Abortion, which is one of the most polarizing topics, must be addressed. How do we feel about it? Good or bad?
- Sign in or Sign up to post comments
- send to friend
- report as spam
Abortion, which is one of the most polarizing topics, must be addressed. How do we feel about it? Good or bad?
I think we should take a 3rd party stance towards abortion. How about we support teens not having kids and actually thinking about it before-hand, so to avoid the problem altogether.
"How about we support teens not having kids"
I don't know anyone who would disagree, if we say 'teens under 18 or outside of marriage'. Great idea. How're you gonna make it happen?Fact is, human fecundity is not a problem, and people of child-bearing age actually bearing children is, well, the most natural thing in the world.
Also, how did a discussion about the right to privacy turn into a conversation on teen pregnancy? Can we support a right to choose medical care without advocating that our under-age daughters become pregnant?
A third party stance on abortion is this: abortion is not a political issue per se, but an adjunct of the right to privacy, which we as Americans and private citizens wholeheartedly support.
Let us confine our conversation to the way things are, not how we wish they were or figure they ought to be. While we can change the tenor and content of political discussion in this country, unmarried and under-age people will still fool around, and some of them will become pregnant. How do we as a nation committed to personal liberty wish to deal with this bedrock reality?
JR
Making abortion illegal will only serve to push it underground. "Abortion" will become much more brutal, and dangerous to the woman. It will not solve any issues other than putting a single group's morality in place of public policy.
As far as unity08 is concerned..it is not a topic I care to see addressed at these early stages. I feel our most important goal right now is to unity people around "common-ground" issues.
I agree with tolas. Abortion is a private matter. Let's not let it become a divisive factor. We have much more important matters to address.
what's more important then LIFE? until we protect all life we won't speak with truth about anything.
Wouldnt toch this issue with a ten foot pole.
In re: tolas on June 8, 2024 - 9:50pm: "Making abortion illegal will only serve to push it underground. "Abortion" will become much more brutal, and dangerous to the woman."
Speaking as a woman who is old enough to remember pre-Roe, Tolas is absolutely correct about that.
If we must generate some sort of position here (sigh--I suppose we must) I would prefer to see it develop more as a position of supporting strong families in a broader sense. That would mean access to health care (including family planning services, which minimize or eliminate the need for abortion, except in criminal cases;) and ways to help lower income families keep their kids in school, and/or help the parents get additional school as needed, so they can better support their kids.
Both in my personal and professional life, it's been my experience that kids who can talk to their parents have less major troubles, including pregnancies. Parents who aren't stressed out of their minds by financial problems are better listeners.
A.Sullivan-Greiner: I would prefer to see it develop more as a position of supporting strong families in a broader sense. That would mean access to health care (including family planning services, which minimize or eliminate the need for abortion, except in criminal cases;) and ways to help lower income families keep their kids in school, and/or help the parents get additional school as needed, so they can better support their kids.
I agree with you completely here. If we were able to support families, we'd end more than abortion. Most of the problems we now face would be gone.
We should provide more tax-breaks to familes with children that stay together ... i.e. families that continue to live under one roof with children should have their tax rate go down 1%/year. There should be insentive to keep families together and happy. People from families that stay together will never be a burden to society. On the contrary, they will be huge assets!
A.Sullivan-Greiner:
You know, you are correct. There is no way someone could run for a national office without taking a stand on THIS issue ... a horrible little fact, isnt it :)
nomad1:
Tragically, it is a horrible little fact. About the _only_ good thing about the 'bad old days' was that nobody even wanted to know what you thought about it. Now you can't have a discussion about anything without it!
(gg)No wonder the rest of the world thinks Americans are obsessed with sex!
A.Sullivan-Greiner:
My understanding has this as basicaly a 50/50 split.
Is there any way we could put this off as a states rights issue, work it out at the local level? Lead to 50 dog fights down the road but some of these things are poison to the touch. The libertarian view is that this isnt federal domain.
Within reason abortion should be a choice but it isn't a desireable choice and usually comes at the end of a string of poor choices. More disturbing is the movement to say life begins at conception. How then do you deal with spontaneous abortion? Some estimates say as high as 50% of all conceptions are terminated by what I guess you would call natural causes.
Abstinence isn't such a bad idea but that isn't the choice of many.
The problem with this is that the argument is not about the morality of the act. It's about men telling women what they can do with their bodies when the woman must bear the consequences. Only those who have never known a woman faced with the choice believe that it's an easy one.
