Abortion II

[The Gaffer]

Thanks Val, very interesting. I'm glad you disagree agreeably...

I think you are right about Reagan personally being genuinely pro-life, although there may be a qualifier to that, as we've already discussed. Are there currently fewer abortions being carried out as a result of his, Dubya's or the Republicans' efforts? Perhaps. But the mere fact that it is hard to say for sure could be seen as a pretty damning indictment of their efforts.

(You'll have guessed already that my view is that the Christian right in America has been sold a pup by the Republicans for the last 30-odd years.)

Of course, with Reagan there was an interesting twist to that issue latterly, in stem cell research: poor old Nancy got binned because she was making noises that didn't fit the voter-friendly mantra.

Re: the US having other problems if abortion were banned, yes of course, and not just from botched back-street jobs. But I don't think they constitute much of a pro-choice argument, if you believe that abortion is murder.

(I am so glad that I don't. It would be terrible to live with that.)

[Valandil]

It's OK - I'm sure each of us has some notion to live with that we abhor (usually something about those at the other end of the political spectrum, maybe? Or zombies?).

I think a good number of Republicans are really on board, and I think honest efforts have been made in some cases (ie, full-term, or 'partial-birth' abortions). However, the courts are the linchpin - and most efforts that have passed legislatures have been overturned by courts.

Abortion numbers slipped somewhat over a number of years (from about 1.5 mil to 1.4 mil), but I think that was primarily demographic... a dip in those women of the ages more likely to have abortions (maybe in part because their own population had been severely thinned by abortion years before - I forget if abortions end something like 1 in 4, or even 1 in 3, pregnancies in the US - EDIT - checked - it's close to 1 in 4). I have not seen more recent numbers, so I don't know if it has trended back upward or not. I suspect it's still in the same ballpark.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I find that hard to swallow too. I can fully understand how that belief would be extremely painful to bear and I genuinely marvel that people are able to so without resorting to violent confrontation.

For myself, I am never more than a stiff breeze away from being a strict pacifist, and I can't think of any issue that could bring me to violent confrontation.

[brownjenkins]

It always amazes me how the right to life, or anything really, seems to completely disappear from the Republican mindset once a child is born. They fight so hard to preserve a fetus, while fighting so little to provide or educate that being once it becomes a child.

It's all about principles and so very little about practice. Not to say that that makes one a bad person, just that sometimes people focus so strongly upon what they don't like that they simply lose sight of of the big picture.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It always amazes me how the right to life, or anything really, seems to completely disappear from the Republican mindset once a child is born. They fight so hard to preserve a fetus, while fighting so little to provide or educate that being once it becomes a child.

It's all about principles and so very little about practice. Not to say that that makes one a bad person, just that sometimes people focus so strongly upon what they don't like that they simply lose sight of of the big picture.

I totally disagree brownjenkins. Conservatives who are pro-life may be on the opposite side of education issues as the teachers' unions are - but that hardly makes them opposed to what's best for children. Quite the contrary, I would say - from what I've seen of teachers' unions. I think more charter schools and greater choice as far as educational options goes is a great thing - and I don't think throwing more money at the educational system will solve its problems. In fact - the more our government throws money at social problems, the bigger those problems seem to get. Maybe that should tell us something. The extra money doesn't make our kids smarter... it just lines insider pockets a little thicker.

Though all this does diverge from the abortion issue. Still, you raised it, and I hear this all the time - but I don't buy it.

[The Gaffer]

IIRC around one in four pregnancies ends in miscarriage.

Good point re: living with the abhorrent. I recall a discussion I had shortly after 9/11 with a client who works in overseas development in the reproductive health area. He basically shrugged and pointed out that as many children die every day from preventable illness in Africa.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Valandil

I totally disagree brownjenkins. Conservatives who are pro-life may be on the opposite side of education issues as the teachers' unions are - but that hardly makes them opposed to what's best for children. Quite the contrary, I would say - from what I've seen of teachers' unions. I think more charter schools and greater choice as far as educational options goes is a great thing - and I don't think throwing more money at the educational system will solve its problems. In fact - the more our government throws money at social problems, the bigger those problems seem to get. Maybe that should tell us something. The extra money doesn't make our kids smarter... it just lines insider pockets a little thicker.

