Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pro-Choice vs Anti-Abortion Forces: A Consise Statement

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Choice Donate to DU
 
IsaiahTruman Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 04:37 PM
Original message
Pro-Choice vs Anti-Abortion Forces: A Consise Statement
The Pro-Choice vs. Anti-Abortion Conflict

In a perfect world, the outcome of a woman getting pregnant would be that a baby would be born and raised in a loving, caring, comfortable family. I think we all can agree on that.

Unfortunately, we do not now live in a perfect world, and even though we certainly can make the world far better than it is now, it may never be perfect. Therefore, we must resolve the conflict between Pro-Choice advocates who feel that women should have the right to abortion services if needed, and Anti-Abortion advocates who feel that abortion is wrong.

We need to be rational, realistic and sane about this. The fact is that unwanted pregnancies do occur. So, the question is whether women who find themselves in that predicament should have a choice in the matter, or not.

We should all understand that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 law establishing a woman’s right to abortion, was established solely to protect women from being maimed or killed by botched illegal abortions. That’s because there was a high mortality rate for women resulting from such procedures prior to that, and many women were dying.

Additionally, child abuse and neglect was more prevalent prior to 1973, because most women felt they had no choice but to give birth when they got pregnant, even if they did not really want or could not afford to have a child.

All that would be the case again if abortion were to be made illegal. Those are facts we must face, and it should mitigate any other considerations.

We should also remember that the anti-abortion crusade by the Christian Right was begun in the late 1970s because they thought they had found a cause and a fight they would win. They thought they would stand on high moral ground with this issue, but the record clearly shows otherwise. After all, their words and actions have been bigoted and hypocritical, and they have caused a lot of conflict, division, anger, violence, death, grief, and suffering.

Fortunately, the most malicious and hypocritical of the so-called “Pro-Life” (Anti-Abortion) forces have stopped bombing medical clinics and killing health professionals to try to impose their will and force their beliefs on us. But most of us still feel their crusade is misguided, and wrong, especially since some of them still harass young pregnant women who have enough trouble as it is. Hard feelings still persist because of all that, and it is one of the main reasons people are so divided and polarized over this issue.

Of course, bigoted and hypocritical right-wing preachers like Pat Robertson are largely responsible for that. After all, he said things like this: “(Planned Parenthood) is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism....”

Robertson tried to demonized the Pro-Choice movement, and the whole anti-abortion movement was fueled by such deceptive and inflammatory rhetoric, spouting from the mouths of people who loudly and proudly claimed to be Christians.

The murder and assassination of doctors and medical clinic staff, the bombing of medical clinics, and the harassment and intimidation of troubled pregnant women in crisis were a very predictable result. Not only were staff and doctors who perform clinical abortions murdered, many other clinic staff and doctors were harassed and intimidated in a variety of different ways. Many have been given good and ample reason to fear for their lives, because their names have been posted on “hit lists” on the Internet. Moreover, young, pregnant women in crisis have been intimidated and harassed mercilessly. In some cases, pregnant women who have desperately needed medically necessary abortions to protect their own lives have been so harassed and intimidated that they have been forced to flee to another state, and their lives have been jeopardized.

I believe we should face the fact that if abortion were to be illegal and against the law once again (as it was prior to Roe v. Wade), women would still need and seek abortions. Consequently, many women would be cheated and taken advantage of, and many would be maimed or killed by botched amateur abortion procedures. History clearly proves that, because that’s what happened when abortion was illegal. (You should watch the great movie starring Natalie Wood and Steve McQueen, Love With a Proper Stranger, which helped to make people aware of the problem).

Furthermore, the problem of child abuse and neglect of unwanted children would only grow worse if abortion were to be made illegal again. In fact, if we were to force women to bear children they don’t want or can’t care for properly, many problems would only grow worse.

A more sensible approach would be to start a crusade to ensure that all women of child-bearing age have ready access to safe and affordable birth control. And, in cases where birth control was not used or not effective and unwanted pregnancy is the result, women ought to have two easy options –– to either arrange for the baby to be adopted if they wish to carry the pregnancy to term, or to have the pregnancy terminated during the first trimester, before the fetus is viable.

Granted, not all those in the “Pro-Life” movement are self-righteous bigots and hypocrites. Some may be loving and caring, and I’m sure most truly believe they are doing the right thing. And they are right in one sense, because ideally abortion should not be necessary. And with proper use of safe and affordable birth control methods, and with adoption services more available and easy to utilize, it wouldn’t be.