My stand -- as a man -- is that since I can never be pregnant and will never be impaled on the horns of this dilemma, I have no right to tell any woman what she should do about it.
If it is, indeed, a moral issue, then it's between a woman and her morals. We do not have the right to tell her that she cannot hold to her moral compass. If it's a religious issue, then it's between a woman and her God. What right do we have to interfere? If you believe in God, then surely you must be willing to allow Him to do the final judging without the benefit of our help.
I'm not abrogating my part in the procreation, or abdicating responsibility on behalf of men. My view is that it's arrogant and inappropriate for any man to tell any woman faced with a difficult situation that she has to act one way or another.
My belief is that we have an obligation, as a society, to allow women to make the choices that they believe in and to provide the help, care, and support they need regardless of which decision they make. Inherent in that is the right to chose to terminate the pregnancy with as much safety and support as we can provide.
It's just my opinion.
This is a Legal Medical Procedure performed by a licensed physician that is willing to perform said procedure. This is a private matter that is supposed to be protected as a privileged communication (Doctor/Patient). So why do people stick there nose into other peoples private matters? I don’t want to make light of the issue there are obvious religious overtones that drive this issue and wip it into a frenzy. But when you get right down to it, this really is nobodies business but the parties involved. That’s my two cents for what it is worth.
I agree wholeheartedly. If I may add:
"there are obvious religious overtones" only in the minds of those who do not truly understand the nature of the issue as a "private matter that is supposed to be protected as a privileged communication". This is not the point upon which the issue turns: there is no issue except the separation of Church and State.
Maybe all young women should have to register at the courthouse upon reaching child-bearing age as either pro or con. Then, if a particular young woman ever seeks an abortion, we can look up whether she should be left alone or prosecuted for murder, depending on her own stated beliefs!
If we go this way, we could also poll only women of child-bearing age, who have a personal stake in the matter, to determine what the 'people' really think. Something tells me we'd have a clear majority.
All of this aside, suppose we let the fanatics hold sway: there is a certain mentality that thinks if we pass a law, people will modify their behavior accordingly. This is patently not true, and to believe it is not rational. So what are the religious theocrats going to suggest as a way to enforce these new laws: jail time for single pregnant girls with nowhere else to turn, and death for the physicians who help them?
This is a non-issue, like marriage, in a genuinely free country, and should be beneath the level of debate here.
JR
Human life at every stage is precious, but not equally. A single celled embryo does not have the same value as a living child. A fetus develops over the course of 10 months from a gleam in its parents eye, to a living breathing baby, and its legal protections should evolve with it.
To say abortion is only a privacy issue while killing a child is a crime, is to make a religious statement about when human life begins. There is no consensus on such a statement, so a compromise is necessary.
According to the federalist principle, states should have the right to legislate within limits. Our platform should support Roe v. Wade which serves exactly this purpose.
I have no reason to believe that a human life is precious .. no more so than any form of life. The trouble with your platform is that you dont want to include rape under Roe .. there are 25000 children born each year as a result of rape .. but you dont seem want to give these potential beings the same protections. Anyways, is a severly damaged, mutated, misformed human fetus any more important to god than the cow that you ate for breakfast this morning?
Anonymous You said: "I have no reason to believe that a human life is precious."
Are you human?
Many who stongly oppose abortion also strongly oppose birth control. Funding for birth control education is blocked. The Bush adminstration praised Uganda for effectively getting their AIDS epidemic under control, but then bridles at their educating their population in the use of condoms, and paying for distributing them, an important part of controlling the epidemic.
The majority of our citizenry believe abortion should be an option, but one that is rarely used. Many of those who oppose abortion seem to have a position that sex is an option that should be rarely used.
This is a personal issue. Each individual has to live with his or her decision on this one. The government should not be involved. There are many more crucial issues the government should be involved with than this one.
Unfortunately the government cannot avoid getting involved in the abortion debate. It has statutory responsibility to determine when an abortion is legal, and when it is illegal for a woman to exercise 'choice'.
It has always bothered that something can be considered a fetus and thus abortable one minute, and a child derserving of legal and medical protection the next. Legal concepts that are applicable to things and property cannot be applied to human beings without turning people into things and property themselves. Yet that's the direction we appear to be going, as Harvard University just announced it plans to clone human embryos for stem cell experiments.
