abortion question

[Kenneth ken]

Let me say first, I am male, pro-choice, unmarried, no children, and vasectomied.

So, I had this thought today, and I want to get opinions before I put any time and effort into making it a real idea, rather than a random thought.

Idea: I was thinking about the idea of legislation to make it easier for women to choose to carry their pregnancies to term. (I hope I didn't just lose you) The "pro-life" crowd wants to outlaw abortion, but they never do anything to actually help children. What if we had laws that provided funds for all the necessary care during pregnancy, and say the first 2 years of birth? Exams, delivery, neo-natal care, immunizations, and whatever else is involved.

I think I would want to specifically not fund abortion, only because I am not aware of any funding at present for abortion. Please tell me if I'm wrong on that, and I would be happy to include that funding as well, though I think it would harm the legislative idea.

As a legislative idea, I think "pro-life" people would be hard pressed to oppose providing care to pregnant women and new born babies - that exposes them as simply anti-choice. It also seems to me that a pro-choice person should be willing to help ensure that a woman who chooses to carry her pregnancy to term gets all the care she needs.

For funding, I am thinking of targeting dividend income - it is unearned income, and different from 401K type retirement funds.

That's as far as I've got, so now you get to vote.

Thanks for your responses! :)

[Hobarticus]

1. This would be an 'entitlement' to the supply-side crowd...

and would be gutted of funding in five years.

[Warpy]

10. Not only that, but a measly two years of "welfare"

is about what we've got now. What about the next 16 years of rasising that child alone? What about JOBS, DAYCARE, and HEALTH CARE?

Sure, adequate funding for mothers and children might decrease the number of abortions, but you're making a silly mistake if you think economics is the only reason women abort unwanted pregnancies.

You see, the one thing that is the most difficult for men to wrap their minds around is the reality that to face childbirth is to face death. A woman who is pregnant against her will may not want to face death for it, no matter how much public assistance you shower her with.

That's the bottom line. Abortion is self defense. That's why even an economic paradise will never stop it.

[Bellamia]

19. I wouldn't say it's a silly mistake........

it's an innocent, uninformed one. After all, he's a guy, what would he know??? Still, it's a bad idea.

[Kenneth ken]

31. LOL

I know enough to ask here and get informed opinions and thought before I put a lot of time and effort into championing a bad idea :D

And this is pretty clearly to me proving to be a bad idea.

Thanks for your comments :hi:

[nashville_brook]

39. no, it's a really good idea -- and i LOVE your spinning avatar!

gazing at it, i was flooding with thoughts to reply to your poll -- it became a huge mess, so i made a post --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=217x1862


what you say is totally understandable from the standpoint of pragmatic problem solving -- something close to my heart. i think there SHOULD be pragmatics applied to this. we MUST apply pragmatics to this.

[Warpy]

49. Thanks for listening

It means a great deal.

Your idea would reduce the number of abortions if it were expanded to include real aid for woman raising children alone, and isn't reducing the number of abortions a good idea? The increase in the number of abortions since the Idiot started bungling the economy tells us that some wanted pregnancies are being aborted because there is no economic hope out there and women can't face bringing their children into the type of poverty that my include homelessness and hunger.

It's just very naive to think women only need aid for two years. The type of need changes as the child grows, but it's never gone. It's also naive to think facing a life threatening process will be trivialized by a good economic climate. Looking at European countries with pronatalist policies and massive aid to mothers will tell you that just aint so.

Thanks for reading these comments and becoming a little more educated. It's always a pleasure when some of this stuff gets through to moderate an opinion or alter a proposed plan.

[Kenneth ken]

54. thanks for teaching!

I do understand that women need aid for more than two years; the problem with that aspect was that I limited myself on available funding by linking it to taxing a portion of dividend income. I chose dividend income because it is unearned wealth (well unearned by those who get the dividends anyway) so was thinking in terms of that aspect being kind of easier to argue for in terms of funding, as opposed to a more general and wide-spread tax, which of course would be attacked as welfare and tax burden on everyone.

So by limiting my funding source, I necessarily had to restrict my support net.