Whatever the case, abortion should not be undertaken lightly. And it should only be in the first trimester during the first two or three months or pregnancy, unless it is absolutely necessary out of medical emergency. Furthermore, it should not be used by women (like some in India and China) who abort female fetuses just because they would prefer a male. That is a foolish, short-sighted practice that could have disastrous consequence for their whole society.

In the final analysis, the main issue here is a woman’s right to plan her family, and to choose and use whatever is currently available in God’s creation to prevent and avoid pregnancy if and when she chooses. And, if an unwanted pregnancy does occur, that right should extend naturally to using modern medical means to abort that pregnancy during the first trimester if she chooses. That should be a woman’s right and prerogative, and it should be her free choice.

To say otherwise would be to reduce a woman to the status of chattel and breeding stock. It would be telling her that her body is not her own, but the property of her father or husband or the state. It would be telling her that her body is meant solely to produce offspring, no matter what, even if and even when it would be against her wishes and against her will. It would be telling her that she has no rights and no choice in the matter. That is why the Christian Right is so wrong about this issue, just as it is wrong about so many other issues.

(Most of the above was quoted from the book, More Observations & Suggestions: The Followup to Real Prophecy Unveiled, by Joseph J. Adamson.)

Reposted from: http://reformationcomingsoon.bravehost.com/Abortion.html

Refresh | +1 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. Do you have any stats at all to back up the notion that child abuse was more rampant
before Roe v Wade than it is now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Before 1973,I believe that child abuse was not really "talked about" ..
and I believe it was the "day-care scare" in the 80s that really put child sex abuse into the spotlight ... (coerced testimony from toddlers notwithstanding ...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
classykaren Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
25. SHE IS WRONG MORE CHILD ABUSE SINCE LEGAL
Child abuse is at a all time high
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. This is a pro-choice forum.
"The mission of the DU Pro-choice group is to bring together like-minded progressive individuals, to collaborate on ideas to protect the right of every woman to make personal reproductive health decisions and choices. This forum supports a woman's right to privacy and choice based upon medical consultation, a woman's conscience and those in which she chooses to confide. The DU Pro-Choice group supports Roe v. Wade and complete reproductive freedom for women of all races, creeds, religions and backgrounds."

You have stated in other threads that you are not pro-choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
silverweb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. Concise?
Welcome to DU! :hi:

As for "concise"...
con·cise –adjective
expressing or covering much in few words; brief in form but comprehensive in scope; succinct; terse: a concise explanation of the company's retirement plan.
_source_


Great post, but not "concise." :D

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
3. Several problems with this post.
Aside from not being particularly concise.

I see no evidence that the incidence of child abuse has changed at all since 1973. Even in a Pro-Choice "Utopia" of free abortion on demand up to delivery (notice that Utopia is in quotes, because very few pro-choice people actually support that extreme position) such easy availability of abortion would by no means eliminate the circumstances that lead to child neglect and abuse.

And those who think that abortions are not undertaken lightly don't understand how difficult the decision really is. I know many women who've had abortions, before and after Roe v. Wade, and not a single one did it casually. It is not necessary to put obstacles in the way of a legal abortion (such as a 24 hour waiting period or notification of the "father") to make women do it any more thoughtfully than they already do.

And Roe v Wade had pretty much nothing to do with the maiming and death of women from illegal abortions. It was about who had the right to make certain medical decisions.

There is really a LOT wrong with this entire post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
IsaiahTruman Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. What?
No offense, but ....

First of all, the post clearly suggests that abortions NOT be provided "on demand up to delivery" as you claim.

The author clearly suggests that an abortion should NOT be undertaken lightly, and only within the first trimester.

Secondly, I personally know a high school classmate who died because of a botched illegal abortion in the 1950s, and Roe v Wade certain did address that.

So I totally disagree with you that "there is a LOT wrong with this entire post." To me it is a refreshing piece of sanity and common sense.

It acknowledges that abortions should not be done after the first trimester unless there is a medical emergency and need, and yet it states very clearly why abortion should be an option amd free choice during the first trimester.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I understand
quite clearly that the post did not suggest abortions be provided "on demand up to delivery". Note that I said that was the pro-choice "utopia" and I'm sorry my intended irony was not made more clear.