Uganda is the only country in Africa to reduce the number of AIDS cases. Their experience suggests that abstinence programs work amazingly well. But we already knew that, didn't we? Just compare the number of unwanted pregnancies today to what they were 40 years ago, when contraception was unavailable and people practiced abstinence - or got married.
Quote:
The best evidence suggests that the crucial factor was a national campaign to discourage risky sexual behaviors that contribute to the spread of the disease. Beginning in the mid-1980s, the Ugandan government, working closely with community and faith-based organizations, delivered a consistent AIDS prevention message: Abstain from sex until marriage, Be faithful to your partner, or use Condoms if abstinence and fidelity are not practiced.
The link between Uganda's "ABC" approach and the dramatic reduction in the country's HIV/AIDS rate is now widely acknowledged. Based on research data collected over the past decade, several lessons can be drawn from the success of Uganda's strategy:
High-risk sexual behaviors can be discouraged and replaced by healthier lifestyles.
Abstinence and marital fidelity appear to be the most important factors in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Condoms do not play the primary role in reducing HIV/AIDS transmission.
Religious organizations are crucial participants in the fight against AIDS.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Africa/BG1692.cfm
We've got condoms coming out of our ears in this country. What we need is more abstinence based education.
"Abstain from sex until marriage, Be faithful to your partner, or use Condoms if abstinence and fidelity are not practiced."
OK. That's not really abstinence based education, is it? Hell, that's what they tell you at Planned Parenthood!
"High-risk sexual behaviors can be discouraged and replaced by healthier lifestyles."
To wit, the revolution in the Gay community over the past 20 years regarding safer practices and the plunge of the AIDS rate in that community. Uganda learned this from San Francisco and New York.
"Abstinence and marital fidelity appear to be the most important factors in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS."
Well, duh. Best way of preventing the clap, crabs, herpes, UTIs, venereal warts, you name it. No one is denying that this is true. Only that it is workable.
"Condoms do not play the primary role in reducing HIV/AIDS transmission."
Once the decision has been made to ignore abstinence-based education, they certainly do.
"Religious organizations are crucial participants in the fight against AIDS."
You may believe this, but I do not. Not since the early eighties. Religious groups can be valuable participants in the fight against many social ills, but not if they have their collective heads in the sand. How are you going to show your love if I don't heed your advice?
JR
It doesn't sound like the extreme views on abortion will bring any of us together. The crazy right want it banned. The loony left want no control whatsoever. As a pro-life person, I'm willing to allow abortion, but control it. Abortion up to 2 months (or 8 weeks) would be legal. No partial birth and no late-term because the mother has a headache or is "depressed". I work in the medical field and as far as I'm aware, there are no disease processes where a fetus would need to be killed to protect the women's life. If the women's health becomes an issue, the baby can just as easily be C-sectioned.
Also, to the people who think men should stay out of the debate because it's a women's choice. Yeah, that's true, unless she decides to have the baby and wants her child support check.
Abortion is a social issue with judicial oversight and has absolutey nothing to do with the legislative process. That's the problem with our leadership, the executive is playing judicial and the legislative is playing executive! Abortion is a judicial matter on a case by case basis, not an issue that can be generalized. Also categorized as a judical matter because of the potential long term mental effects that have been identified with abortion so that the decision maker "mother" makes a educated decision that has been heard and approved by judicial process... http://www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
If the Supreme Court was not a bunch of whimps! The court MUST stand up and say no to international slave trading and the exodus of American jobs as constitutional violations. I blame the supreme court for allowing foreign corporate interests to infultrate the two political parties! I blame the court for permitted the legislative branch to give the executive branch the large stick it seems to use to crack over everyones heads!
I'm sorry but those facts don't hold up. The report from the Ugandan government on the outcomes (see http://www.aidsuganda.org/pdf/study.pdf) does not support your assertions regarding the outcomes of their study.
Further, the assertion of increases in unintended preganancies needs some support. According to the CDC, pregnancy rates in teens dropped considerably in the decade between 1990 and 2024 (See http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/index.htm#Unintended%20and%20Teen%20Pregnancy) yet with the increase in "abstinence only" programs (which became Federally funded in 1996) the teen pregnancy rates were on the increase again by 2024 (see http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/series/sr23/pre-1/sr23_25.htm). In addition, according to the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies as UCSF "So far, abstinence-only programs have failed to meet scientific tests of proven effectiveness. A recent review found only six published studies in the peer-reviewed literature examining abstinence-only programs. (10) None was found effective, in part due to poor evaluation" (See http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/abstinence.html#10).
