really the answer to the issue regardless of how you feel about it? (this goes beyond just this issue too, imo)

I am not trying to be smart-alek here. I just started thinking of things that I have done that I now regret. But to take that right away from someone else is a whole other issue. And a big one! I don't know that I can feel right about making decisions like that for every other person. I know I can't. It simply isn't my place. Do I want someone else to make those decisions for me? I really don't. Does that mean I don't value life? No, just the opposite. Life is so very precious. I don't have an answer.

There are no easy answers. There are no simple solutions. It is all very complicated and convoluted. There are always going to be situations that test the limits and blur the edges of acceptable. I am glad I am not making those kinds of choices. It's a scary thing!

[Jolie]

I can understand that YOU have regrets. But to deny someone else a right (that you've already exercised) seems incredibly selfish to me. If you don't want more abortions, then don't get them!

Jen


:iagree:

[nakitty]

I sincerely regret having started this discussion at time when I am unable to really participate. That was stupid of me. :glare: I really want to read through all the comments on here but have been gone all day and won't be able to be online much until this evening. I just wanted to quickly thank everyone who has responded and to let you know I appreciate it and will be responding more thoroughly very soon! THANKS! ~Cat

[Nakia]

There have been a couple of threads where this has been mentioned, you might try searching for them. There are many people who believe birth control is the same as abortion. Those people believe in restricting access to birth control. It isn't that it's hard to get, it's the fact that some of the people who are anti-abortion are also anti-bc and want to pass measures to stop people from using bc, just like they want to stop abortion.



Oh, I see. I didn't realize that some people equate all birth control with abortion. In fact, there are some birth control choices that are abortifacient, but to me that is a different issue. Thanks! I wanted to give you some rep for clearing that up for me, but I need to spread it around first. :D

[Nakia]

Actually this was address in the 20/20 show. Birth control is hard to get for many in the inner cities. Clinics are few and far between, and multiple bus rides are needed to reach these clinics. I would gather it's even harder for the rural poor, who may have no access at all.

I know for the area in which I live (burbs) there is only one county health department. It's on a limited bus route and many who go there for general family care, walk for miles (many) to reach it. We have a large poor hispanic population here. Many of them have little to no education. I worked with a number of the local mothers as a breastfeeding support person, and from this experience I learned of many of their misconceptions about their bodies, reproduction, breatfeeding, and general infant care. In order for someone to make educated decisions about one's body, one needs to understand how it works.

Now I'm a libertarian, so I'm on shaky ground here, but we will never lower rates of unwanted pregnancies, abortion, and abuse if we don't work to improve the educational system for all. And this includes people really learning about their plumbing!!!


Thanks Jenny. I appreciate your thoughts. And I totally agree that education is the best solution!

[NayfiesMama]

I wouldn't vote for someone who believes that abortion should be legal. I don't care for Obama, outside of the fact that he's really good looking, and I don't like what I hear about concerning "earlier ps education." I actually believe that if they don't trust parents to raise their children, they should offer voluntary parenting/ early childhood education for parents. I then believe that who ever wants to go....goes. Pretty soon, they'll be offering childcare from birth. As for abortions, if you don't care for the children who haven't even seen the light of day....how are you going to care for the rest of your people?
Carrie:-)

[Kelli in TN]

If the question is "how do we end abortion" then yes, convincing women to consider adoption is certainly part of the picture.

But it seems horrid to me to tell a woman who would actually like to raise a child she conceives but is scared about the finances, "Well, there's people with more money than you who will take your baby." If she doesn't WANT to give the baby up, then this will just lead to a life of grief and loss for her, and while many women choose to endure that for the sake of their babies, others would prefer an abortion to that incredibly hard journey.

My only point was that if women felt more empowered to bear and raise the children they conceive, that also would reduce abortion. As would abstinence education. As would availability of birth control. As would reducing the fear of judgment for being pregnant in the first place. It's not just one magic wand.

If we really want to get serious about ending abortion, I believe we are going to have to get serious about loving the women who consider it. We have to really search for ways to convey the truth that sex outside of marriage carries powerful risks (not just of pregnancy), convince them to use birth control, and when both of those fail, we have to really look at their situation of their perspective and ask "how can we make abortion a less attactive alternative?" I guess there are no easy answers. But saying, "Well, there are food banks if you can figure out how to get to them, and if you can't, there are wealthy women who would will take your baby from you" just doesn't cut it.

It's NOT working.


If only I could take back the rep I gave you earlier today and attach it this post instead. Or if only I could rep them both.

It's not one thing, is it? It's everything. It's a safety net to catch these women so they can raise their children. It's education and the availability of birth control so they can understand the risks and make an educated choice. It's the teaching of all the reasons it is better to abstain until marriage so that they can have all information needed before they make the choice to be intimate. It is making adoption more affordable so that the birth mother who would prefer to birth the child but really is not prepared to raise the child would have a loving home in which to entrust her child. It's counseling and parenting classes and emotional support and so much more.

I don't understand, if average citizens can see this, why can't our leaders?

[astrid]

As for abortions, if you don't care for the children who haven't even seen the light of day....how are you going to care for the rest of your people?
Carrie:-)

It is shocking to me that thinking adults can actually convince themselves that any person who identifies themselves as pro-choice "doesn't care for children who have not yet seen the light of day" and cannot, therefore, be expected to care for anyone else.

Carrie, your statement is offensive to me. It is impossible to see any kind of common ground when statements like these are tossed around so flippantly.

Astrid

[Kelli in TN]

It is shocking to me that thinking adults can actually convince themselves that any person who identifies themselves as pro-choice "doesn't care for children who have not yet seen the light of day" and cannot, therefore, be expected to care for anyone else.




It's a little shocking to me too, to tell the truth. And I am staunchly pro-life. This mud slinging nonsense.....:angry:

I don't know this for a fact, but my reasoning leads me to believe that there are probably very few true pro-abortion supporters.

I think we agree on the problem, but disagree on the solution. I think we are better served finding common ground on those areas upon which we CAN agree and then fighting the battles about that which we disagree through legal channels and education and not attacking each other.

But for now I will just stand here and hold this :iagree: sign up.

[Kelli in TN]

You have every right to change your mind and have a different opinion. I think we all change (at least I hope I have) as we go through life. But is banning something that we later have come to regret really the answer to the issue regardless of how you feel about it? (this goes beyond just this issue too, imo)

I am not trying to be smart-alek here. I just started thinking of things that I have done that I now regret. But to take that right away from someone else is a whole other issue. And a big one! I don't know that I can feel right about making decisions like that for every other person. I know I can't. It simply isn't my place. Do I want someone else to make those decisions for me? I really don't. Does that mean I don't value life? No, just the opposite. Life is so very precious. I don't have an answer.

There are no easy answers. There are no simple solutions. It is all very complicated and convoluted. There are always going to be situations that test the limits and blur the edges of acceptable. I am glad I am not making those kinds of choices. It's a scary thing!

Okay, there is some sort of shift in the universe when I have to come on here and disagree with my cyber friend Melissa.