While many women died or were rendered sterile or other terrible things because of illegal abortions, Roe v. Wade had NOTHING to do with those things. that butchery from illegal abortions largely went away after Roe v. Wade, it was not the primary reason for the case. What was going on was that a woman sued to claim her right to terminate a pregnancy, free of interference from the government, and the Supreme Court agreed.

And, by the way, the Supreme Court decided that abortions were okay through the first two trimesters in that decision.

The reason this post appears to be a "refreshing piece of sanity and common sense" is that it doesn't demonize either side, but there is still an underlying and implicit pro-life stance within it.

Flame away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
4. The WAS a dramatic drop in CRIME approx. 16 years after Roe v Wade.
Google it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
laconicsax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. Missing the bigger picture
of whether or not women have the right to control their bodies or the even bigger picture of whether or not women are people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
IsaiahTruman Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. It states very clearly that women SHOULD have the right to control their bodies.
QUOTE:

In the final analysis, the main issue here is a woman’s right to plan her family, and to choose and use whatever is currently available in God’s creation to prevent and avoid pregnancy if and when she chooses. And, if an unwanted pregnancy does occur, that right should extend naturally to using modern medical means to abort that pregnancy during the first trimester if she chooses. That should be a woman’s right and prerogative, and it should be her free choice.

To say otherwise would be to reduce a woman to the status of chattel and breeding stock. It would be telling her that her body is not her own, but the property of her father or husband or the state. It would be telling her that her body is meant solely to produce offspring, no matter what, even if and even when it would be against her wishes and against her will. It would be telling her that she has no rights and no choice in the matter. That is why the Christian Right is so wrong about this issue, just as it is wrong about so many other issues.

UNQOTE

So, it very clearly addresses the big picture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Katherine Brengle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
10. You had me until "the first trimester, before the fetus is viable" and some
of what followed.

The issue here is, are women human beings who have the right to full bodily sovereignty?

That is the issue.

If we are, then there can be no restrictions. If we are not, then we haven't come very far at all, have we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
IsaiahTruman Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Well of course. That's what I said.
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 12:51 PM by IsaiahTruman
I think you're raising a semantic point, and there really is no argument. Women should have the right of free choice, to birth control, to abortion, and to full bodily sovereinty. Of course. That what the original post states, in other words.

Still, I agree with Adamson. I think that ideally, abortion should be performed within the first trimester, before the fetus is viable. Women should be able to determine within the first three months if they are pregnant and if they want to carry the pregnancy to term or not. And this position acknowledges the concerns of those who are vehemently against "partial birth" late term abortions, which I think most people would say are not good and should be avoided if at all possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
supernova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Except that there is an element within the P-L movement
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 01:27 PM by supernova
that is not at all hospitable to the idea of "birth control."

You seem to think that they are well-intentioned in that regard. Their leaders aren't. While I am sure there are some P-Lers of good intention who would be genuinely shocked, SHOCKED that their comrades in arms want to take away their birth control pills, their leaders have been quite plain about doing just that. They want to outlaw abortion, then birth control. The hard core of the P-L movement want women to return to powerlessness.

I'm not compromising with any of that vileness, no matter how upset some P-Lers are about abortion. It is not my responsiblity to take away their squeamishness about the bloody business of living.

edit: While agree that birth control needs to be more widely available, (hell, give out the pill in those damn vending machines at public restrooms) you make a common assumption that women have abortions for casual or superficial "reasons," especially third trimester. There is no evidence to suggest any such thing as a casual 3d trimester abortion. Those are usually because there is something genuinely wrong with the pregnancy and definitely the baby, or the woman, and most likely both won't survive unless the abortion is performed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
IsaiahTruman Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. No, you apparently misunderstood me.
I believe all women should have the right to readily available, affordable and effective birth control methods. Period.

I certainly did not mean to imply, nor do I think I did imply, that "Pro-Life" movement leaders are "well-intentioned" in being against birth control. I think they are being foolish in that regard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WildClarySage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Oh bruther...
not all late term abortions are "partial birth" abortions, nor are all partial birth" abortions performed in the 3rd trimester of pregnancy. Using those terms interchangeably is an old anti-abortion movement tactic. Even if they were, do you seriously believe women and their doctors are getting them done on healthy fetuses? Most women can't find an abortion provider in their locality who will perform first trimester abortions. 98% of counties in the US have no abortion providers. The nearest abortion provider to where I live is almost two hours away by car, for example. That practice states they can perform them up to 24 weeks- but only in special circumstances. I think Kansas may be the closest place to here that I could obtain a medically necessary 3rd trimester abortion. But hey, that's what red-herrings are for- they're what straw men love to eat most.