I'm sorry but those facts don't hold up. The report from the Ugandan government on the outcomes (see http://www.aidsuganda.org/pdf/study.pdf) does not support your assertions regarding the outcomes of their study.
Well that's odd, because the source you cited says that decreases in premarital sex accompanied decreases in new AIDS infections between late 80s and mid 90s, before condom use had increased substantially.
"In Uganda, the country with the earliest and greatest reduction in HIV prevalence, declines in non-regular
and multiple sexual partnerships were greatest between the late 1980s -- when the rate of new infections
(HIVincidence) likely began to drop -- and the mid 1990s. Levels of premarital sex also declined during
this period along with an increase in the average age at sexual debut throughout the decade. Increases in
condom use with non-regular partners occurred throughout the nineties, although levels of condom use were
not substantial until the middle of the decade."
It also said:
"While the trends in sexual behavior within these countries are consistent with trends in HIV prevalence, the
differences in patterns of sexual behavior across the five African countries are not sufficient to fully explain
differences in HIV prevalence."
Your statements
"Abstinence and marital fidelity appear to be the most important factors in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS."
and
"Religious organizations are crucial participants in the fight against AIDS."
are not supported. I assume they are conclusions drawn by the Heritage Foundation that are not supported by the given data. If they are based on another source, could you provide that source?
Your allegation that
"High-risk sexual behaviors can be discouraged and replaced by healthier lifestyles"
was supported, but is not in dispute.
Your allegation that
"Condoms do not play the primary role in reducing HIV/AIDS transmission."
is undoubtedly true. Simply having condoms available makes no difference. Condom use, behaviors surrounding use, and knowledge of how/when to use condoms are critical factors that are not explored in any great depth in the cited study.
Instead of pulling ourselves into this polarizing debate, maybe we should start considering whether abortion is an issue that MUST be part of the Unity08 platform...
What does everyone think? An issue that MUST be addressed by a candidate? Or maybe an issue that a candidate says she/he would be willing to discuss with Americans once in office?
Abortion is currently legal for all 9 months of pregnancy for effectively any reason.
Although it is oft-repeated that Roe v. Wade legalized abortion for the first 3 months, in reality it expanded it to all 9-months by including a broad "health" exception.
The Supreme Court defined this health exception in Doe v. Bolton, issued the same day as Roe which claimed that all reasons emotional, physical, psychological, familial, age, pertinent to the well-being of the woman were acceptable reasons.
So abortion is now legal for all 9 months for any reason. This is the most extreme abortion-on-demand regime in the world.
If we want to be centrists, we have to find out exactly what the extremes are.
As a young male I am more concerned about the war, healthcare, jobs for me after college, paying my college tuition, etc. than about abortion.
The abortion debate ended in 1973, the right to an abortion was supported by the Courts then, by the broad majority of Americans now, and is a non issue.
I think the Unity platform should uphold the right to an abortion, agree to restrictions on partial birth and parental notification, and also work to through more contraceptives, education, and adoption agencies reduce abortion.
Its platform should be reducing abortions not banning them.
Obviously the abortion debate didn't end in 1973 or we wouldn't still be debating it. The vast majority of people agree or disagree with choice based on how the question is asked. Most people agree in general that a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy. But if they are asked if they agree with choice in the case of gender selection, or late-term pregnancy, or some of the other "debatable" issues, then support drops way off. Abortion is still an issue, but I agree with the Unity 08 premist that it is something that is best debated outside of a presidential election.
Jim, your comments are well taken and constructive. However, wrong forum.. you need to take this issue up with the Pope. The catholic minority wont quit until abortions are banned entirely in the US like they managed to make the law of the land in mexico.
I am in the "Catholic minority." You need to understand that Catholic teaching dictates that life begins at conception. So to be a Catholic means to believe that all abortions are murder because they kill a human life. So no, we won't quit until what we see as murder is outlawed.
Believe your current beliefs, but don't impose them on people that don't want to believe that way. It's not fair for you to make decisions that don't affect you at all.
A couple years ago(age 18) I got pregnant, on accident, and I freaked out because in my Catholic house- being a teen and pregnant is the end of the world. So to make everything easier i had an abortion. I don't regret it what so ever.
We are animals and sex is just one of those things that happens. Sex is so hyped up now a days, and hormones don't help much either.
If anything, more should be done for effective birth control. The condom we used ripped.
Also, safe and legal abortions should always be available, in my opinion, for the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. We don't need to go back to using hangars and knitting needles.