I think the Laura's experiences make her uniquely qualified to speak out on this and to wish it made illegal. She has the position of having experienced this and therefore knows more than I do about it. And we are not talking about a small thing like "Hm, I wish I had not gotten my ex-boyfriend's name tattooed on my hiney. Let's ban tattoos of boyfriends' names on hineys." We are talking about a procedure that is a very big deal and effectively ends the life of an unborn child. I think women who have experienced this should be at the forefront representing their viewpoint.

(Can I still come to your birthday? Do I have to give the spiderman suit back? Can we still be friends?)

[astrid]

It's a little shocking to me too, to tell the truth. And I am staunchly pro-life. This mud slinging nonsense.....:angry:

I don't know this for a fact, but my reasoning leads me to believe that there are probably very few true pro-abortion supporters.

I think we agree on the problem, but disagree on the solution. I think we are better served finding common ground on those areas upon which we CAN agree and then fighting the battles about that which we disagree through legal channels and education and not attacking each other.

But for now I will just stand here and hold this :iagree: sign up.

Thank you. Nice to know it's not just me.

Still shaking my head,
Astrid

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Good point.
I bet mothers who want to keep their children find more support under democratic rule than republican.
More assistance - both with daycare and foodstamp type programs.

What always kills me is the "right to life" license plates. I just always wonder if these people ever offer to change a smelly diaper and watch a crying infant long enough for the mom to take a bath and/or a small nap....ANYTHING to help her.

Just an aside....Abortion has been around longer than written law. Herbs have been used since the dawn of time.



Many MANY people who are anti-abortion do a whole lot to provide care for moms in need. (I have my own stories, but they lose something in the sharing.) Many do so without fanfare or general announcement. I think that we need to be very careful about painting people who oppose abortion on deeply held moral principle as "do-nothings."

(Kindly intended from one who on one hand is personally quite vehemently anti-abortion (MY choice) and on the other hand pro-choice.)

[Peek a Boo]

Is it? From my vantage point, I see the same political forces pushing to limit the right to abortion also pushing to limit access to birth control (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/07/30/a_new_attack_on_birth_control/).



they are pushing to limit specific types of birth control, absolutely. They even clearly state as much when they use the term "abortifacient."
That is a far cry from trying to limit access to birth control, period.

I'm sure you already understand the difference, but for others lurking.... most "pro-life" advocates distinguish forms of birth control into two categories: those that only prevent the egg and sperm from joining [like spermicide, condoms and other barrier methods] and those that create an environment that doesn't allow a fertilized egg to implant. Those latter are abortifacients, and are seen as analogous to leaving an infant in a room to die but not directly killing it. MOST pro-lifers see non-abortifacient methods as absolutely acceptable. There are certainly some segments of the movement that are against any bc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacient#Pre-implantation_labeling_controversy

note that there is a difference in what the law recognizes and what science recognizes. When science is pretty darn clear, i tend to side w/ science.

a proposed new regulation would expand the definition of abortion to include any form of contraception that can work by stopping implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus. This can include common birth-control pills, emergency contraception, and the intra-uterine device, or IUD.

it doesn't require a huge stretch to "expand" the definition of abortion -- an abortion is simply the expulsion of a developing human. This simply recognizes what docs who study human development have known for some time [and you can find that in almost any textbook on human development].

Doctors also changed their mind on "access" to thalidomide because it was HARMING humans in utero. I'm sure that could be spun as limiting access to medical care by some, but the POINT is to recognize the developing human inside and what is happening.


You agree with it, and you are upfront with your intentions. I have not seen an instance of a politician inserting such language into a bill while explicitly declaring his intent to use it as a springboard to further limit reproductive rights.

I agree w/ your assessment of how most politicians --on both sides of the aisle-- try to doctor bills w/ pork and emotional language. back to my original post.

gotta add: I have no interest in limiting reproductive rights -- those are readily available. But I take exception to those forms of birth control that knowingly cause the [B]death of humans.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

If there are mothers in your town who aren't sure how they're going to feed their children, then they're just not looking very hard, I think. Even my teeny tiny town has a food bank, and none of the 4 churches I'm involved with would *ever* turn away a hungry family. Even mentioning in an offhand way that your children were going hungry would result in bags of food pretty much arriving on your doorstep, no strings attached.

People in this country who are actually going hungry, aren't trying all that hard, imo. (Though I realize this may be an *unpopular* opinion.)

Even with financial and social cutbacks, there are a wealth of services available.

Uh, wow. I'm glad things have worked out so well for you so that you carry this perspective. REALLY really glad. (And I'm not being sarcastic. I find it amazing that another fellow citizen hasn't seen this level of poverty or helplessness, but it really is good that there are parts of the country where this sort of poverty doesn't touch quite so deeply.)

Not everyone in my neck of the woods will accept charity. And kids sure do go hungry here.

[Peek a Boo]

You have every right to change your mind and have a different opinion. I think we all change (at least I hope I have) as we go through life. But is banning something that we later have come to regret really the answer to the issue regardless of how you feel about it? (this goes beyond just this issue too, imo)

I am not trying to be smart-alek here. I just started thinking of things that I have done that I now regret. But to take that right away from someone else is a whole other issue. And a big one! I don't know that I can feel right about making decisions like that for every other person. I know I can't. It simply isn't my place. Do I want someone else to make those decisions for me? I really don't. Does that mean I don't value life? No, just the opposite. Life is so very precious. I don't have an answer.


But is banning something --The Right to Kill another Human for convenience--that we later have come to regret really the answer to the issue regardless of how you feel about it?

But to take that right - To Kill another Human for Convenience-- away from someone else is a whole other issue.

more below--

I can understand that YOU have regrets. But to deny someone else a right (that you've already exercised) seems incredibly selfish to me. If you don't want more abortions, then don't get them!

Jen

except that it's not "selfish" to want others to NOT KILL HUMANS without legal consequence or due process. Quite the opposite. Your argument would extend to those who want to see the death penalty abolished also --are they just being "selfish" because they don't want to see a human killed?

Or slavery when it was still legal and a right--"I can understand that YOU have regrets about owning slaves. But to deny someone else a right (that you've already exercised) seems incredibly selfish to me."

selfish? REALLY??

It helps keep the discussion a bit more clear when you define just what RIGHT you are defending-- the right to kill another human for convenience.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

It helps keep the discussion a bit more clear when you define just what RIGHT you are defending-- the right to kill another human for convenience.

That is, if you define a "human life" as beginning at conception.

[Pencil Pusher]

Well yes, I am smart enough to get that.
If I do something - say move to Alaska or pick up a new hobby or sport - and say after doing it twice, I decide it's not for me...... I just don't think I would be comfortable mandating that no one else have those options just because I decided it wasn't right for me.

If you spend your life speeding on the highway, and one day decide to slow down - it seems a little hypocritical to then complain that others are speeding.

Hypocrisy is to *continue* speeding while speaking out against it. To change one's stance afterward is repentance.

I think the problem here is that we're discussing a volatile issue. *For argument's sake,* let's replace "abortion" w/ something we can all agree is wrong. Say, shaking a baby. (Bear w/ me--I know we don't all agree on abortion, but it's important that we understand Laura's POV, so this is *just* for the sake of argument.)

Imagine a teenager is caring for a baby who's crying, gets overwhelmed, shakes the baby, & it dies. In this situation, she made an emotional, immature, rash decision, & she spends the rest of her life regretting the life she unintentionally took. She wants to help educate others on ways to avoid the pain that she inflicted as well as the pain she suffered.

