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' date=' 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?

 

[/quote']

 

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, both globally and domestically.

 

A less dense summary of policies the Christian Right 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, both globally and domestically.

 

A less dense summary of policies the Christian Right 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.

 

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 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.

[teamturner]

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.

[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.

 

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.