Democrats need to drop their pro-choice stance

**

The problem is still there, why do women want abortions, why do people have unwanted pregnancies?

What can we do to change things?

I’ve had long discussions with Huck and others about this, and Huck for one believes that the reason why people have unwanted pregnancies is simple it is because they are immoral.

That they are driven by hedonistic desires and that it doesn’t matter how they are brought up or what their social or economic standing. That people will act morally or immorally because that is what they are like and will always act.

Yes it is simplistic and it is because it doesn’t have to contemplate the complexities of the real world because it is belief not reason.

There is very little point in arguing with a true believer, because they will only see anything that doesn’t fit into their belief, as wrong, it is not a possibility to be thought about, it is just wrong.

It someone believes that tomorrow the sky will be green, trying to convince them saying that all the pervious days were blue or explaining the science will not work, they believe tomorrow the sky will be green. If someone can believe their cause is just and that they will be rewarded in heaven for any action in ‘defence’ of that cause they will happily become a suicide bomber.

They believe that force can work in stopping abortions taking place. It might it might not, but to me that doesn’t really deal with the question over abortion.

Why do women want abortions, why do people have unwanted pregnancies?

And I cannot accept the seeming Dark Ages argument that immoral people will act immorally and moral people will act morally and that that is set and cannot be changed in any way by the influenced of the real world.


**

 

Balbus,

Since you obviously love to repeat yourself ad nauseum, let me regurgitate one of my earlier posts that you've snidely glossed over:

You cited these reasons for abortion in one of your previous posts:

--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility(32 %)
--economic(21-28 %)
--to avoid adjusting life(16 %)
--mother single or in poor relationship(12-13 %)
--enough children already(4-8 %)

(www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html)

I think that many of these can ultimately be attributed to personal immorality and irresponsibility. Someone who is:

--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility(32 %)

or

--mother single or in poor relationship(12-13 %)

should not be sexually active. If people insist on pursuing sexual gratification apart from a committed relationship suitable for raising children, then "society" cannot be blamed for their unwanted pregnancies.

Likewise, I cannot countenance the "right" to kill one's offspring in order:

--to avoid adjusting life(16 %)

People who are unwilling to alter their lifestyle to care for their kids should place them for adoption with one of the many families on 1-2 year waiting lists in every major US city. The same is true of people with:

--enough children already(4-8 %)

Raising kids requires great personal sacrifice, beyond mere economics. No public policy can change this. However, the law can prevent children from being killed for the sake of convenience.

[end quote]

Now, please kindly share your detailed social engineering prescriptions for eliminating these "external causes" of abortion.

 

I'm beyond pleased to see you banned. Anyways, tolerance does not require relativism and it certainly doesn't require laying down and getting rolled over. What you call "Leftist intolerance" was what won the civil rights movement. If the left is "intolerant" it is intolerance to those who would force their values on our bodies and our relationships.

 

I definately believe that the fetus absolutely is a life!! Ever since I saw the first ultrasound of my first baby. The way you talk, I think you must not have children. No it is not the mans fault the way the reproductive biology of humans is arranged. I have long struggled with the concept of men who want thier children and women who have chosen to abort. It simply comes down to this, it is the woman who must carry and then give birth to the baby. Have you ever given birth?? Even in this day and age, there is risk to women. Where would that end?? Women forced to carry and give birth to children they did not wish to have. That is a horrible thought. I believe in education about safe sex. I don't believe in abortion being used as a form of birth control. I married young had three children and got my tubes tied. I do not expect you to feel sympathy for women who get pregnant unexpectedly. I expect for those woman to have the right to decide for themselves about their own lives and bodies. I don't believe only pro choice people adopt, I believe not enough people care about the people that are already here. I said that to make a point. If you are so concerned about the unborn then why don't they start a great movement to help the suffering children dieing in basements and trashcans even as we type this shit in this forum. You know what else, from your comment here, a foster child would be better off dead, that tells me that you've never been a foster kid, and never expierienced being an unwanted person with not many rights to call your own. And mores the better for you my dear. I have been facilitated with many young adults who wished that very thing. I myself have wished it right along with them. I for one wish that people would think about what they are doing when they bring a life into this world. I know what birth control is. I think it is so funny that you claim feminists blame men for everything and yet the only invention they've come up with to control preg in men is the condom. Not every woman can take the pill, or the shot, or the patch or any other of those hormonal mind fucking methods. So what does that leave you with?? Methods that are less than effective or things like the iud and sterilization. The point being, sometimes pregnancies happen that are not planned. My own sister in law got prenant on the pill. What then?? What about babies that are not going to live long outside the womb. I know of a woman who believed so strongly in "pro-life" she carried a baby who was to be born without a portion of it's skull to term and gave birth to this child in her home to watch him die within an hour. The bottom line sweety is this, it IS my body and medically and in every other way the baby is NOT a seperate life. Not untill it is able to be born and survive on it's own. Which is becoming sooner and sooner. I know of a 24 weeker surviving and going home. But untill that time, they cannot survive without the mother. Therefore, they are not seperate. Ask any doctor and they will tell you. I personally am glad that you have chosen against abortion. There is something about it that really really bothers me. But I have almost died in childbirth and had a horrible second trimester miscarriage that caused alot of problems. These were my decisions to make. Luckily we do have choices. I would never presume to tell another how they should choose. I don't think that makes me a selfish person. But you certainly have the right to disagree......

 

**


Oh for fuck sake Huck your are always trying to push this holier than thou bull shit “one of my earlier posts that you've snidely glossed over”. That post of yours was number 522 on the 20/10/04 the first time I posted to the Abortion thread again was 25/10/04 and I gave you my reply (post 575).

It was clear that you were saying that you KNOW that you are SURE why people have unwanted pregnancies why people want abortions because they were immoral because you religion tells you they are. In my reply I attacked your position.

So what was my reason for bringing up the statistics in the first place Huck? (Abortion thread post 387 on 21/09/04)

I brought them up the first time to show that they were unclear and that they were “difficult to interpret” and might be seen in different ways and couldn’t tell the whole story and it was part of my view that we need more understanding so that we can help people.

But you don’t need understanding do you Huck you have your holy book and your god to tell you. And because of them you KNOW.

And i don't think you really want to help people.

So just why are you here Huck it is obvious you are not here to actually debate?

IS IT JUST TO PREACH YOUR RELIGION?


**

 

If someone truely thinks killing babies is the right moral objective, whatever their reasons, then they must stick to their guns. It's a moral issue.

On the other hand as a crass political strategy, democrats, reversing their stand of Roe V Wade, would make them politically competitive again.

 

**

Gabino

Why do women want abortions, why do people have unwanted pregnancies?

What can we do to change things?

**

 

Not with the Greens. Democrats should never sell out feminism.

 

I think the Democrats really need to poll their base and see where they are most willing to make concessions, if they want to at all. One of the main problems democrats have is getting people off their asses and to the polls to vote.

If the world doesn't end and things become pretty okay in the next four years, I would pander more to the base than try to reach out to the right and if Bush shows us our worse fears coming true, we might just consider moving to Canada. However, if Bush is just a verifiably bad president, we should then reach out to the middle.

 

I don't think Democrats have "painted" themselves as this. Dems, historically, stand up for those who have no voice (in theory, anyway) womyn who are experiecing unwanted or dangerous pregancies are in this group. Also the Constitution is at stake. Restricting MEDICAL care (which is what abortion is) is unconstitutional......as per Roe V Wade.

I do beleive education is VERY important. But it is HARD to get through to those most at risk. I give talks at the local high school about parenting. About half the class is sleeping, painting their nails, giggling, not paying attention......the teacher said when the womyn from Planned Parenthood comes it is even worse. These kids just think they are invulnerable. "I won't get pregnant." Or "I won't get her pregnant." And they don't want to discuss it or listen to reason.

The other half of the class pays attention, asks excellent questions, is interested in what is being said. THESE kids will make better parents, they are the ones who are less likely to get pregnant unexpectantly, they are the ones who will either wait or use birth control, they are the ones who will at least CONSIDER breastfeeding their babies and really taking care of them. The ones sleeping and giggling are the problems.

