What exactly have Republicans done to stop abortion?

[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.

 

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...)

[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.

 

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.

[Guest 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.

 

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' 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?

 

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."[/quote']

 

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!

[Guest 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!

[SonshineLearner]

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.

 

 

 

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 [by some that are typically termed pro-life] 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 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.

[Aubrey]

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 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 (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.