Now I realize that everyone does not agree on the rights of a fetus or the definition of abortion, etc. But I see Laura's situation as similar to the one I've described. She made a decision in her youth, & after learning more about...the process of abortion or her faith or whatever, she came to the conclusion that *she took a life.*

I imagine it would be much easier to choose to ignore the compelling information one was receiving than to change one's stance on something as personal & emotional as abortion. Esp for someone who has had one, the cost to change their opinion on it is so great, so hard.

Is her change hypocritical? To me, that would be like calling someone who accidentally gives misinformation a liar.

For her to come to the conclusion that abortion is a form of murder & not denounce it as such (if her conscience so requires) would be worse than hypocrisy, wouldn't it? Imagine a drunk driver who's killed someone *not* speaking out against drunk driving? We'd think it inhumane.

To disagree w/ Laura's stance is one's perrogative. To call her a hypocrite for taking that stance seems to miss the deep pain & conflict she must have suffered to arrive at it.

[Peek a Boo]

Well yes, I am smart enough to get that.
If I do something - say move to Alaska or pick up a new hobby or sport - and say after doing it twice, I decide it's not for me...... I just don't think I would be comfortable mandating that no one else have those options just because I decided it wasn't right for me.

If you spend your life speeding on the highway, and one day decide to slow down - it seems a little hypocritical to then complain that others are speeding.

hypocrite:
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

there's a difference between a hypocrite and someone who has specifically changed their opinion/position based on experience and knowledge.

If I were to rail against abortion, then secretly go get one and hide it, then continue to rail against abortion, THAT would be hypocritical.

If I were to rail against abortion, then come to a situation where I decided to from now on support abortion as a right and moral option, that is simply a change of position, not hypocritical.

[LG Gone Wild]

To change one's stance afterward is repentance.
.


Perfect description.

[Kelli in TN]

I am feeling pretty guilty here because I have helped take this thread in directions that the OP specifically asked it not to go.

My answer to the original question would have to be a short, sweet, "Not nearly enough"

And I will leave it at that.

[Peek a Boo]

That is, if you define a "human life" as beginning at conception.

and as i stated previously -- i tend to side w/ science on this one, and science is clear: it is human, and it is alive. How else would YOU define "human life"?

There is a lot of debate around when a "soul" or some philosophical term of "human being" begins, but human development textbooks have had evidence of life beginning during fertilization for a long, long time.

Even if you want to go w/ the vague "but it can take a solid 24-36 hours for the fertilization process to be complete" you still arrive at a blastocyst by the time it reaches the uterus.

i do tend to scratch my head when Christians are accused of teaching "fuzzy science' when it comes to large gaps in the theory of evolution, but then liberals tend to practice the same "fuzzy science" when it comes to "what is alive" and "what is human" when we have evidence right under the microscope to prove it....

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

and as i stated previously -- i tend to side w/ science on this one, and science is clear: it is human, and it is alive. How else would YOU define "human life"?

There is a lot of debate around when a "soul" or some philosophical term of "human being" begins, but human development textbooks have had evidence of life beginning during fertilization for a long, long time.

Even if you want to go w/ the vague "but it can take a solid 24-36 hours for the fertilization process to be complete" you still arrive at a blastocyst by the time it reaches the uterus.

i do tend to scratch my head when Christians are accused of teaching "fuzzy science' when it comes to large gaps in the theory of evolution, but then liberals tend to practice the same "fuzzy science" when it comes to "what is alive" and "what is human" when we have evidence right under the microscope to prove it....

I'm very glad it is so clear to you. It makes your choices very simple and the morality of your stance cut and dried. It isn't that clear to everyone.


(ETA: My apologies to the OP. I shouldn't have posted.)

[Pammy]

:iagree:

Hypocrisy is to *continue* speeding while speaking out against it. To change one's stance afterward is repentance.

I think the problem here is that we're discussing a volatile issue. *For argument's sake,* let's replace "abortion" w/ something we can all agree is wrong. Say, shaking a baby. (Bear w/ me--I know we don't all agree on abortion, but it's important that we understand Laura's POV, so this is *just* for the sake of argument.)

Imagine a teenager is caring for a baby who's crying, gets overwhelmed, shakes the baby, & it dies. In this situation, she made an emotional, immature, rash decision, & she spends the rest of her life regretting the life she unintentionally took. She wants to help educate others on ways to avoid the pain that she inflicted as well as the pain she suffered.

Now I realize that everyone does not agree on the rights of a fetus or the definition of abortion, etc. But I see Laura's situation as similar to the one I've described. She made a decision in her youth, & after learning more about...the process of abortion or her faith or whatever, she came to the conclusion that *she took a life.*

I imagine it would be much easier to choose to ignore the compelling information one was receiving than to change one's stance on something as personal & emotional as abortion. Esp for someone who has had one, the cost to change their opinion on it is so great, so hard.

Is her change hypocritical? To me, that would be like calling someone who accidentally gives misinformation a liar.

For her to come to the conclusion that abortion is a form of murder & not denounce it as such (if her conscience so requires) would be worse than hypocrisy, wouldn't it? Imagine a drunk driver who's killed someone *not* speaking out against drunk driving? We'd think it inhumane.

To disagree w/ Laura's stance is one's perrogative. To call her a hypocrite for taking that stance seems to miss the deep pain & conflict she must have suffered to arrive at it.

[Peek a Boo]

I'm very glad it is so clear to you. It makes your choices very simple and the morality of your stance cut and dried. It isn't that clear to everyone.

(ETA: My apologies to the OP. I shouldn't have posted.)

I think you should feel free to post anytime :)

But honestly, even with my siding with the clarity of science, there are still very serious issues that come up WRT reconciling individual rights. Science deals with basic, observable facts, and unfortunately rights are not in the realm of science. altho science can offer facts to assist in who may be eligible for said rights. back to my original post in this thread.

[Mama Lynx]

I don't know this for a fact, but my reasoning leads me to believe that there are probably very few true pro-abortion supporters.



I think you're right. I am very strongly pro-choice, but I am absolutely not pro-abortion. I just think that it is not the business of the government.

[RenayofRohan]

I might have been able to vote for Duncan Hunter --he was trying to get a bill passed that would legally define PERSON at conception. That is the kind of thing I'm looking for: the recognition of the developing human as a PERSON and given the basic Right to Life. But due to the way Congress operates he certainly can't push through a bill on his own.

What I think is bigger than abortion, tho, [and something most pro-choice people might want to focus on] is that even if you have an undeniable recognition that this developing human is a person w/ a right to live, you STILL have to deal with the fact that you now have TWO lives with rights that you have to reconcile. So from that perspective, there will always be a time and place for abortion. Tubal pregnancies, partial-birth abortion to save the life of the mother in extreme cases of severe hydroencephalacy, and other serious medical conditions where if the pregnancy continued neither the mother nor the child would survive.

I never understood the line of thinking that we can't legislate morality --we do it all the time. Murder, slander, plagiarism, libel, copyrights, theft.......
We TEACH kids and humans to control their anger, their wants, their emotions. What makes sex any different? Are we saying that people are incapable of being taught to control themselves sexually? that seems a bit insulting.

