From both sides, a bid to change abortion debate

Abortion proponents can say a prayer of thanks every day that their mothers did not believe in abortion.

Myself and a few other sane people have lately posted to this blog along the lines of the ideas talked about in this post -- reduce abortions through education and planning and by providing support to new families that need it. If the national discourse can move in this direction, it is a very positive step. Of course, "some people" may simply resort to screaming "baby killer" at anyone who does not agree with their absolute stance, and meanwhile they will also make no progress in helping reduce legal abortions (as in killing less babies) or helping children born to poor single parents have a decent shot at a decent life.

This seems more like a provision to make the Democrats look softer on abortion. The reality is that on several occasions in the 1990s, Clinton vetoed partial birth abortion bans and many Democratic governors continue to do so as well. And, when it came to a vote in the Congress under Bush, most Democrats voted against it.
I think because polls show Democrats are losing the abortion debate has more to do with this bill than anything.
But if Democrats are willing to bend on this issue (allegedly anyway), then perhaps there can be some common ground found.

I have to disagree about abortion being one of the most divisive issues. I believe that this issue has been accepted by the majority of Americans, but is one issue the republicans can use to pander to their base with. They like that kind of thing...flag burning, gay, abortion anything to stir up the sheeple.

All I can say on this is that if abortion were ever to become illegal, it would be the worst case and first step in "big Brother" controlling what we can and cannot do with our own bodies!

I hate the thought of late term abortion and agree that they should be illegal, but an unplanned pregnancy ended by early abortion is a much better outcome than having the baby smothered at birth, because if you dont want it, you DONT want it, and lets face it, accidents happen!

And now you have pharmacists that dont want to give out the morning after pill. What to do?

There is NO way the government will ever be able to stop a woman from making her OWN decisions when it comes to her body and her pregnancy!

I tell ya, It aint easy having a vagina.

All I can say on this is that if abortion were ever to become illegal, it would be the worst case and first step in "big Brother" controlling what we can and cannot do with our own bodies!

I hate the thought of late term abortion and agree that they should be illegal, but an unplanned pregnancy ended by early abortion is a much better outcome than having the baby smothered at birth, because if you dont want it, you DONT want it, and lets face it, accidents happen!

And now you have pharmacists that dont want to give out the morning after pill. What to do?

There is NO way the government will ever be able to stop a woman from making her OWN decisions when it comes to her body and her pregnancy!

A Democrat bill, co-sponsored by two Democrats who vote in lockstep with their party 97% of the time, with the typical Democrat "throw tax money at it" non-solution.

Not that I'm pro either side, but this is an interesting perspective on how anti-abortion folks balk when asked to determine punishment for women who would get illegal abortions:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=T95avZoqlhE

Good try, but the fact is that the anti-abortion faction sees pregnancy as God's punishment for having "recreational" sex. The reason they are against abortion is that it circumvents God's punishment to women, as per Genesis. This is why they are also against birth control measures. They want those nasty women to get their punishment.

Babies are yummy for my tummy. And kittens too!

This is about economics. Abortions went down during the Clinton years and up during the Reagan and now Bush years. If you're poor, an abortion is much cheaper than raising a child.

Nobody is "pro-abortion." As a passionate advocate for reproductive rights including choice, I applaud any attempt to reduce the need for abortions, rather than the traditional Republican approach of making them more difficult to obtain.

Bruce, the whining about Democrats throwing money at a problem is really tiresome and unproductive, especially in light of your party's accomplishments over the past several years, such as cutting taxes causing massive deficits, embroiling us in a ruinous war, and curtailing civil rights. Your time and everyone else's would be better spent coming up with constructive suggestions instead.

I recognize that reproduction issues are a very thorny issue. It is not as simple as saying, "Hands off a woman's body." My DNA is different from my mother's, and was from the moment I was conceived. Therefore, while I developed inside her body, I was not part of her body in the same way that a liver, heart, stomach or uterus is. Any decision to abort does not just affect a woman's body, but a separate living human being, as well.

Regardless of which side of the pro-life/pro-choice debate you're on, I don't see how anyone can argue that it's a bad thing to start initiatives to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that occur in the first place. In my opinion, anything that can help educate people about taking responsibility for their reproductive health is a positive. Nobody thinks abortion is a good thing. Let's do what we can to reduce the number of times that choice has to be made.

Two of the most vile comments, again most assuredly by the Loony Left.
The fake "Dick Cheney" jerk (more than likely JOhn E., Janet or dt as they love to post as others), with the babies are yummy in the tummy and kittens too.
And then there is "San Miguel."
These are more reasons why the Left will not win in the U.S.
Thank heavens for that.