You might not believe in it, but the option needs to be there.
Too late Bill, Abortion will be a political issue until the catholic church succeeds. With now 5 catholic supreme court judges on the bemch.. and more being appointed in the leadership of the justice department .. abortions will probably be banned sometime in the next decade. Its a quiet coup.. but being nicely executed.
Dane, I agree. Abortion should not be a presidential issue. That's one of the problems that hopefully a unity ticket could overcome. In order to be nominated, each party candidate has to take a stand that will be endorsed by the extremists in their party. That means that the Democrat has to express their undying love for abortion and the Republican has to condemn abortion as a plot from hell. We lose a lot of good candidates that way because there opinion on abortion is not unanimous among liberals or conservatives. There are a lot of pro-choice conservatives and a lot of pro-life liberals. Let it go and we can have a rational debate after we remove the extremist wackos from the equation.
Abortion will only be a political debate as long as the extremists on both sides continue to make money on it. Right now abortion is one of the biggest money makers for the extremists on both sides. The only way the middle majority can take control away from the lunatic fringe is to put issues like this on the back burner for a while. I don't really think that will happen with all the money that the wackos stand to lose, but you have to start somewhere. As far as banning abortion, it won't happen. Even is Roe v Wade is overturned abortion will become a state issue. Some states will ban it and others will allow it. That happens today with a lot of surgical procedures.
Bill and Dane, while i agree with you entirely .. it ain't gonna happen. The church is insistent that this issue will remain until it is resolved in their favor .. and they have loads of funding, access to the voters and politicians. Its big money to the church .. millions to fill the pews and coffers .. and because the church is the largest recipient of federal $'s for outsourcing care to the disadvantaged.. that makes the depth of frosting higher than the cake.
Bill, let me give you a recent example.. in the 70's the catholic church corrupted congress to ban all federal dollars from the foreign aid program from being spent for family planning. Then the population of mexico was 30 million less .. and now starving and deprecated mexicans are flowing over our borders by the millions.. and 50 more million to go. The church doesnt care how much hurt and evil they sow.. just along as they maintain power and grow.
Money begets power which begets more money which begets more power which begets...
(you get the idea)
Abortion should a decision involving a doctor and a patient. There are rules of confidentiality involved that the government has no right to breach.
Can't wait until medical records are required by job interviewers. Think you're getting hired with a family history of cancer? Think again...
The reason that the abortion issue has to be debated in the political arena is because no one dared to speak up in their church to challange why. They continue to support and fund their church regardless. If they took more initiative in their church forums, it would not be a problem.
Gee whiz, I'm not a Catholic but I think you are a little over the top with your conspiracy. So you're saying that the immigration issue is due to the evil Catholic church helping to stop abortions in Mexico? So if abortions would have been allowed then all of these people would have been killed before birth and we wouldn't have an issue today? That's pretty scary!
Term Limits = Abortion
Pro choice should let the election process continue and pro life should allow the Electoral College survive.
"Money begets power which begets more money..." is party based not necessarily the candidate.
No. Not killed. Family planning. They never would have been conceived. No one wants abortions. Abortion is a last,last,last resort for serious problems of many derivations.
Let me try a new tactic Bill. Imagine for a moment, if the catholic church were to conduct family planning sessions .. and encourge families all over the world to limit off-spring to 2 or 3 and help against the population explosion .. and the demand on limited earth resources.. and help families to bootstrap themselves up into a secure future.. instead of advocating Kennedy like families of a half dozen or more.. and limitless poverty.
Why don't we just admit that this subject, while provocative, is not one Unity08 is prepared to deal with legislatively and channel our discussions to topics which may actually lead to the production of an inclusive platform.
No matter what is said about abortion it is sure to alienate a percentage of readers. Right now I would think Unity08 needs all the support it can get.
Run away. run away.. run away. No, abortion is the prime issue for the next decade. The catholic church's number one agenda is to overturn roe .v. wade. and they are being successful in a quiet campaign mostly under the covers. Now there are 5 catholics seated on the supreme court and Bush is nominating and appointing many more for leadership roles in justice department. What does this have to do with us. Plenty! Religion is dominating our politics. Moneys extracted from the federal budget is funding faith base initives as outsourcing for care giving services. Lots of bucks at stake. These efforts are rolling back the clock to the 17th century to a period where europeans left and came here to escape intolaration. It also states the individual is nothing and only the religious state can determine moral values.
I believe my point has just been proven.