Which circles around again to why single payer national health care is the best idea for a society as a whole. But we seem so far away from that reality, and that lack causes so many individual hardships, I was trying to piecemeal address at least one of them.

[Kenneth ken]

12. maybe

but I was thinking of it in terms of helping the least well-off; and by funding via divdends, at least it draws money for the more well-off.

Thanks. I'll continue to watch my poll before I embrace the idea too tightly. :hi:

[Ravenseye]

2. They don't care about women or babies

the 'pro-life' people don't care about providing care to pregnant women or to new borns or children up to 2 years of birth. They don't care whether a mother gets prenatal care or if a child gets their shots...

They just want to press their morality on others, regardless of circumstance. Period. They're a one trick pony, and about as smart.

[Kenneth ken]

15. probably true for 90+ percent of them

but it would strip them of the "pro-life" fig leaf, and that might help move centrist people away from them on that basis.

It could maybe also be seen as a baby step toward national health care.

Thanks for your comments. :hi:

[Ravenseye]

20. Granted There Are No Absolutes

:hi:

The only absolute is that there are no absolutes. Thats the first rule I live by, so yes not ALL of them don't care.

The thing is: Why do we have to go that far to strip them of their pro-life label? Why are they out there protesting abortions and pulling feeding tubes from people in PVS's, but not protesting the war, the death penalty, or even the lack of health care in the country.

We don't need any new federal programs that are too complicated. You want to protect the unborn and children? Make a law granting full single payer national health care, where children are covered to the age of 25 without payment.

You want to strip them of their 'pro-life' fig leaf? Every time you encounter one ask them if they've protested the war, the death penalty, or the lack of health care which kills more americans than abortion/war/punishment combined...

They're not pro-life. They're moral absolutists and have closed minds. Sure there will be a few exceptions but for the most part to be 'pro-life' is to believe that there can be no possible exception alllowed for an abortion.

If a person feels that a 14 year old girl who was raped by her father, but now has an atopic pregnancy and it's either the baby or her should have to either get permission from that same rapist father in order to have the abortion, or not have one at all because it's just murder which ends up killing both her and the baby...

Well I don't think that person is willing to listen to any reason whatsover.

[Kenneth ken]

33. thanks

by this point in time I've got enough arguments to convince me it was a bad idea. But, hey, I don't have all that many ideas, so I thought it was worth asking about.

:hi:

[Ravenseye]

37. Hey Everything Is Worth Discussing!

And if you don't have that many ideas, when you have one you gotta get it out there!

No I think it was definately a new approach and while I dont think it's a good one, that's something that separates progressives from regressives...Coming up with new ideas and approaches.

Regressives may seem to come up with new ideas but they aren't really. They're the same old ideas and all they'v edone is come up with a new way to sell the same bad idea.

Keep coming up with ideas. Keep posting them. The more you come up with them, the more you post them, the more you'll have.

:toast:

[friesianrider]

67. Once the baby is born that's where their concern ends...

Once you pop out the kid you're on your own.

[beam me up scottie]

3. Bad idea.

It's not about the money, that is an insult to women.

[Kenneth ken]

17. well no,

it isn't really about the money. But shouldn't a compassionate society care about the least protected? Is there anyone less protected than the baby of an impoverished family?

I'm sorry if I insulted you, it certainly was not my intent.

Thanks for your comments. :hi:

[beam me up scottie]

I don't think you insulted me.

Really, no sweat.
I understand your idea but I advocate subsidized child care and health coverage for ALL citizens, not just new mothers and their babies.

[MADem]

4. If they are serious about it, they'll pay the freight until the kid is 18

The first two years are CHEAP, relatively, and if you are broke and show up in labor, they will deliver the kid even if you can't pay. Aside from shots and well baby checkups and diapers and food (less if you breast feed for a long period of time), you can put the kid in Goodwill clothes and they won't be complaining that they don't have those cool sneakers that their classmates have.

The cash really starts to be needed when you get into day care costs, bus fees to get them to school, afterschool fees if you work, activity fees, braces, the college fund, summer camp, clothes, that broken arm, that skateboard that caused the broken arm....

[Kenneth ken]

21. probably all true

but we're quite a long way from a truly healthy society. Do you think it would be at least a step in that direction, or a step away from that direction?

Thanks for your comments. :hi:

[MADem]

26. I believe in choice, and I do not think it should be constrained at all

...in the first trimester, and should be left to the doctor and patient subsequently, especially in cases where pregnancy endangers the health of the host.

I think this whole religious, rightwing crapfest about reproduction misses one essential, important aspect--the womb. It isn't just egg+sperm=baby, it's egg+sperm+willing womb=baby. There are three factors there, and the woman owns two of them.

If you have no host, you have no place to grow the fetus. The owner of the womb has every right to make the choice, and anyone who does NOT own the womb should stay the heck out of the decision, which isn't a "haha, oh well, gollygee" casual choice, I am sure. Most women would probably love to be able to turn back the damn clock if they could!

Maybe someday that whole dynamic will change, and like that awful Ahhhhnold movie, they will be able to remove the embryo from the woman and implant it in the wall of the man's stomach. Then, if the man REALLY wanted the kid, and did not simply want to direct and control the life of the woman, she could go on her merry way, and he could put up with the swollen ankles and puking, get the sick leave and maternity leave, and do the deal himself. It would be interesting to see how many men would take this option if available and offered.

I kind of think the whole 'choice' issue would suddenly get shoved to the back burner if this sort of technology was available!!!

[liberalnurse]

5. I selected choice #!.....

Hold the neo-cons, and pro-lifers accountable.

Additionally, many should be's don't have abortions and the kids suffer as we all know ...minimal resources etc..... Lets just call neo-cons on their issue....Put up or shut-up.

[Kenneth ken]

23. I'm not sure what "should be's" means

although it reads to me as "women who should be having abortions"

I think I'll ignore that, as I'm not prepared to tell any woman what she should do regarding her body, life, and health. My apologies if I misinterpreted your meaning of that phrase.

I was only thinking in terms of some assistance for women who choose to have babies, and at a lesser level exposing the hypocrisy of "pro-life" people.

Thanks for your comments. :hi:

[smbolisnch]

6. It is opening a can of worms.

You know, give them and inch and they'll take a yard. That is, because they don't care about the woman and child in question, just pushing their agenda.

Secondly, not every unwanted pregnancy is unwanted for financial reasons. Some people just don't want children, nor do they want to see them grow up in foster homes etc.

There are SO many variables in this, you could argue it for days.

I like the idea on the surface, however. I think everyone would like to see less abortions.

[Kenneth ken]

25. I do realize

not every unwanted pregnancy is unwanted for financial reasons, I was thinking more in terms of assisting those who either want children, or those who are torn on the basis of financial reasons. I did say my initial inclination was for the legislation to not fund abortions, though I'm not staunch on that point.

I'd have to have a little more exposition on the "give them an inch and they'll take a yard" comment; unless as someone else posted you are talking about twisting this to outlaw abortion on the basis of it not being needed due to the pre and post care becoming available. That is an aspect I hadn't considered, and do not like the idea of.

Thanks for your comments. :hi:

[smbolisnch]

64. Yes, what I meant was that they will continue to impose addtn'l laws

on women's bodies in order to fulfill their political agenda. I should have elaborated more, I apologize!
:hi:

[unblock]

7. too mesmerized by the yin-yang gif to answer coherently

but i think i'd oppose any prenatal funding that didn't include abortion funding. sorry, it's part of the deal in my book.

[Kenneth ken]

27. *smile*

That's fair enough. Although I do think it would make the idea a non-starter for the "pro-life" crowd.

Thanks for your comments :hi:

[unblock]

32. i'm not looking for compromise with the "anti-choice" crowd.

at least, not wrt funding. the most i'd do is publically talk about encouraging people to be responsible and to try to find a way to carry to term and possibly give up for adoption as an alternative to abortion.

of course, i'd also challenge the anti-choice crowd to set up their own charitable groups to support these pregnancies and to place these unwanted babies, etc.

but i still think federal funding should be available. poverty is a terrible reason to bear a child, and it is not in the nation's interest to encourage this.

[mikehiggins]

8. These folks have no trouble with being "anti-choice"

They revel in it. The only "choice" they can accept is the one their morality dictates, which means no abortions. Period.

Your proposal would be opposed simply as national health insurance and opposed on that basis, which would avoid the whole question of "choice" in the first place.

[Kenneth ken]

28. no and maybe

I think they do have trouble with being "anti-choice" - that's why they came up with the term "pro-life" - when they were commonly reffered to as anti-abortion, they got crushed in all polling; under the "pro-life" banner, they get better polling numbers.

I do agree that it would face some opposition as national health insurance, but I would think that in keeping the funding limited to pregnancy, delivery, and neo-natal type expenditures, that it would be harder to find oppositional support.

Thanks for your comments :hi:

[murielm99]

9. It is a bad idea because economics is not the only reason

a woman chooses to end a pregnancy. Some women simply do not want any/any more children.

There are countries that provide free medical care to pregnant women and babies. They still have abortion. It is still a choice that women in those countries exercise.

Also, the anti-abortion types here would just use this as one more way to pressure women to give birth against their wishes. "Look at all we want to give you, and you still want to abort!" Pre and postnatal care should be a human right for all women and babies, regardless of the woman's individual decision about carrying a pregnancy to term.

[liberalnurse]

11. Well, we need to start somewhere.....

This Mexican stand-off is just that...non-productive and a waste of energy.

[beam me up scottie]

13. Start what?

I'm not willing to give up any of my reproductive rights.

[tuvor]

16. Working toward making abortion legal, safe and rare?

As per Howard Dean?

[beam me up scottie]

22. What are you saying

that it's not rare?

[tuvor]

44. Uh, are you saying abortions *are* rare?

A quick google yielded a site that claimed 3600 abortions were performed per day. Sorry, that doesn't sound rare to me.

Unfortunately, that source was a pro-life site. However, since I can't find any stats from a pro-choice site, that's all I have to go with.

Maybe you can provide me with your stats, and also tell me what "rare" means to you.

[beam me up scottie]

45. Why no, you're right of course.

I personally have several per year.
We have a club, don't you know? Buy 5 get the next free...

Why don't you focus on controlling your body and leave mine and my sisters' alone?

[tuvor]

47. I'll try that again.

Maybe you can provide me with your stats, and also tell me what "rare" means to you.

If you can't or won't do either, just say so.

BTW, you invited me to clarify my comments. Don't do that, and then tell me to leave you alone after I do as you ask--unless you want to look disingenuous, which I'm hope isn't the case.

[beam me up scottie]

53. Actually, if I would have remembered who you were sooner

I wouldn't have bothered to engage you in conversation at all.
Sorry to have troubled you.

[Megahurtz]

74. Trying to make abortions "rare"

implies control.

Howard Dean had his head up his ass when he said this one.

[liberalnurse]

18. It's time to start negociating...moving forward.

Calling the pro-lifers to support the continuation and quality of life, not just the conception, is a start. Some thoughtful negotiations are in need.

[beam me up scottie]

24. I'm willing to negotiate a lot of things

but what happens in my womb is not one of them.
As I said above, the government should subsidize day care and provide health care for all citizens-if anti-choice people want to cooperate to achieve those goals I would be more than happy to cooperate.

[Kenneth ken]

30. actually,

as I posted to murrielm99 - she makes a good point that I hadn't considered. I DO very much believe that abortion is the choice of the woman, and I would be pretty appalled if (what I had thought of as) a good idea got twisted and corrupted to further restrict a woman's right to choose.

[Kenneth ken]

29. thanks

I do realize economics isn't the only reason a woman chooses to end a pregnancy. I was thinking more in terms of trying to create healthier starts for babies, and safer pregnancies for the mothers-to-be.

I had NOT given thought to the way the idea could be twisted to pressure women to give birth. Thank you very much for that insight. On that point, I like my own idea less.

:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

34. I commend you, Kenneth.

You are actually listening to us and that is rare indeed.
Many people say they want to hear the opinions of others regarding this issue but it's just lip service or a sly way to start a flame war.
You are an inspiration.:toast:

[Kenneth ken]

36. thank you

I really do come to DU to learn. And to share on the rare occasion I have something intelligent to offer.

:pals:

[beam me up scottie]

38. I'm originally from Vermont

where Dr. Dean started the Dr. Dinosaur program which provides medical (AND dental) care for ALL of Vermont's children.
He obviously didn't do this alone and it is a perfect example of what can be accomplished by people who have their priorities straight.

[nashville_brook]

40. i agree -- ken's put out a really powerful poll today

look at the response. such energy for a monday!

very inspirational monday.

[beam me up scottie]

43. And he did it WITHOUT

bashing women or starting a flame fest.
Lot of people could learn from him...

[Misunderestimator]

46. That's my problem with it as well, ken.

:hi:

It's like the way they used the late-term abortion to further strip rights from women, when late-term abortion was never a problem they made it out to be. Just another weapon for their arsenal.

[Kenneth ken]

55. Hi Mis

thanks for reading and commenting.

While I'm a bit sad my thought doesn't have any real viability, I learned much, and so had a good day here.

:hi:

[tuvor]

14. Huh? Does the pro-choice side "do anything to actually help children"?

You say that the pro-life side doesn't "help children," but I thought both sides were guilty of ignoring any child brought to term.

That would mean that both "pro-life" (until 9 months is up) and "pro-choice" (unless you want to give birth and raise a kid) are misnomers.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Kenneth ken]

35. clearly I'm out of my depth

since so many are telling me, and convincing me, this was a bad random thought.

I think the pro-choice side does more to help children; they advocate pre-natal care, and well-baby programs. I'm sure several women will come along and tell us a lot more about what pro-choice activities they support for helping children.

[nashville_brook]

41. your question is a good one -- here's why

abortion cuts to the heart of what we consider to be our strongest card as American's -- how we treat our families.

i've always thought that the main thing with pro-"lifers" is that they are really just the same old anti-women, scared white men that gave us the KKK and witch-burnings. it's not about the fetuses -- never has been. it's about people other than white, land-owning men partipating in life and being to make it economically.

read the handmaids tale or find it on video. Atwood does a great job of exposing the inherent assumptions behind reproductive reactionaries.

personally, i think your question points to the larger issue, which is often what is going on when something is vexxing.

[Kenneth ken]

42. thanks

and I have both read and seen The Handmaid's Tale.

But I think that the posters critical of this idea are right; single payer national health care is a better solution; and I completely didn't think of how this idea could be twisted to restrict a woman's right to choose.

Thanks for your comments :hi:

PS - it isn't really "my" spinning gif below; another DUer found it and put it in her photobucket account, then gave me the link.

[noamnety]

48. Abortion IS health care

Why shouldn't we be funding that?

[Kenneth ken]

52. I have no argument

and agree with you. Instead of posting it again, I will instead refer you to my post 51.

Thanks for your comments :hi:

[PA Mamma]

50. Bad Idea - But very worth discussing...

If you have the enegry left to do so. (Personally, I am very tired trying to explain and defend my rights to medical care, left and right these days...)

Restrictions on Reproductive Health Care and Misery go hand in hand it’s a simple fact. One of my favorite pieces written clarifies it well. It’s old but good.( Ken, you might benefit from reading this):

"Abortion is not just another item on the list. It goes straight to the soul. It is about whether society sees you as fully human or as a vessel for whom no plan or hope or possibility or circumstance, however desperate, matters more than being a nest for that "itty bitty zygote." As I've written before, despite the claims of "pro-life feminists" and "seamless-garment" Catholics, progressive social policies and abortion rights tend to go together: Abortion bans flourish where there are backwardness, poverty, undemocratic government and politically powerful patriarchal religion, where levels of education, healthcare and social investment in children are low, and where women have little power. Instead of asking women to sign over their wombs for the cause, progressives should demand that "their" politicians add abortion rights to their agenda. No progressive would vote for someone who opposed unions or wanted to bring back Jim Crow. Why should women's rights matter less? It's disgusting that the AFL-CIO supports anti-choice politicians--as if their members aren't getting (or causing) abortions in vast numbers--and it backfires, too."
*******************************************************************

Here's more:
“What if a woman ran for President who had great progressive politics except for one thing--she believed that any man accused of rape or sexual harassment should be castrated without a trial? How many progressive men would say to themselves, Oh well, she's got great positions on unions, the environment, the death penalty, and all the rest, and besides, women really like her, so she gets my vote! Ten men? three? two?

Of course, no progressive woman would ever put this crazy notion forward. Our hypothetical candidate would understand all too well that she couldn't propose to kick men in the collective teeth and expect them to vote for her.”

Full article here: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020610&s=pollitt
And this one too: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020527&s=pollitt

Please note that I am now a Huge Kucinich supporter as he now "Gets It" too. ;)

And Tuvor, Here’s your site:
http://www.agi-usa.org/index.html

[Kenneth ken]

51. thanks PA Mamma

I have no interest in restricting a woman's rights to health care at all. As someone else pointed out earlier, my idea could be twisted to do that by arguing that with governmental funding in place there would be 'reason' to oppose abortion. At that point I abandoned the idea.

So where did my thought come from in the first place? I have an aunt who is a sigle-issue anti-abortion voter, and in a different part of my family, I have a pregnant still-in-high school niece who has opted to have a child. I think it emerged out of random thoughts with regard to those two, and trying to find something to help women like my niece. At least those factors had some influence on the idea. My niece has good support among her extended family and her boyfriend is sticking around (at least so far), but still she has chosen a difficult path. I worry about her, and also know there are women like her who don't have the familial support she has.

I was opining and questioning from the point of view that it would be a good idea if we as a society showed that instead of just saying we care about the most vulnerable in our socity we actually did something to help them.

At some less conscious level, I think I was probably also looking for a political way to strip the anti-aborton crowd of their "pro-life" fig leaf, though I didn't fully consider that there are already myriad examples of their hypocrisy on full view which should have shown them to be hypocrites, so that aim should be set aside here. Thinking on that aspect as I write this post, I am somewhat ashamed of me for having tinted my idea with politics instead of simply holding to arguments based simply on rights and working to shape a healthier and more compassionate society.

I hope that made sense; it took about twenty minutes to write as I search my earlier thoughts, and consider your response.

Thanks for your comments :hi:

[PA Mamma]

66. and Thank you too ...

This is a discussion that must be had. There is a mountain of misinformation and ignorance surrounding this highly emotional subject.
Tell your one issue voting Aunt that a ban on abortions would not stop them. (It is a class issue. The wealthy and powerful will fly to France and visit their private doctor's while the poor will bleed to death in back alley's.) So, they'd deserve it, she might think, but how could you condone such needless suffering. If you want to reduce abortions then you must support accurate sex ed (not lethal abstinence-only lies), title X funding, total and equal access to birth control and emergency contraception etc, etc, etc, That pretty much rules out any Republicans.

Good Luck to your niece, she will need that support. And please encourage her to Breastfeed!

:hi:

[Nobody]

68. Most of the so-called pro-lifers are actually pro-choice

but only if they get to make that choice. They'll make it for themselves and for you. If you want to choose for yourself, they scream to high heaven about how you're killing a human being.

But yet there are circumstances for which they'd find abortion acceptable. In other words, if they approve your reasons, you're cleared for that abortion. But first, they get to judge you, pry into your private affairs, try to make you justify to them why you're making the choice you're making.

No. I have no intention of sharing my medical records with people I don't know. No. I will not even consider sharing police records with strangers.

Yes, I do think that there should be more funding for early childhood development, universal health care, childcare options, and workplaces do need to be more family friendly.

Not everyone wants to or should become a parent. We also need accurate information on birth control methods of all kinds with accurate failure rates and how to use for maximum effectiveness. There is entirely too much judging and not enough realistic thinking.

Abortion should always be an option as a backup plan.

[Kenneth ken]

56. HA - I realized I hadn't voted in my own poll

so now I voted "bad idea and here's why" - so thank you all for your contributions in helping me answer my own question.

:hi:

PS - thanks for this forum; I had originally thought of posting this in either GD or GD-P, but searched the groups to see if there was a better place since I really didn't want to start a flame war.

[beam me up scottie]

57. Don't mention it, thanks for asking.

I just wish all men gave as much thought to this issue as you obviously did.
It's not as black and white as the fundies want everyone to believe.

[Kenneth ken]

58. uh-oh

now we're (maybe) going to disagree. I do believe abortion is a black and white issue; a woman has a right to control her own body.
edit: when I had my vas, I didn't need anyone's permission, didn't have to wait or jump through hoops - my body, my choice. Why should reproductive questions be different for women? /edit

How best to shape and advance to a more safe, sane, and healthy society is certainly not a black and white issue, and that really was the aspect I was stumbling toward, so those questions are hard to find answers for.

:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

59. Try asking about

getting your tubes tied BEFORE having kids.
You'd think I asked somebody to cut off my arms.
They refused to do the procedure, I'm guessing because they knew that I would change my mind and was just too stupid to realize it.

[Kenneth ken]

61. yeah,

one of my other sisters told me pretty much the same thing when I talked to her about having a vas. She worked for a urologist and so was a good person to ask about what to ask about and pick a doctor based on.

I didn't have my vas until I was in my early thirties, but I'd have been just as happy, happier actually, to have had it at 18, or even 15. It's possible/likely I would have had more hurdles to a vas at a younger age.
I did always know I didn't ever want to be a parent. :scared:

Certainly a legal adult should be able to make the choice for permanent non-reproductive procedure without being second-guessed. Since I didn't have my vas at 18, I can't really say if the attitudes are more paternalistic, or sexist. Wrong either way, though.

[beam me up scottie]

62. I never realized

that they probably treat men like that as well.
It's as if we serve no other function.
See, I learned something today too, good job!

[Kenneth ken]

63. self interest I'm sure

them docs gotta keep a supply of future consumers too, how else would they pay for yachts and airplanes and mansions - you know, the important things in life. :P

[ultraist]

60. I didn't vote because I wanted to explain

We already have state funded prenatal care, WIC, food stamps and AFDC. The problem is, they are underfunded and only extremely low income applicants qualify. We need to raise the income limits and adequately fund these programs. Not to create incentives for women to have babies rather than choose abortion, but because those who are not going to choose abortion are going without prenatal care and post natal assistance.

Many mothers are going without prenatal care and WIC (baby formula) and it is the children who are suffering.

That said, I don't think we need a new program that can be hijacked by the prolifers. We also need more state funding for abortions as well as free birth control and sex education programs in the schools. Bush's abstinence programs have increased both the teen pregnancy rates and the teen AIDS rates.

Well done Ken!

[Kenneth ken]

65. thanks

sorry, I had got off on the looking at "my posts" and replying to those, tangent. And I'd lost ocunt of how many replies to my OP there were, so I missed your comments until now. :blush:

I do agree with all you wrote (I didn't know about the state funded prenatal care) and creating better support for pregnant women and new mothers was the main thrust of my idea.

thanks for your comments :hi:

[emMingo]

69. Its a Good Idea

As a pro-lifer, I agree with you, absolutely.

There is a huge dichotomy between the sides, often to the point of ridiculousness--simply giving in a little ground on either side would undermine the ideological principles of both pro-choice and pro-life. I understand why neither side is willing to compromise, but I think saving all of the children that we can, and truly helping women should be the goal. This is where we can come together. We aren't enemies.

Outlawing abortion isn't the answer, and it isn't actually possible, because it doesn't change the situations that women find them in that would lead them to terminate a pregnancy. Women in this situation need support, both personally and financially. After all, it takes a village, right?

The answer? Providing education and affordable birth control for those who want it on one side, to help prevent unwanted pregnancies, but counseling, pre and post-natal care medical care for both mother and child on the other. We should provide financial aid for single parents who want to pursue higher education, we should provide child care and a support system. We should make the adoption laws more lenient, and allow any loving home that wants a child to have one. We should truly strive to make abortion an unthinkable option--make it so that women can bring children into this world without fear that they are going to become impoverished, or that they will have to sacrifice opportunities.

[emMingo]

70. A Question in Response

I am a pro-life writer. I belong to an organization that advocates just the kind of things that you are saying. We aren't very well-publicised because much of the focus is on the larger pro-life organizations, ones who are more interested in simply outlawing abortion, and miss some of the real issues.