And of course, many women don't know they're pregnant until further along. Many times older moms assume they're going through menopause. Many women have irregular periods. All the early symptoms of pregnancy, nausea, dizziness, tiredness and amenorrhea, can be explained by other causes. Since women will experience these symptoms very frequently in their lives, and will experience pregnancy very few times, its easy to assume that the vomiting was just from a bad piece of chicken, and the missed period is just from stress.

As for limiting abortion to the first trimester, circumstances change. Maybe at 16 weeks, she lost her job. Or her partner. Or her mind. Her health may have been jeopardized. She and her physician are the two people who know her situation best and are the only two people who should be concerned with her health care decisions. A bunch of strangers who don't know her and don't know her situation need to keep their nose out of her business. Assuming she's not capable of making that decision, assuming her chosen physician is incompetent to provide appropriate medical advice is insulting to women everywhere.

Even if we assume the person hood of the fetus, one person is not required to provide medical support of another. Nobody is required to so much as donate blood to another. There are no mandatory marrow or organ donations, even when the only objection is the avoidance of pain/discomfort. Pregnancy is a dangerous condition that still kills women, which can lead to permanent medical issues. Yet there are those who would force women to accept these risks to her body for the benefit of another. Nobody thinks seriously that one person should be required to donate organs/blood/marrow/etc. to ensure the survival of another. But when one of those involved is a woman, and the other is a fetus, suddenly people start thinking that yeah, they're ok with making people accept these risks.

So you, and the author of the tripe you posted, think you know my relationships, emotional state, health and finances better than my physician and I do, and can decide for me that I have to risk my health for a fetus I don't want and can't keep just because my irregular periods didn't indicate to me that I was pregnant til the 4th month, because that fetus is gonna be a pwecious widdle baybee some day in the future?

I don't fucking think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Katherine Brengle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Late-term abortions are already avoided if at all possible.
And I feel no obligation to acknowledge the "concerns" of people who don't think I (and all other women) am capable of making my own choices when it comes to my body.

I despise the shame and false "concern" showered upon women who need or want abortions. It has nothing to do with anyone other than the woman and her doctor. The public and the government need to butt the hell out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
winterlight Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #15
29. Correct
late-term abortion is very rare, thanks to contraceptives and other efforts by local authorities to eradicate abortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. good grief
arguing a semantic point is debating whether someone's hair is auburn or red.

Anyone who's been through labor, which judging from your profile ain't you, can tell you that carrying and birthing a baby against your will isn't a matter of semantics.

Next up: a debate on the "semantics" of whether invading countries violates their national sovereignty.

Concerned dogooder: We believe in their full right to sovereignty, we support that fully, and we will give them several weeks to decide how they would behave as a sovereign nation, and then we will invade because we don't think they will use their sovereignty properly. It's best for us to impose our will on them at that point.

The rest of the world: Um, that's not respecting their sovereignty, then.

Concerned dogooder: Sure it is. We will allow them to have sovereignty for several weeks! And then we're in charge.

The rest of the world: :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. No, that isn't the issue.
Everyone agrees that women are human beings with rights.

The issue is "Are foetuses people with rights that need to be balanced against the mother's rights".

The answer is "no", but it's that question that needs to be asked, not anything about the mother.

More specifically, the answer is "not for the first two trimesters", but that's the question that needs to be asked if you want to either a) create a logically coherent argument or b) (far more importantly) convince anyone opposed to abortion that they're wrong.

An obvious response is "does this matter, or is it just quibbling?".

I think the answer is that it does matter to the defence of abortion in America, because virtually no-one who isn't already pro-choice will be converted by the argument that women should have "full bodily sovereignty", justifying abortion on demand throughout pregnancy (and indeed most pro-choicers will disagree with it too - very few people support abortion on demand in the third trimester; there are few countries where it's legal).

If the American pro-choice movement wants to convince people that it's right and it's opponents are wrong, it has to rebut the arguments being advanced against abortion, in ways that will satisfy people with moderate anti-abortion views, not just go down well with the already-converted.