As for caring for the women-- I have to say I think Republicans and Christian conservatives have that cinched-- there tend to be more organizations reaching out to pregnant moms and counseling moms who were given an abortion and sent home. I've known a few families who took in a pregnant teen and gave her a safe place to stay [and lots more help] even after the baby was born. That sure smacks of a lot more help than driving a friend to an abortion clinic and back home. It is difficult to find a secular crisis pregnancy center that focusses on abortion alternatives. I would really like to start one in our own county, cuz while i appreciate the religious ones I think there are ways to reach even more women. I do think it would be cool if someone could offer links to some of the liberal abortion-alternative organizations like Feminists for Life.

But in general conservatives tend to be more free w/ their own money than liberals are:

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

and I think Arianna Huffington makes a good point:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/charity-may-begin-at-home_b_115082.html?page=2

My realization that the private sector alone would not do what is necessary to overcome poverty and address America's social problems played a major role in the transformation of my political thinking. I saw that while conservative Republicans talked a good game about compassion and social responsibility, they didn't put their money where their mouths were.

I also got a window into the world of charitable giving when I discovered how much harder it is to raise money for groups and community activists trying to turn lives around than it is for fashionable museums and already well-endowed universities.

the problem is they DO tend to put their money where their mouth is [per other articles], but it's not enough --more people need to be willing to do that. I don't see many conservative-driven museums either. I tend to hear more criticism from the left that the right ISN't supporting the arts.....


So what have republicans done to stop abortion?
the politicians have done little as far as I can tell, but the grassroots efforts and social helps have stepped up to help quite a bit. They could use more help from both sides of the aisle tho.

:iagree: Thanks Peek a Boo

[Perry]

and as i stated previously -- i tend to side w/ science on this one, and science is clear

You keep saying that. It is not true. There is plenty of debate (http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162)about it among scientists.

[sleepy]

To disagree w/ Laura's stance is one's perrogative. To call her a hypocrite for taking that stance seems to miss the deep pain & conflict she must have suffered to arrive at it.

Yes. I couldn't have said it any better.

[Perry]

Here is the summary (http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=21&id=7) (emphasis mine):

Summary

When Does Human Life Begin?

This is a note that may generate some discussion and debate. It was occasioned by a bulletin board set up by a political action group at our college. The board claimed that while philosophy and religion may have different opinions concerning when life begins, science has no such problems. Students were told that biologists were unanimous in agreeing that life starts at fertilization, and that there was no dispute in the scientific literature. Besides being a parody of science (i.e., that scientific facts are the objective truth and that all scientists agree about what these facts mean), it is wrong.I have read a wide range of scientific positions on when life begins, and these positions depend on what aspect of life one privileges in such discussions. Here is my classification scheme concerning when human life begins. You may have others.
The metabolic view: There is no one point when life begins. The sperm cell and egg cell are as alive as any other organism.
The genetic view: A new individual is created at fertilization. This is when the genes from the two parents combine to form an individual with unique properties.
The embryological view: In humans, identical twinning can occur as late as day 12 pc. Such twinning produces two individuals with different lives. Even conjoined ("Siamese") twins can have different personalities. Thus, a single individuality is not fixed earlier than day 12. (In religious terms, the two individuals have different souls). Some medical texts consider the stages before this time as "pre-embryonic." This view is expressed by scientists such as Renfree (1982) and Grobstein (1988) and has been endorsed theologically by Ford (1988), Shannon and Wolter (1990), and McCormick (1991), among others. (Such a view would allow contraception, "morning-after" pills, and contragestational agents, but not abortion after two weeks.)
The neurological view: Our society has defined death as the loss of the cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. Conversely, some scientists have thought that the acquisition of the human EEG (at about 27 weeks) should be defined as when a human life begins. This view has been put forth most concretely by Morowitz and Trefil (1992). (This view and the ones following would allow mid-trimester abortions).
The ecological/technological view: This view sees human life as beginning when it can exist separately from its maternal biological environment. The natural limit of viability occurs when the lungs mature, but technological advances can now enable a premature infant to survive at about 25 weeks gestation. (This is the view currently operating in many states. Once a fetus can be potentially independent, it cannot be aborted.)
The immunological view: This view sees human life as beginning when the organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self. In humans, this occurs around the time of birth.
The integrated physiological view: This view sees human life as beginning when an individual has become independent of the mother and has its own functioning circulatory system, alimentary system, and respiratory system. This is the traditional birthday when the baby is born into the world and the umbilical cord is cut.

[Julie in CA]

Uh, wow. I'm glad things have worked out so well for you so that you carry this perspective. REALLY really glad. (And I'm not being sarcastic. I find it amazing that another fellow citizen hasn't seen this level of poverty or helplessness, but it really is good that there are parts of the country where this sort of poverty doesn't touch quite so deeply.)

Not everyone in my neck of the woods will accept charity. And kids sure do go hungry here.

Not being willing to accept charity is a separate issue from whether the help is available. I'm quite sure that there are folks who don't accept the help when they should. It certainly does take a measure of self-sacrifice to humble yourself in that way.

And it's true that things have worked out well for me personally, though I grew up in a home where food was carefully rationed much of the time.

BUT...

I've lived in a fairly affluent area, and now I live in a poor rural area. Both had/have a multitude of opportunities and services available for those who need them. I'm open to the idea that in downtrodden areas of large cities, there may not be enough resources to go around.

[Peek a Boo]

You keep saying that. It is not true. There is plenty of debate (http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162)about it among scientists.

nope-- read that article again:

The article is addressing philosophical questions and clarifies the fertilization process.

Not once does it rebut that a blastocyst is HUMAN or ALIVE.

that one embryology book makes a decision to tackle the philosophical side of a debate doesn't equal "plenty of debate" about whether the organism is HUMAN or ALIVE, and doesn't negate what every other embryology textbook has already established: that we are dealing with an organism that is ALIVE and HUMAN, and a unique individual [as opposed to toenail clippings].

[Peek a Boo]

Here is the summary (http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=21&id=7) (emphasis mine):

when the article states : "I have read a wide range of scientific positions on when life begins, and these positions depend on what aspect of life one privileges in such discussions." they don't include what scientific positions they are representing, but the "Literature Cited" reveals a LOT of bioethic and religious literature.

If i stated a similar piece about how "scientists" have debated the theory of evolution, there would be some immediate jump to discredit those scientists --or at least to demand WHICH scientists hold that claim and what are their facts for making such a claim.

"If one does not believe in a "soul," then one need not believe in a moment of ensoulment. The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human. While one may have a particular belief in when the embryo becomes human, it is difficult to justify such a belief solely by science."

They just spent a long article detailing all the different bioethical and religious BELIEFS out there. It is those beliefs that try to assert some status of "human being/ soul" that can not be defined solely by science, because --as they stated -- without those philosophical questions The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human.

They attempt to begin the article saying there is no way to determine if this organism is alive or human, but then never do so w/o falling back on legal, philosophical, and religious history. They even wrap up the article w/ a statement that makes my very point --all these scientific steps are merely a live human in varying stages of development.

But again, if you can show any other scientific evidence that claims a blastocyst is neither alive nor categorized as human, that would be an interesting one to see.