You can't FORCE someone to learn something if they don't even want to be there.

 

**

Maggie

This is it, are these sleepers and gigglers the ones most likely to have an abortion? I think we need to find out. If they are, are they getting pregnant because they don’t understand, think they do understand or don’t care? I think we need to find out.

Only by finding out why rather than just labelling such people lost, will we be able to do something about it.

To me it seems that those on the secular right think such people are seen as the unworthy poor that must be financially squeezed into not having children and that those on the religious right want seem to want to force such sinners to have the children as punishment for their carnal lust.

To me that is not about helping people it is about wanting control.


**

 

The reasons you cited are anything but vague. They can be summarized by one word: inconvenience. As I said, no amount of public policy tinkering can eliminate the personal sacrifice required to care for children. However, there is no shortage of adoptive parents eager to make such sacrifices.

Nobody is more voiceless than the unborn.

Hacking the unborn to pieces is hardly "health care." Furthermore, the Constitution is utterly silent on abortion; Roe v. Wade was sheer fiat.

It would help if abortion profiteers like Planned Parenthood would at least provide detailed information about fetal development, abortion techniques, and alternatives to abortion. States that have enacted such informed consent requirements have markedly reduced abortion rates. Anyone who opposes such common sense restrictions is not "pro-choice" but shamelessly pro-abortion.

 

I'm not going to read through 6 pages of this crap again, but I am going to respond.

Democrats support choice. Even some people that vote democrat don't agree with abortion, but they believe that America was based on freedom. You can't just get up one day and say "I'm going to make this illegal because I don't like it". That's basically what these religious conservatives are doing. After abortion is made illegal, what's next? Cell phones? Cigarettes? Liquor? Magazines? Newsapapers? It's going to come down to where all that's left is conservative media and a society based around how they feel society should be. It's already starting, but no one is strong enough to stand up, look around, and say this is wrong. For example, we outcasting gays and denying them rights.

The church has infested the minds of millions and now it's showing. The church is nothing but a giant propaganda machine used to satisfy its own agenda. Until we wake up and see what's happening, nothing is going to change, it will just get worse. One day people will realize they've been brainwashed by a false god.

I know currently there's a petition going around trying to ban the use of cell phones while driving. Then there's the petitions trying to stop people from smoking in their cars and in their homes.

This is the world you've made. Conservatives are trying to take away what made America what it is - the blending of cultures and societys and groups. They are trying to make it into their own little world where everything is the way they like it. They think because they're the majority, they can completely push aside and outcast the minority. It's no different than the bully back in elementary who thinks everything should go his way because he's bigger and stronger. I'm fed up with it. They need to get a grip and stop bitching and whinning about every little thing that dosnt go their way. America will meet it's end thanks to these people, because they don't know when to stop. It won't be "Russia" or any of that nonsense. It will come from within.

The smaller man always wins in the end.

 

In 2002 303,000 children entered state custody, joining 532,000 others who are awaiting adoption. 53,000 children were actually adopted in 2002. Where are all these adoptive parents? More statistics which site a large pool of people seekign adoption include anyone who is interested in adoption (about 15% of those actually apply and less than 1/3 of those ever really adopt anyone.)
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/dis/afcars/publications/afcars.htm

There were 1.3 Million abortions last year (least abortions since 1977), which would have more than DOUBLED the number of children in state custody. After 18 years, 5% of the US population would be in foster care.
http://www.all.org/stopp/04tabort.pdf

Yes, because they have the mental capacity of a bacteria.

Hacking a cow to pieces can hardly be called food, but we do...
Ammendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Pro-Life is a Pro-Christian Agenda.

Ammendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Like it or not that fetus is A PART of that womans body until it is viable on it's own.

Sure, and I think you should have to work in a meat packing plant before you eat meat, but I recognize that my personally held beleifs are mine alone...