If we were to become more public--become more vocal. If I were to go very, very public with concerns like these, would pro-choice-ers support us? It often seems like the first thing that they see when I say that I am pro-life is visions of me exploding a clinic or something. If I came to the bargaining table, could we work together?

[Nobody]

71. I would support programs to help families after a child is born

But one thing that there can never be any equivocation on is the fact that a woman is at least as valuable as that which she carries in her uterus.

We need to have clear and accurate information on how to prevent pregnancies if they are not wanted and we need to stop judging women when men are the ones at fault, as in the case of rape.

Many women would love to have a real choice about whether or not to bear a child. When she doesn't know how to effectively prevent pregnancies, when she is being second-guessed in her desire to have her tubes tied, when she is judged to be a slut because she's young and walks into a women's health clinic, that's not a choice any more than limiting assistance for new mothers who really could use some support. And often times you get those who place criteria that a woman must meet in order for an abortion to be deemed acceptable. There's a choice but it isn't the woman's choice if the judger gets his/her way.

I think the questions raised in this thread are very valid and this thread hasn't hit flamefest status. For an abortion thread, that's impressive.

I wish we as a society could cut through the historical baggage we've dragged with us. Women being considered less than men and considered valuable only for what they give birth to. Leave that attitude behind and we may yet come to a consensus.

[Kenneth ken]

72. an unthinkable option

your post 69 said abortion should be an unthinkable option, perhaps just an unfortunate word choice there. You did also post that outlawing abortion isn't the solution, nor possible; other posts in this thread are uncompromising in the idea that abortion as an option is necessary and non-negotiable. As one poster pointed out, a woman does risk death by carrying a pregnancy to term.

I would say that you and your organization would be welcomed by the pro-choice groups and individuals, as long as you make very clear and consistent in your advocacy that you are not advocating outlawing abortion in any way, shape or form.

I've said before, though I don't know if I did in this thread, about the only thing former President Clinton said that I ever whole-heartedly agreed with was that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare"

I do agree with your points about better fnding for sex education, pregnancy prevention and better funding for health care etc. etc.

Post 9 in this thread was the one that turned me against my own idea, so it is a post you should read and consider well.

:hi: thanks for your comments, question and keeping my thread alive.

[emMingo]

75. Okay

I think "safe, legal and rare" is an admirable goal. I would like to see "safe, legal, and none." I think the word choice was awkward, too. I would like to see women not look to abortion as a solution, but I agree with you that there might be instances which make abortion the only choice. I think they are rare, but I think they exist.

My goal is to see that no woman ever feels that she needs to have an abortion again--outlawing abortion isn't going to stop unwanted preganancies. Its been hard for pro-lifers to see that, and it isn't actually going to stop abortions from happening. They happened before Roe, they'll happen if Roe is overturned. And honestly, if Roe is overturned, the only thing that would happen is that the abortion issue would go to the states to vote on. I agree with you because I think the existance of abortion is representative of a larger problem in soceity, one that we won't fix just by getting rid of abortion. My organization doesn't take a position on outlawing abortion because if we did, we'd lose credibility.

Post #9 had an interesting point, and its one I recognize. Economics aren't the only reasons women turn to abortion--there are many, many personal reasons as well, but I think we can address those, too. I don't think its beyond our reach. I've talked to many women about this problem, and there are common denominators, but I would say that abortion isn't a decision that is made callously. There are reasons, underlying problems. We need to address those. This is an idea that can bring the sides together. Don't give up on it.

I really admire your comments. I think this is common ground, and I think its important to cultivate it.

Thank you for your input.

[emMingo]

76. One Last Thing..

I said above not to give up, and I should explain that, from my point of view, each time there is an unplanned pregnancy, two lives, the woman's and the child's hang in the balance. Its what makes me pro-life--its probably the fundamental difference between the sides. I want the woman to have a real life, and I want the child to have a chance at life, too. I want to care for both. I have a long explanation as to why I feel this way, but I don't think I need to go into it.

That said, I don't want you to give up because this isn't a zero sum game. If we can help some women, that's worth it. Its one step closer. We start here.

Thanks again for this thread. You've proven to me that we aren't diametrically opposed (at least on some stuff).

[Megahurtz]

73. Forget it. n/t