[Perry]

when the article states : "I have read a wide range of scientific positions on when life begins, and these positions depend on what aspect of life one privileges in such discussions." they don't include what scientific positions they are representing, but the "Literature Cited" reveals a LOT of bioethic and religious literature.

If i stated a similar piece about how "scientists" have debated the theory of evolution, there would be some immediate jump to discredit those scientists --or at least to demand WHICH scientists hold that claim and what are their facts for making such a claim.

"If one does not believe in a "soul," then one need not believe in a moment of ensoulment. The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human. While one may have a particular belief in when the embryo becomes human, it is difficult to justify such a belief solely by science."

They just spent a long article detailing all the different bioethical and religious BELIEFS out there. It is those beliefs that try to assert some status of "human being/ soul" that can not be defined solely by science, because --as they stated -- without those philosophical questions The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human.

They attempt to begin the article saying there is no way to determine if this organism is alive or human, but then never do so w/o falling back on legal, philosophical, and religious history. They even wrap up the article w/ a statement that makes my very point --all these scientific steps are merely a live human in varying stages of development.

But again, if you can show any other scientific evidence that claims a blastocyst is neither alive nor categorized as human, that would be an interesting one to see.

I am not interested in debating when human life begins. I am only trying to point out to you that you keep saying there is a scientific consensus, and there clearly isn't. As far as I can tell, the only people claiming a scientific consensus are non-scientists.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

But again, if you can show any other scientific evidence that claims a blastocyst is neither alive nor categorized as human, that would be an interesting one to see.

Forgive me (to the OP), but one question: Do you mean human and living like a kidney harvested and being transported rapidly on ice for transplant is both human and living? If so, then of course the blastocyst is living human cells. Unless it's a pig blastocyst, then it's both living and porcine. A sperm and an egg are both living and human, should they be from a human. (And no, not like human nail clippings, I agree.)

[Peek a Boo]

I am not interested in debating when human life begins. I am only trying to point out to you that you keep saying there is a scientific consensus, and there clearly isn't. As far as I can tell, the only people claiming a scientific consensus are non-scientists.

actually, I'm not asking for a debate, just for facts from scientists that do show the organism in question is neither alive nor human. My point is that the article doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny.

[Peek a Boo]

Forgive me (to the OP), but one question: Do you mean human and living like a kidney harvested and being transported rapidly on ice for transplant is both human and living? If so, then of course the blastocyst is living human cells. Unless it's a pig blastocyst, then it's both living and porcine. A sperm and an egg are both living and human, should they be from a human. (And no, not like human nail clippings, I agree.)


nope-- i'm talking about an individual human in a specific stage of development, not a piece of a human.

I absolutely understand that until the sperm and egg are completely diffused in the fertilization process you still have two separate pieces of a human.

eta: but they aren't really truly separate....;)

But even the article linked shows that as a matter of hours and one that can be seen and determined when the process is virtually complete --or at least moving along to the next academic stage.

[kokotg]

eh, never mind.

[Peek a Boo]

I think you're begging the question here.

oh, don't get me wrong, I'm always up for a rip-roaring debate ;)

But in this specific instance, I'd settle for some basic facts first.

There are scores of human development textbooks that establish the individuality of a developing human. I have a couple sitting on my shelf.

The article linked doesn't hold up the claim Perry made.

=============

oops-- i caught your post before you edited. you were pretty spot on in theory :D But i am capable of restraining myself and focussing on one thing at a time before delving into a Really Big debate ;)

[Mrs Mungo]

If "killing" (by not allowing it to implant) a blastocyst is *murder* then I think we need to make antibacterial products illegal because we're killing equally complex organisms with those.

I don't think "alive" is the same thing as "a life." The sperm and egg are alive, after all. Then, we are back to Monty Python and every sperm is sacred.

Not everyone has to agree with you, Peek. I'm never going to agree that not allowing a blastocyst to implant in my womb=murder. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree. And I'll keep voting pro-choice because I want my reproductive rights to remain intact from people who don't want me to have bcps or an iud.

[nakitty]

If "killing" a blastocyst is *murder* then I think we need to make antibacterial products illegal because we're killing equally complex organisms with those.

I don't think "alive" is the same thing as "a life." The sperm and egg are alive, after all. Then, we are back to Monty Python and every sperm is sacred.

Not everyone has to agree with you, Peek. I'm never going to agree that not allowing a blastocyst to implant in my womb=murder. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree. And I'll keep voting pro-choice because I want my reproductive rights to remain intact from people who don't want me to have bcps or an iud.

I agree.... and now I'm off to commit mass murder in my kitchen.:tongue_smilie:

[nakitty]

So it is the hope that they will erode the abortion rights down that keeps you voting Republican? And you are ok with voting for a candidate that doesn't really represent your views EXCEPT for the pro-life issue.... on the HOPE that he/she will be able to erode a little bit more of womens rights? And you are content with that? I guess I just have a difficult time relating to that. I think it would be rare to find a candidate that matches our beliefs 100% ... and I think we all have an issue or issues that we hold above others... but I cannot think of any one issue I would sink my vote on... especially if it meant such a small victory for my issue. Thank you everyone for responding. I really do appreciate the insight. Even if I don't agree with it.;) I'm sorry the thread took on a life of its own....though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. This topic stirs people so....

[Peek a Boo]

I am not interested in debating when human life begins. I am only trying to point out to you that you keep saying there is a scientific consensus, and there clearly isn't. As far as I can tell, the only people claiming a scientific consensus are non-scientists.

of course, if I'm going to claim there's an overwhelming number of facts to support my case, i should probably share them to be fair, since i asked the same.

here's some "non scientists" and their consensus:

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.html
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

this gal uses a lot of "non scientists" in her article too. You can just skip to the end and read her sources if you want. Includes a bit of history about the "scientific" debate too--
http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html


and apparently I'm not the first to notice the blatant non-science aspects of this supposed science text:

http://jivinjehoshaphat.blogspot.com/2005/03/this-is-science-textbook_01.html

http://www.imago-dei.net/imago_dei/2005/03/autonomous_wisd.html

[Peek a Boo]

If "killing" (by not allowing it to implant) a blastocyst is *murder* then I think we need to make antibacterial products illegal because we're killing equally complex organisms with those.

except murder applies to one human killing another. and not all homocide is murder. plants are complex, living organisms too, but vegetarians aren't committing "murder" anymore than beef eaters are.


I don't think "alive" is the same thing as "a life." The sperm and egg are alive, after all. Then, we are back to Monty Python and every sperm is sacred.

Monty Python isn't writing our biology/ human embryology textbooks. The scientific difference between a piece of human tissue vs a developing human is academic and can be objectively observed. This is basic Biology 101.


Not everyone has to agree with you, Peek. I'm never going to agree that not allowing a blastocyst to implant in my womb=murder. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree. And I'll keep voting pro-choice because I want my reproductive rights to remain intact from people who don't want me to have bcps or an iud.

Ya know, you DON't have to agree with me on what a legal definition is, but some scientific facts are pretty basic --it's not I you disagree with, it becomes science that you are questioning. And that's ok too: science should BE questioned. I don't expect to change everyone's mind, but i do expect to continue posting basic scientific facts as long as the issue continues to be discussed on a public forum. i will certainly keep a look out for any new scientific evidence that shows something different in the development of a human in utero.

[Peek a Boo]

So it is the hope that they will erode the abortion rights down that keeps you voting Republican?


for some people, yes.


And you are ok with voting for a candidate that doesn't really represent your views EXCEPT for the pro-life issue.... on the HOPE that he/she will be able to erode a little bit more of womens rights?

i think most would answer that women don't have a RIGHT to kill another human for convenience, so the only erosion is one of a *wrong* --not a right.


And you are content with that?

content with righting a wrong? that seems reasonable to me.


I guess I just have a difficult time relating to that.


that's because you don't see it as righting a wrong :D


I think it would be rare to find a candidate that matches our beliefs 100% ... and I think we all have an issue or issues that we hold above others... but I cannot think of any one issue I would sink my vote on... especially if it meant such a small victory for my issue.

I think that applies to Democrats and other issues as well. To each their own.



Thank you everyone for responding. I really do appreciate the insight. Even if I don't agree with it.;) I'm sorry the thread took on a life of its own....though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. This topic stirs people so....

as one who is always sucked in to abortion debates like a moth to the flame, i do think you asked a great question and received some serious answers. never be sorry that threads tend to take rabbit trails down various paths --it is difficult to really discuss an issue w/o getting into the nitty gritty of it. discussion is good.

[Michelle in MO]

Well, there are waiting lists for healthy, white infants, at any rate. I wish it were true that there were plenty of homes available in this country for EVERY child who needs one.

I realize that this may be simply my experience and not a statistical reality, but I have several friends who have adopted children from China, South America, bi-racial, literally all over. One couple we know has adopted six children. I don't think any of them hoped to adopt white babies first before adopting children from another country or race. I think they were just so very happy to finally be able to hold a child of their own.

Sorry for the diversion; I realize the thread is going in another direction. :blush:

[Karen sn]

Hypocrisy is to *continue* speeding while speaking out against it. To change one's stance afterward is repentance.

I think the problem here is that we're discussing a volatile issue. *For argument's sake,* let's replace "abortion" w/ something we can all agree is wrong. Say, shaking a baby. (Bear w/ me--I know we don't all agree on abortion, but it's important that we understand Laura's POV, so this is *just* for the sake of argument.)

Imagine a teenager is caring for a baby who's crying, gets overwhelmed, shakes the baby, & it dies. In this situation, she made an emotional, immature, rash decision, & she spends the rest of her life regretting the life she unintentionally took. She wants to help educate others on ways to avoid the pain that she inflicted as well as the pain she suffered.

Now I realize that everyone does not agree on the rights of a fetus or the definition of abortion, etc. But I see Laura's situation as similar to the one I've described. She made a decision in her youth, & after learning more about...the process of abortion or her faith or whatever, she came to the conclusion that *she took a life.*

I imagine it would be much easier to choose to ignore the compelling information one was receiving than to change one's stance on something as personal & emotional as abortion. Esp for someone who has had one, the cost to change their opinion on it is so great, so hard.

Is her change hypocritical? To me, that would be like calling someone who accidentally gives misinformation a liar.

For her to come to the conclusion that abortion is a form of murder & not denounce it as such (if her conscience so requires) would be worse than hypocrisy, wouldn't it? Imagine a drunk driver who's killed someone *not* speaking out against drunk driving? We'd think it inhumane.

To disagree w/ Laura's stance is one's perrogative. To call her a hypocrite for taking that stance seems to miss the deep pain & conflict she must have suffered to arrive at it.

I agree with everything you said here Aubrey -except for WHY I used the word "hypocrite." She has the right to speak out against it. BUT TO COOSE FOR US - she does not have that right. She does not have the right to legislate my choice for me.....and for her to think she can do so, especially after that choice was given to her TWICE already, seems a little hypocritical to me. Legislation is my issue here. Believe me - I get where she is coming from emotionally - but she has no right to turn that into legislation.

[Karen sn]

If I were to rail against abortion, then come to a situation where I decided to from now on support abortion as a right and moral option, that is simply a change of position, not hypocritical.


True. You can change your own mind. But should you be allowed to choose for others....especially when you have been given choice TWICE before yourself? Feel free to change positions. But don't require the same from me.

[Danestress]

.

[Erica in PA]

I think there's a relatively simple answer to this question: politicians don't always do what they say they will do. Pro-life candidates sometimes talk about abortion during the primary, mostly to gain the support of pro-life voters, and then do little about it when actually in office. Surely there are areas where you as a democrat can see that your candidates also sometimes talk a good game during the election but fail to deliver once elected. Maybe it's promises to help minorities, or help the poor, or fix the health policy, etc. But once in office, their actions don't match their rhetoric--- and it's not always the Republicans thwarting them! :tongue_smilie: Same thing here. It's disappointing, as I'm sure you're disappointed with your leaders sometimes too.

There are some things that Republicans have done to limit abortion, such as the partial birth abortion ban, requiring parental consent, and limiting the use of federal money to pay for abortions. I'm glad for all of these things, even though I'd like to see more done. Many democrats didn't support any of these things. I'd rather vote for someone who agrees with me in principle, and hopefully take action on it while in office (though there's never a guarantee in politics), rather than someone who says outright that they strongly oppose my ideals.

Erica

[Renee in FL]

I realize that this may be simply my experience and not a statistical reality, but I have several friends who have adopted children from China, South America, bi-racial, literally all over. One couple we know has adopted six children. I don't think any of them hoped to adopt white babies first before adopting children from another country or race. I think they were just so very happy to finally be able to hold a child of their own.

Sorry for the diversion; I realize the thread is going in another direction. :blush:

I think her point was that in this country, people wait years for healthy white infants or go overseas to adopt, while many, many minority and/or less-than-healthy children languish in foster care. What I have seen is that minority babies are adopted LAST after healthy white babies, white babies with health problems, and foreign babies.

Don't even think about older children - they just don't get adopted.

[Jugglin'5]

Maybe so, but I still know many local homeschool families who have adopted Black and Hispanic babies, crack babies, kids who had been permanently stuck in the foster-go-round, or all of the above. I don't know that many people, so it can't be that uncommon. All those families are pro-life. I think this is a red herring.

I think her point was that in this country, people wait years for healthy white infants or go overseas to adopt, while many, many minority and/or less-than-healthy children languish in foster care. What I have seen is that minority babies are adopted LAST after healthy white babies, white babies with health problems, and foreign babies.

Don't even think about older children - they just don't get adopted.

[Renee in FL]

Maybe so, but I still know many local homeschool families who have adopted Black and Hispanic babies, crack babies, kids who had been permanently stuck in the foster-go-round, or all of the above. I don't know that many people, so it can't be that uncommon. All those families are pro-life. I think this is a red herring.

I don't think it was meant as a red herring. If you go back (pages) and read the original comment, it was that women shouldn't have abortions and we don't need to help them provide for children that they have as a result of not having abortions because of all the families waiting to adopt.

Yes, babies that are not healthy and white do get adopted. That wasn't the point, I don't think. Or maybe I am misunderstanding. I didn't understand it to be that pro-life families don't adopt, but rather that the majority of the people "on waiting lists to adopt" are waiting on healthy, white infants. Otherwise, they wouldn't be on waiting lists because there are plenty of children who are not white and/or healthy on waiting-to-be adopted lists.

[PariSarah]

I think her point was that in this country, people wait years for healthy white infants or go overseas to adopt, while many, many minority and/or less-than-healthy children languish in foster care. What I have seen is that minority babies are adopted LAST after healthy white babies, white babies with health problems, and foreign babies.

Don't even think about older children - they just don't get adopted.

It's very sad, and a shameful commentary on our society, that children have needs that aren't being met.

To me, the answer that most makes sense, the societal change that most needs to happen, is that we become less focused on material success, and more open to helping children who need it, even if it's hard. Structural changes that need to happen include more help, especially at the local level, for adoptive parents of special needs children, and effective support, education, and rehabilitation of at-risk families.

And, while pro-life individuals do tend to be overrepresented among adoptive parents of special needs children, at least in my community, pro-life organizations could stand to do a little more work at that structural level, sho'nuff.

But it makes no sense at all to say, "Look at these children. They deserve better than what they're getting. They deserve to have been killed in the womb." As an argument for abortion rights, the heart-wrenching situation of foster children just doesn't work. (It does work, my Catholic friends will forgive me for saying, as an argument for birth control. Giving women in crisis situations the resources to prevent conception, particularly when they don't adhere to a religion that gives them the resources to maintain a chaste lifestyle, is a reasonable approach to prevention. But abortion and birth control are just not on the same moral plane, and only a tiny minority on either side pretends they are.)

Or, if you were going the character assassination route, "Look at those pro-lifers. They don't adopt those same special needs children that we don't adopt. Therefore, our moral character is superior, and our position must be right." It just doesn't work.

[Pencil Pusher]

I agree with everything you said here Aubrey -except for WHY I used the word "hypocrite." She has the right to speak out against it. BUT TO COOSE FOR US - she does not have that right. She does not have the right to legislate my choice for me.....and for her to think she can do so, especially after that choice was given to her TWICE already, seems a little hypocritical to me. Legislation is my issue here. Believe me - I get where she is coming from emotionally - but she has no right to turn that into legislation.

But then your objection is against *anyone* who would legislate against abortion, not just Laura.

And again, I think for Laura to vote pro-life might be the equivalent of a drunk driver who has sobered up joining MADD. To continue to drive drunk & try to be an activist against such would be hypocritical. To change one's beliefs & then work to protect others from the same pain is not.

I do thank you, though, for allowing me the analogies of drunk driving & shaken babies. I know that must have come across pretty loaded, & I think it really took some...hm...I need a word that means greatness & willingness to listen, etc., but I can't think of just the right one...my point is that it was generous of you to hear my badly-phrased analogy.

Fwiw, I can understand being offended by the work of pro-lifers to legislate against abortion. I can't imagine being told that I *must* carry a life, with all of its physical burden, inconvenience, pain, & stigma. I'm not sure it's fair to do that to someone else. At the same time, though, I *do* believe that the life developing in the womb is sacred, & I don't know how to reconcile the right of the two lives.

Before having children, I thought it was simple: abortion is wrong. Now, though...I still believe abortion is wrong, but there's so much more at stake than I could see 10 yrs ago. Kwim?

[OnTheBrink]

except that it's not "selfish" to want others to NOT KILL HUMANS without legal consequence or due process. Quite the opposite. Your argument would extend to those who want to see the death penalty abolished also --are they just being "selfish" because they don't want to see a human killed?

Or slavery when it was still legal and a right--"I can understand that YOU have regrets about owning slaves. But to deny someone else a right (that you've already exercised) seems incredibly selfish to me."

[B]selfish? REALLY??

It helps keep the discussion a bit more clear when you define just what RIGHT you are defending-- the right to kill another human for convenience.

*standing up and cheering*

[PariSarah]

Well, there are waiting lists for healthy, white infants, at any rate. I wish it were true that there were plenty of homes available in this country for EVERY child who needs one.

. . . healthy children of all races. Even my friend who was willing to take a child with a history of fetal drug use had to wait over a year.

At least in my county, the only adoptive parents that don't have to go on waiting lists are those willing to take an FAS baby, an HIV-positive baby, large sibling groups, or an older child with diagnosed attachment disorders. The vast majority of kids languishing in foster care in this county come from those categories.

[Michelle in MO]

Maybe so, but I still know many local homeschool families who have adopted Black and Hispanic babies, crack babies, kids who had been permanently stuck in the foster-go-round, or all of the above. I don't know that many people, so it can't be that uncommon. All those families are pro-life. I think this is a red herring.

The family that I know that has six adopted children have only one adopted white child; they are a very loving couple who chose specifically to adopt two Chinese daughters, one child from South America whose special needs are profound (he's both deaf and autistic), one child from Russia who was older when he was adopted, and I forget from which country the last child came from. They were not able to have biological children.

I realize that one family doesn't make statistical reality; nevertheless, I don't think this is that uncommon, either.

[kokotg]

Yes, but as an argument for abortion rights, this doesn't make sense to me.

right, but that's not how the adoption thread of this thread (got that?) got started. I was responding to someone who suggested that the availability of adoptive homes for infants was an argument against abortion. I was just pointing out that there aren't homes for all babies, not saying that that meant people should rush out and get abortions. But the fact is, if I were an African American woman and/or someone who knew she was carrying a child with special needs, I would not have the same confidence that my child would end up in a loving home that a white woman carrying a healthy white baby would have. I was just reading an article yesterday about how some agencies are starting to place African American infants in Canada and other countries because there's such a lack of adoptive homes for them in the US.

[SFP]

But it makes no sense at all to say, "Look at these children. They deserve better than what they're getting. They deserve to have been killed in the womb."


Has someone actually said this? It sounds like a strawman to me.

[kokotg]

I also wasn't making any kind of accusation that someone's "not doing their part." I was just pointing out an unfortunate reality about adoption in this country.

[Renee in FL]

ACCKK! I wasn't saying it was an argument for abortion rights.

It seems easy to say, "Well, if a woman gets pregnant, she either needs to pull herself up by the bootstraps or give her baby to someone who can afford it." I hear it all the time from conservative Christians - "don't have an abortion, but you better not even *think* of using Medicaid or food stamps or anything else that uses my tax dollars."

I was responding to that attitude and got all wrapped up trying to clarify what I thought the Op meant. It really didn't have anything to do with abortion rights or pro-life or anything, but rather a simple response to someone who said that if the mother couldn't support her children without tax-funded programs that she should give her baby to someone who could. I find that line of thinking repugnant and *common* in the Republican arena.

[Old Dominion Heather]

Also languishing are those whom the parents will not release for adoption.

My parents did foster care for a child with a view to adoption when I was a kid. Her parents wouldn't agree, they decided to just leave her in the foster care system in a group home, and she had issues. We were told by the foster care system that there was nothing they could do, her parents had the right to maintain the status quo and that is what they did.

[Moderator]

Please stay on topic, or the thread will be closed. Discuss the issue, not the board.

Moderator

[PariSarah]

It seems easy to say, "Well, if a woman gets pregnant, she either needs to pull herself up by the bootstraps or give her baby to someone who can afford it." I hear it all the time from conservative Christians - "don't have an abortion, but you better not even *think* of using Medicaid or food stamps or anything else that uses my tax dollars."