John D;
I am not a liberal. I was a virgin when I got married, at 22 years of age. Of course I have two great grandchildren. I simply see the religious right preaching abstinence only. One of my great grandchildren was born to a married grandson and the other to my 17 year old unmarried grandson. Fact is though all three of my grandsons had sex out of wedlock. So do most of the young people I know. Why is the religious right against teaching kids to use condoms? They are doing it man. They are not listening to those preaching abstinence. Young people do not go out and have sex just because they know how to use a condom. They do it because sex is a drive. Oh some can resist their drives and some can't. I am against abortion as a birth control method. That's why I support teaching young people how to do it safely. That will prevent more abortions, and unwanted children, than all the Abstinence only programs ever dreamed up.

I am not pro-abortion. The details and procedure of abortion are grotesque. Now, what can we do to stop abortions?

1) Make them illegal: We all know that won't stop it. Murder is illegal and it happens. Drugs are illegal and they happen. Stealing is illegal and it happens. Outlawing something doesn't stop it. It drives it further underground and makes it harder to stop. Making it illegal won't stop it.

2) Punish those who do it: Same arguments as those above. How many drug dealers, murderers and rapists are in prison? Nope, punishment doesn't work either.

3) Preach abstinence: What a lovely idea. "Just say no." Haven't we heard that somewhere before? How many good little school girls get prenant every year after mommy & daddy have told them that abstinence is a virtue? Nope, preaching abstinence won't work.

The only way we can reduce the number of abortions is to educate people about appropriate and safe practices. Reproduction, along with immediate survival, is the strongest of biological imperatives. Preaching one religion or another or one political view vs. another won't affect what our genetic code is driving us to do.

Whether you like it or not, abortion CAN be prevented - but only through education. Until we can end it through "lack of need," it MUST be available, safe and legal.

One other thing will help: if a young woman faced with having a child she will not care for knew that there was a good home for the child, regardless of what color or race she was, then they may choose to deliver the baby. For everyone who is anti-choice: have YOU opened your heart and home to one of these babies? If you are unwilling to do that, leave the poor girl alone.

Which is better: an abortion early on or a lifetime of being abused because you were unwanted and / or too poor?

Why don't the anti-choice people all have huge adopted familes?

To those of you who are Pro Life (i.e. anti-choice):

How do you square being Pro Life with being Pro War?

A Democrat bill, co-sponsored by two Democrats who vote in lockstep with their party 97% of the time, with the typical Democrat "throw tax money at it" non-solution. --Bruce

A GOP post, solely authored by one lonely man, who posts in lockstep with GOP talking points 100% of the time, with a typical "dismissive and unconstructive" non-solution.

The Democrats and the liberals have been pro-choice forever. This change of stance is for 08 elections to make them seem not as bad as baby killers. Even though all abortions deny a baby a life. Abortion is the great American holocaust.
This new stance is focus group and poll driven which is how Dems govern. For the poster who asked how do you square this pro-life positon with the war?. The terrorists came to America on 911 and killed some 3,000 Americans those were lives too snuffed out by terrorists jihadists looking for 72 vestal virgins or some other loony goal. There are wars that are just and unjust. They started the war as Americans we can't just put our heads in the sand and say ok do it again. We live lives of freedom they don't like that-- we respect women equally they don't like that. If they want to kill us how do you do peace talks with un-uniformed soldiers who sneak and hide using any country they can to create their maddening terror while letting kids be killed to carry out their attacks? We fought the Civil War where hundreds of thousands of our countrymen died to save our nation not small numbers by comparison in Afghanistan and Iraq. Freedom comes at a price just as abortion comes with a price often too high for society to pay. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

San Miguel, your reply was much better, and largely on the mark. I have no problem teaching kids about sex and proper safe sex, because as you say some will do it. There are those who believe if you teach them about sex, even safe sex, they will practice what they learn. I do not subsribe to that level of thinking.

Why couldn't your second response have been your first?

Jerry White: Thank goodness we have you here to determine which life is worthy and which isn't, which murder is just and which is unjust. Phew! I'm sure we'll all sleep better now.

"Abortion proponents can say a prayer of thanks every day that their mothers did not believe in abortion." My Mother didn't believe in abortion, she believed in a woman's right to choose and believed in it deeply. That's what the Right Wing does not get. No one ways abortions, it's the last resort. We need more choices, adoption, birth control, financial aid, and protection from abuse. Most of all we need education that the choices are there. As a male I know my voice is needed in this debate. My wife, my sister, my niece, my daughter and my friends all need to know that they can turn to me and get the support they need to make their choice. I will ask them to consider all the alternatives to abortion but in the end as free people the choice will be theirs and I will support them no matter what it is.

Snlag,

"How do you square being Pro Life with being Pro War?"

A lot easier than someone who is against the death penalty but is for abortion.

Anonymus, Mugsy, Ray, Snlag, and Joe (anybody else that wants to give it a go):

You want to keep the right to abortion,

...then be ready to abandon the right of the mother to sue for child support. She made the choice to bring the child into the world, not the man.

.... then be ready to legalize prostitution and drug use. If it's a woman's (or man's) body to choose to do with it as they please, then abolish those laws.

.... then be ready to file only one count of homicide against a defendant when a pregnant woman is murdered.

.... then abandon the right to prosecute a woman who does harm to her fetus by participating in excessive drug and/or achohol use.

I await your responses.

Terry:

Your points are preposterous on their face from a conservative perspective for the following reasons:

1.1 Mother's are permitted to seek paternity actions and child support, not because the mother needs it, and not because the mother made a good or bad choice to have a child - but because the living, breathing child needs it.

1.2 It is preposterous to say, from a conservative perspective, that the woman is responsible for the child because she chose to bring it into the world. Hello? Ever hear the expression: "It takes two to tango?" Well, guess what? It takes a willing male to produce a child (unless he was sexually assaulted); or do I have to stop for a lecture on the birds and bees? The man's willingness to produce a child makes him just as responsible for the child's existence.

2.1 We make prostitution illegal for reasons other than the depravity of the act. We also make it illegal because it is a health risk - to both the hooker and the John (sorry John) to have sex with multiple strangers. Thus, there is no connection between keeping prostitution illegal and keeping abortion legal.

2.2 Ditto for drug use. Many drugs are very dangerous. Even if we granted everyone the right to do to their bodies as they choose, their conduct in taking drugs would still potentially influence others into the same lifestyle. The culture that drug users foster is dangerous in itself. Once one's conduct is worse than self-harm, it is proper to limit it.

3.1 The remark about one count of homicide is just over the top - and is a non-sequitur to boot. A mother who wants a child has every right to seek its protection; and every State has the right to honor that wish by protecting fetuses against violence and danger from others.

3.2 Conservatives don't want any babies killed - in which case they would never remove the sanction against those who violently kill unborn children along with their mothers. Even people who believe in the right to choose may still choose to have a child, in which case there is still a legitimate reason to protect it. The right to an abortion doesn't imply a positive desire to kill all children, or even a value judgment that all children are worthless when unborn. Abortion on demand is legal now. Did that make your children worthless when unborn? Thus, the consequence of keeping abortion legal is not to make all unborn chilren outside the protection of the law. The conclusion does not flow from the premises, in which case it is a non-sequitur.

4. Pregnant women are prosecuted for child endangerment for excessive use of alcohol and drugs not because abortion is illegal; but because women seeking to have children should not abuse unborn children. Until a child is aborted, the state has the right to believe and anticipate the child will be brought to term. In that case, a child born a junkie will soon turn into a ward of the state. As I stated above, the right to abortion has never constituted open season on unborn fetuses, and it has never constituted a value judgment that all unborn children are worthless. Thus, to suggest that a pregnant woman should be able to abuse a child because she can have the greater act of killing it performed illegally - is nonsense.

You know, Terry, if you want to take a conservative point of view - I'm all with you. But please work on it. These ideas don't work at all.

Instead, start off by pointing out that a fetus is "alive;" because, if it wasn't, it wouldn't grow in its mother's womb. Then point out that a living child in its mother's womb is a defenseless innocent life. Thus, to take an innocent life is a morally heinous act; and that morally heinous acts should be prohibited. When asked about "choice," your response should be to state that the mother and father had their choice - and that choice was to have unprotected sex which resulted in the creation of a new life. Now, if we stick to these arguments, we at least have the virtue of consistency. This is not the case when we predict the end of the world every time someone condones an act we find vile. Okay?

John W,

At least one, only one person, responded. This isn't the first, and won't be the last time I post this. The left can't answer these questions because they realize the inconsistancies.

Actually, your arguements helped prove my point about the inconsistancy of abortion laws with other laws that we have: child support, murder charges of a fetus, endangerment of a fetus, prostitution, and drug use.

1.1 - That is true.

1.2 - "It takes two to tango?" Yes it does, but after the dance, 100% of the choice of whether the child is carried full-term is the woman's. Therefore, if the woman has 100% of the choice, why shouldn't she have 100% of the responsibility. I personally do subscribe to this, but am making a point to the inconsistancy of our abortion laws.

2.1 & 2.2 - I agree. My point is, the gov't alraedy can tell a woman (and a man) what they can and cannot do with thier bodies. This would not be the first case of gov't intrusions into our "privacy" or "bedrooms".

3.1 - I agree.

3.2 - If a 7-month pregnant woman is shot and her unborn child dies, the accused can a charge of murder. The unborn child is just as dead in this case as if the mother chose to have an abortion. For consistancy, the mother and "shooter" should face the same criminal charges. The fact that one child was chosen to be killed should be irrelavant.

4. This really is an off-shot of #2. Once again, the gov't can tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body; therefore, the left's constant harping about a woman has the right to do with her body as she chooses is not true.

I do have to correct a statement I made in the above:

1.2 - "It takes two to tango?" Yes it does, but after the dance, 100% of the choice of whether the child is carried full-term is the woman's. Therefore, if the woman has 100% of the choice, why shouldn't she have 100% of the responsibility. I personally do NOT subscribe to this, but am making a point to the inconsistancy of our abortion laws.