 

Kids in foster care are typically removed from their homes later in life and kept there while state agencies bend over backwards trying to reunite them with their biological parents. They are only placed for adoption after all efforts are rehabilitating the biological parents have failed.

By contrast, there is no shortage of adoptive homes for newborns. Babies saved from abortion would not end up in foster care if placed for adoption upon birth.

Bacteria don't suck their thumbs or emit brain waves.

Why not?

At least cows are required to be killed humanely, not so with unborn humans.

That's utter nonsense. The 1st Amendment wasn't even cited in Roe v. Wade. Are laws against murder and theft "religious" because they are found in the 10 commandments?

The unborn child is not part of the mother's body. The have different DNA and often different blood types.

Moreover, the 4th Amendment only restricts how laws may be enforced, not their content. Many actions inside private homes are illegal: child molestation, physical abuse, drug use, etc.

I think that laws requiring disclosure of the treatment of animals killed for meat would be a good idea.

 

Ok, well I'm anti-war, I think it's wrong. Should I shut up about that? Should people not protest war? Both end human lives. I don't see any of you guys saying "Just because you don't like war, doesn't mean we should end it...". Please try to see your hypocrisy.

You are comparing cell phones with the ending of a baby's life? Give me a break. War, the death penalty and abortion are in a class by themselves. I adore freedom, but we have to draw the lines at these important issues.
It's because I do love freedom that I hold my belief on abortion. The unborn have rights and freedom.

I don't care what people do in their own homes, but I do think smoking should be banned in all public places. It infringes on other's freedoms.

 

I didn't make this post to suggest that the Dems move to the right. I just wanted to emphasize that we actually reduce the number of abortions when we are in power. I just think both parties can agree that abortion is wrong. We just have diff. ways of solving the problem.

 

What a thing to say! They are undeveloped HUMANS.
I believe even "lesser life forms" like other animals have rights to. Get off your high horse.

I don't.

Inncorrect. I am adamently non-religious. I hate religion. It is a moral issue.

 

Okay, look, I don't give a shit what your stance on abortion is, DO NOT pretend that putting them up for adoption is an easy decision that will solve everything.

Here's my problem with people like you who advocate adoption: HAVE YOU EVER ADOPTED A CHILD???? I am presuming the answer is no, in which case you are the biggest hypocrite to ever walk the face of the earth. DON'T ADVOCATE BRINGING MORE KIDS IN TO THIS WORLD IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HELP TAKE CARE OF THEM! You know what I would do if I were pregnant and abortion was illegal? I would have the baby, then put it on some pro-lifer's doorstep with a note saying "You wanted me to have it, now YOU raise it."

There are NOT enough parents willing to adopt, PERIOD. Guess what major fact you're overlooking: the MAJORITY of adoptive parents only want WHITE babies!

It is a fact that the average "price" of a WHITE newborn infant is $20,000, while the average "price" of a NONwhite newborn infant is anywhere from $15,000 to as little as $5,000. Why? Because that's the only way adoption agencies can encourage people to consider adopting outside of their own race (most adoptive parents are white).

And you made my own point for me when you stated that most of the kids in state custody were taken away from their parents: WHY do you think they were taken away from their parents in the first place?? BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS WERE IRRESPONSIBLE AND NOT READY TO HAVE KIDS!! THAT is the whole reasoning behind having abortion as an option: so these kids will be spared a life of being abused and neglected or waiting their whole lives to be adopted (especially if they aren't white).

You can babble on all you want about the ethics of abortion, but DO NOT advocate adoption when you aren't willing to help the kids that you insisted on bringing into this overpopulated world.

 

Unfortunately, Democrats typically oppose the modest restrictions I listed in my initial post on this thread. Reasonable moderates like you should work to change this.

Well, you're wrong. I have 2 adopted sons.

There are numerous pro-life organizations in most major cities that regularly welcome the opportunity to find loving homes for such babies.

Nonetheless, there is still no shortage of adoptive homes for minority newborn infants. The fact that so many couples adopt from foreign countries indicates just the opposite.

Tragic as some of these situations are, I emphatically disagree with the notion that these kids would be better off dead.