Ick! I have very uncharitable thoughts in my heart towards people who think that way, but I will not share them.

;)

[PariSarah]

Has someone actually said this? It sounds like a strawman to me.

. . . it certainly is. No one says this. (Or, rather, only a very few people say this, and if they didn't head political action groups, I wouldn't take them seriously at all.)

But isn't that the force of the argument?

I'm assuming that the pretext to the argument goes something like this:

A: Women should be allowed to choose abortion, because sometimes they can't afford to raise a child.
B: Well, aren't there alternatives, like adoption or state assistance?
A: But sometimes adoption doesn't work, and the child languishes in foster care.

Arguing that flaws in the adoption system provide a reason to maintain legalized abortion is saying that a child who falls victim to one of those flaws 1) is morally worth of better (that is, deserves a good home and all that) and 2) that being aborted is better.

My apologies for using short-hand (strawman) version in the earlier post, but that is the essence of my problem with this argument. It recognizes a child's valid claim on society (we should be providing this child with what it needs) while at the same time denying that child's valid claim (but we don't want to work hard at providing it, so we'll just tell the mom it's okay to abort).

[kokotg]

.
Arguing that flaws in the adoption system provide a reason to maintain legalized abortion is saying that a child who falls victim to one of those flaws 1) is morally worth of better (that is, deserves a good home and all that) and 2) that being aborted is better.



And I believe John Irving explores this thoroughly in The Cider House Rules. Maybe we need a book club spin off from this thread :tongue_smilie:

[Scarlett]

And I believe John Irving explores this thoroughly in The Cider House Rules. Maybe we need a book club spin off from this thread :tongue_smilie:


Oh my! The week before I gave birth dh and I decided to go to one last movie before baby came. Guess what we saw? We had NO idea what it was about. :tongue_smilie:

[Renee in FL]

I see your argument, but at least in our little subthread about adoption, we were arguing FOR financial help for mothers who don't want to abort, not as an argument for keeping it legal.

[Danestress]

[QUOTE=PariSarah;481064]


No, I think on this thread (at least the part I have read carefully) it went like this:

1. Women will increasingly be able to have abortions in the privacy of their homes by chemical means so

2. We need to think about how to reduce the DESIRE for abortion because even if we legislate against it, we can't really stop it, and what we really really want is to end abortion

3. Assuring women that the there are loving homes willing and able to receive their children might encourage some to go through with the pregnancy

4. To the extent a woman believes that her own child will not be adopted by a loving family (for whatever reason) or that she can't bear the sadness of being forced to relinquish a child because of economic circumstances, adotion is not a total answer to the problem of unwanted pregnancy.

[Peek a Boo]

True. You can change your own mind. But should you be allowed to choose for others....especially when you have been given choice TWICE before yourself? Feel free to change positions. But don't require the same from me.


so if you have lied TWICE before then you have no right to say that another can not lie? so much for libel and slander laws.
if one has stolen something TWICE before then they have no right to enforce the laws for theft?
If I owned slaves then i don't get to say that one shouldn't own slaves?

Should I be allowed to choose for others that they don't have the right to kill another human? we do it all the time.

so you have a problem with legislating rights.
are you saying you think we should retract the law about slavery?
or murder?
or theft?

all those legislate a penalty on what one is and is not allowed to choose.
and they all revolve around the basic concept that we are human, and humans do not have a right to do unto other humans however they wish.

should one be allowed to do what they want w/ their own body? to a point, absolutely --and that POINT is that your right to extend your fist ends at the beginning of another person's nose. Or more accurately, you can do whatever you want to your OWN body, but not to another human's body.

abortion is the killing of a separate human.
induced abortion on demand is the intentional killing of a human for convenience without legal consequence or due process.

or to put it in your own words:
why should you get to choose what happens to another [when you kill a developing human in an abortion]?
and then claim it as a RIGHT?

[SFP]

induced abortion on demand is the intentional killing of a human for convenience without legal consequence or due process.


What should the legal consequences be? Prison? Monetary fine? Community service?

And for whom? The doctor? The mother? The father who may have insisted she terminate the pregnancy?

[Perry]

deleted-double post

[Perry]

so if you have lied TWICE before then you have no right to say that another can not lie? so much for libel and slander laws.
if one has stolen something TWICE before then they have no right to enforce the laws for theft?

Past behavior predicts future behavior. It would certainly cast doubt on their credibility.

Although I'm not suggesting Laura isn't credible. She has every right to change her mind.

[Laura in VA]

Past behavior predicts future behavior. It would certainly cast doubt on their credibility.

Although I'm not suggesting Laura isn't credible. She has every right to change her mind.

Oh, you're right. I am not credible.

To the mods:
May we close this thread? I'm tired.

[Tarheel Heather]

What should the legal consequences be? Prison? Monetary fine? Community service?

And for whom? The doctor? The mother? The father who may have insisted she terminate the pregnancy?

What about the clinics that provide services? The clinic owners? What about instances of rape and incest? What about elective termination where there was artificial insemination and the parents who have six only want two? What about those with genetic disorders, are you aborting the exsistence of life because you can not handle the medical issues, treatment, time spent caring for that life. Or because one doesn't want to face having to take care of the medical issues. This debate could go on and on.

Yes, I believe it is life from conception. But it is the circumstances that brought that life forth that have to be dealt with by society.

I have worked in medical laboratories, I have seen, what is labeled "products of conception". I think that if some have seen maybe those opinions may be changed. But ultimately the fight is with what brings people to that choice. How can a society change that? There are so many variants.

[Tarheel Heather]

Oh, you're right. I am not credible.

To the mods:
May we close this thread? I'm tired.


Hugs to you Laura! :grouphug:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Oh, you're right. I am not credible.

To the mods:
May we close this thread? I'm tired.

Or maybe just the "Laura's admitted to terminations, so let's discuss that directly or abstractly without regard to her pain" part.

[Debbie in OR]

Or maybe just the "Laura's admitted to terminations, so let's discuss that directly or abstractly without regard to her pain" part.

Exactly. Standing with you, Laura.

[Jenny in Atl]

What about the clinics that provide services? The clinic owners? What about instances of rape and incest? What about elective termination where there was artificial insemination and the parents who have six only want two? What about those with genetic disorders, are you aborting the exsistence of life because you can not handle the medical issues, treatment, time spent caring for that life. Or because one doesn't want to face having to take care of the medical issues. This debate could go on and on.

Yes, I believe it is life from conception. But it is the circumstances that brought that life forth that have to be dealt with by society.

I have worked medical laboratories, I have seen, what is labeled "products of conception". I think that if some have seen maybe those opinions may be changed. But ultimately the fight is with what brings people to that choice. How can a society change that? There are so many variants.

And my issue is how those that wish to end it will do so... by the power of the federal government. In a sense, putting a gun to a woman's head making her carry to term. It's just too complicated to make this a yes/no issue.

[Perry]

Laura, I'm sorry, I thought I made it clear I wasn't referring to you. I was responding to Peekaboo's tangential comments about liars and thiefs, which I thought were totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Honestly, I have no problem with your pro-life position.