And that requires talking about foetuses and why they don't have rights, not about women and why they do, I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ayesha Donating Member (587 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
17. Great post!
It sums up exactly how I feel about abortion. But people who take this view, it seems, take shit from both sides. On the one hand you have the religious crazies who want to control women and think that a blob of cells has awareness and must be valued over a born, fully developed woman. On the other hand, you have people who are so terrified of ANY restrictions on abortion that they want women to be allowed to kill a fetus that could survive if born (babies born at 21 weeks have survived, those born at 22 weeks and later often do. That is the 2nd trimester!)

The key to ending abortion IS birth control, and educating women how to use it properly. For example, I bet that a huge number of pregnancies occur when women aren't aware that birth control pills don't work when one is taking antibiotics. That information should be printed in big letters on all packages of birth control pills and all antibiotics prescribed to women. More research needs to be done, more methods need to be developed. Universal health care would help with availability and distribution. There will always be abortions, but there could be very, very few if birth control were perfected.

I also think that this issue really hinges on one's personal beliefs on what the right to an abortion actually is. Is it the right to not be pregnant against one's will? The right to not be a biological mother? At what point, if any, does the fetus have rights too? My personal belief is that the right to an abortion is the right to not be pregnant, with all the discomfort, pain, and danger it can entail. The fact that the fetus dies when an early abortion is done is unpreventable, and further, said fetus is not biologically developed enough to be aware or to feel pain. However, if that fetus can survive outside the womb, it becomes an independent entity. Therefore the woman, and doctor, are obligated to end the pregnancy in such a way that its chances of survival are preserved - unless to do so would be life-threatening to the woman.

I believe that we need to trust and value women's choices overall, but we also need to recognize that there are people who are stupid, selfish, and cruel - and that includes some women. At some point we have to say no, you can't do that, there is someone else in the picture whose interests must also be considered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gene430 Donating Member (55 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-18-07 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
19. It boils down to this....
Like it or not, it really boils down to this. If you believe in God, you have to believe that once a woman becomes pregnant it is not her body. Her body is now a share vessel carrying another life that God created.

If you don't believe in God, then screw it, do what you want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. i think you are lost
this is not the "What You Think G-d Thinks of Women's Constitutional Right To Privacy In Health Care Choices" board.

i think you meant to turn right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-20-07 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Oh, I see.
Edited on Thu Dec-20-07 11:34 PM by quantessd
Either you're an immoral atheist, or you are a decent, moral, religious person.
"Like it or not" is a great way to cap off your high-horse arrogance, BTW.
I can already see where this is headed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Nobody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-24-07 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. A woman's body is always her body
Like it or not.

A woman is always the one who feels the pain, the pleasure, the wet, the dry, the cold, the hot and everything in between. No one else resides in that body. Women don't vacate their bodies the instant conception occurs.

Women are people. Like it or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kleber Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 02:15 AM
Response to Original message
23. Is Abortion Choice Boomeranging On Us?
I heard a Rightist make this point a while ago:

Many Conservatives don't really think abortion is a very important issue any more, and they think so for a particularly cold-blooded reason. A look at the demographic data shows that something like 75% of pregnancy terminations since 1973 have been in urban and metropolitan areas, dominated by Progressives. This means that there are perhaps 5 million fewer Progressive voters now than there would be had abortion not become an available option.

This number of voters would have swayed every election since 1991. Had these aborted fetuses become people, Bush would not be president now.

They may well be correct about this. The numbers are convincing.

It might make more sense to expand Community support efforts to assist in the raising of children: correctly educated young people would be able to exert political power that would make progressivism unbeatable. Support for abortion rights may be boomeranging on us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gene430 Donating Member (55 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
24. Could Huckabee overcome the Pro Abortion lobby?
No other candidate has expressed such a clear and unwavering viewpoint on the abortion issue. Agree with or disagree, you know where Huckabee stands:

http://www.politibyte.com/modules.php?name=Video_Stream&page=watch&id=86&d=1

My question: Can Huckabee or any other candidate with such a clear pro life position overcome the built in opposition from the prochoice group? Statiscally speaking, could a candidate win with an active opposition effort from the prochoice movement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Magnifica Donating Member (7 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
27. I support choice
Although my opinion changes a bit on the 2nd and 3rd trimesters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Iris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
28. "In a perfect world, the outcome of a woman getting pregnant would be that a baby would be born"
No - In a perfect world, a woman would have the ability to make decisions about pregnancy that are right for her and her family without interference by the government or random people who think they know what is best for everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 11th 2025, 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Choice Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC