Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd say we need more abortions, in order to keep the population level under control
No... we need fewer conceptions. A lot fewer.
This is especially so at the lower stratum who aren't prepared or capable of handling the responsibility
(which btw is the one portion of the US population who hasn't mostly self regulated their fertility)
Safe... Legal... Rare... Prompt... Free
Rare by means of far better education and use of contraception than we have today.
Aside from the million conceptions lamented so thoroughly in this thread...
there are probably another million similarly ill considered conceptions to be avoided... that aren't.
Prompt because once the diligent, educated try to avoid conception line has been crossed...
and the choice to exercise the right has been made... NO ONE gains from delay.
Free because dealing with the costs are the single largest hindrance to prompt...
(and it's the best use of public funds if/when even available HI won't pay)
The right to make the choice without the ability to exercise it... isn't much of a choice at all.
If the GOP were to take up the fight of reducing abortions instead of making them illegal, would that be a popular platform, if said reduction involved education, contraceptive use, encouraging males to be good fathers and stick with the mom and support the child (which I believe is the leading cause of abortion), etc.?
So the GOP platform would be: Abortion is bad, but we accept it as the law of the land which will never be overturned. Therefore, instead of demonizing women and even the doctors, we would like to seek voluntary efforts at a local and state level and work with people to reduce abortion. Contraceptives and education would be priority #1 of course to prevent pregnancy from happening in the first place.
For those concerned that it would prevent a welfare problem with more little ones running around, I feel like a lot of the true welfare queens are the ones who go through the pregnancies regardless because they get more $$$$ plus usually have other issues.
This is really all about providing whatever support possible to hopefully encourage women to not abort: aka it would still be a woman's choice, but she would actuall ahve more choices.
A scenario would be as follows:
Pregnant woman: "I'm pregnant, but I can't support a child. I could just have an abortion and get this over with, but I don't want to do it."
New Platform: "We have a network in place that can help you. We would like to provide counseling for you. We can provide free health care during pregnancy and post birth. We also have a family that cannot have children who would be overjoyed with your little one and adopt if you still conclude that you cannot care for the child.
It would involve government programs and activism, but I'm willing to set aside ideology to save lives.
I would think this would be a winning strategy for the GOP and would attract more women voters rather than scare them away. Of course, you would have to stay away from coercive tactics like mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds (courtesy of Paul Ryan).
But - if you could keep the discourse to - hey, let's reduce the need for abortions and focus on prevention - then I think that would be great.
This is especially so at the lower stratum who aren't prepared or capable of handling the responsibility
(which btw is the one portion of the US population who hasn't mostly self regulated their fertility)
Safe... Legal... Rare... Prompt... Free
Rare by means of far better education and use of contraception than we have today.
Aside from the million conceptions lamented so thoroughly in this thread...
there are probably another million similarly ill considered conceptions to be avoided... that aren't.
Prompt because once the diligent, educated try to avoid conception line has been crossed...
and the choice to exercise the right has been made... NO ONE gains from delay.
Free because dealing with the costs are the single largest hindrance to prompt...
(and it's the best use of public funds if/when even available HI won't pay)
The right to make the choice without the ability to exercise it... isn't much of a choice at all.
My point, though, is once conception has occured and the woman is pregnant, having the structure and resources in place for her to make a choice (sometimes carrying the prengnacy to term isn't possible because she has no support so it's not really a "choice" with two solid options): medical care through pregnancy, counseling, a home for the baby when it is born.
Basically, let's prevent abortion through preventing pregnancy with contraceptives and education. If the woman is pregnant, lets' prevent abortion by having the resources on stand by to help her carry it to term.
Basically, let's prevent abortion through preventing pregnancy with contraceptives and education.
Fine with me.
We can prevent another bunch of unplanned and unwanted conceptions this way too.
Quote:
My point, though, is once conception has occurred and the woman is pregnant,
having the structure and resources in place for her to make a choice...
...still requires that the OTHER option is ALSO legitimately and genuinely available to them.
Not in name... in reality or it's not a choice.
At present, in far too many places, that just isn't the case.
One bridge at a time. OK?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WV Outsider
...there is only one clinic in this whole state that performs abortions. it is under constant patrol by the right to lifers, has been for years... a pathetic tireless horde of hecklers who berate, harass and snap pictures of anyone who attempts to enter, who scream murderer at even the delivery men who attempt to enter. a shoeless, straggly haired backwoods woman attempting to have her 12 yr. old's fetus aborted, because she is sure it's uncle-daddy's baby, with be met with, ''that will be 450 dollars. what is your check number please?'' if the mother has no money she will be directed to social services, which will take more than 16 weeks to process her claim.
Last edited by MrRational; 01-27-2013 at 01:34 PM..
My point, though, is once conception has occured and the woman is pregnant, having the structure and resources in place for her to make a choice (sometimes carrying the prengnacy to term isn't possible because she has no support so it's not really a "choice" with two solid options): medical care through pregnancy, counseling, a home for the baby when it is born.
Basically, let's prevent abortion through preventing pregnancy with contraceptives and education. If the woman is pregnant, lets' prevent abortion by having the resources on stand by to help her carry it to term.
So, is this woman going to have a choice to have an abortion or not? If not - the GOP is back to the same old; same old and it will not work.
Your first thought was a good one; but the follow-through leaves something to be desired. You are NOT giving this hypothetical woman freedom of choice in your scenario above.
It's a shame - because I feel like we could be successful in curbing unwanted pregnancies and subsequent abortions if both parties focused heavily on prevention without removing women's rights to a legal abortion.
It's a shame - because I feel like we could be successful in curbing unwanted pregnancies
and subsequent abortions if both parties focused heavily on prevention
without removing women's rights to a legal abortion.
Bear in mind why they don't want to promote contraception...
(let alone effective education on sexuality and the biology involved)
Then consider whether those reasons have any role in public affairs or government.
I support education and contraceptives without subsidization or increase government spending.
Education, after all, increases knowledge and knowledge is power.
Increased spending hasn't seemed to work, so what about deregulation? Birth control in school, armed teachers, and curriculum decided by the teacher instead of the state.
If the GOP were to take up the fight of reducing abortions instead of making them illegal, would that be a popular platform, if said reduction involved education, contraceptive use, encouraging males to be good fathers and stick with the mom and support the child (which I believe is the leading cause of abortion), etc.?
So the GOP platform would be: Abortion is bad, but we accept it as the law of the land which will never be overturned. Therefore, instead of demonizing women and even the doctors, we would like to seek voluntary efforts at a local and state level and work with people to reduce abortion. Contraceptives and education would be priority #1 of course to prevent pregnancy from happening in the first place.
For those concerned that it would prevent a welfare problem with more little ones running around, I feel like a lot of the true welfare queens are the ones who go through the pregnancies regardless because they get more $$$$ plus usually have other issues.
This is really all about providing whatever support possible to hopefully encourage women to not abort: aka it would still be a woman's choice, but she would actuall ahve more choices.
A scenario would be as follows:
Pregnant woman: "I'm pregnant, but I can't support a child. I could just have an abortion and get this over with, but I don't want to do it."
New Platform: "We have a network in place that can help you. We would like to provide counseling for you. We can provide free health care during pregnancy and post birth. We also have a family that cannot have children who would be overjoyed with your little one and adopt if you still conclude that you cannot care for the child.
It would involve government programs and activism, but I'm willing to set aside ideology to save lives.
Well there are people who believe abortion is unpleasant. And there are people who believe abortion is murder. Your solution works for the people in the former category but it does not work for people in the latter category. Nor, if I may be so bold, should you want it to work. People who do believe it is murder should not compromise. Compromising on murder is a morally bankrupt thing to do. That's not ideology, that's fundamental ethics. There can be no greater ethical question that whether or not it is allowed to kill innocent human beings. So even though I agree that your suggestion, if adopted, would probably only result in a good outcome I still have to disagree with it. Because I don't want to live in a society where people "go along to get along" on matters as fundamentally important as ending human life. Similarly, even though I do not agree that our nation still has a systemic problem with racism or sexism, for those people who do sincerely believe it I want them to continue the fight. It's the principled thing to do and I want people to follow their principles even when I disagree with them.
Number on agenda should be seeing how to bring down the costs of iud devices. I don't want tax money involve, since private money can get the job done.
Number on agenda should be X or Y or Z...
I don't want tax money involve...
Tax money will be involved no matter how you slice it.
The question is whether that money comes in one middling bill now and then...
or a series of far larger bills constantly and steadily being paid for decades.
I prefer the former.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