Though all this does diverge from the abortion issue. Still, you raised it, and I hear this all the time - but I don't buy it.

So are you saying cutting funding to social service systems will HELP poor children and abused children and children suffering from preventable diseases? How does that work?

[Valandil]

It would be hard to cut it all out, wouldn't it? No - I wouldn't say to do that. But I don't think we need to expand it. Nor do I agree that my opposition to expansion of social programs like this makes me 'against children'. In fact, as I have said - I think the lot of children in this country has gotten progressively worse as these programs have expanded. I think these programs put our government in the position of taking over the role of church and of family. And I think that's neither necessary nor good. It makes the US into the Great Enabler.

I like what Florida is considering though - applying drug tests to those who apply for welfare benefits. Why should those receiving taxpayer funds turn around and use those funds on drugs instead of for the support for which it is intended?

But I'm more moderate than strict conservative. I wouldn't do away with everything we've got. But I think there needs to be thoughtful re-configuring. And again - just throwing more money at it, I think, will just feed the problem and make it worse - and fail to address the real issues at hand.

= = = = =

But after that little diversion (shall we break it off into a separate thread?), back to abortion.

I'm curious... you who are on the liberal side of this issue (IR, GM, Gaffer, jenkins): Did any of you take the time to read the Reagan piece in the link? I admit it will take you some time, but just asking. I'm curious about what you think of it.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Valandil

It would be hard to cut it all out, wouldn't it? No - I wouldn't say to do that. But I don't think we need to expand it. Nor do I agree that my opposition to expansion of social programs like this makes me 'against children'. In fact, as I have said - I think the lot of children in this country has gotten progressively worse as these programs have expanded. I think these programs put our government in the position of taking over the role of church and of family. And I think that's neither necessary nor good. It makes the US into the Great Enabler.

While I agree that there are aspects of some government programs that often produce directly counterproductive results or may help one problem and cause others, its also true that there are government programs that prove vital even life saving for kids in need (and yes I realize the irony of using he phrase “life saving” when the thread is about abortion…). It comes down to how do you keep the necessary and vital while carefully trimming away the excessive or counter productive. And I think this is a MUCH more difficult task than some people think.

I like what Florida is considering though - applying drug tests to those who apply for welfare benefits. Why should those receiving taxpayer funds turn around and use those funds on drugs instead of for the support for which it is intended?

I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with that frankly but if we are going to do that can we do the equivalent for CEO’s of businesses that receive corporate welfare? And owners of farms who get rich on subsidies? After all its all tax payer money right? Otherwise it just comes off as those republicans picking on the poor again and favoring the rich while talking about how "everyone has to sacrifice".

But I'm more moderate than strict conservative. I wouldn't do away with everything we've got. But I think there needs to be thoughtful re-configuring. And again - just throwing more money at it, I think, will just feed the problem and make it worse - and fail to address the real issues at hand.

Again I don’t necessarily disagree with your thinking here its just how do we get there? “Just do it better!” is an easy think to say. What I have found is that often “Just do it better!” is code for cut it back as much as we can get away with (especially among your tea party or more strict then moderate brethren). And that’s why so many of us who know the importance of many of these programs worry about rhetoric like that and figure we are probably better off with the waste and the program then with a neutered and ineffective but much cheaper program that results in catastrophe for poor children. Who will be the savior that will get us to cheap AND more effective?

But after that little diversion (shall we break it off into a separate thread?)

Probably. Maybe the costs and benefits of social programs? But Ill let you do the surgery if you are so inclined.

I'm curious... you who are on the liberal side of this issue (IR, GM, Gaffer, jenkins): Did any of you take the time to read the Reagan piece in the link? I admit it will take you some time, but just asking. I'm curious about what you think of it.

Hadnt yet because I don’t think I was involved in the discussion at that point. But if you think it would be worth my while Ill certainly have a look.

[The Gaffer]

I didn't read it at the time, but I have now.

To be honest, it reads more like a rallying cry than a serious debate.

The real question today is not when human life begins

Of course, it is the real question. Birth is the moment life begins for me, though I am in favour of a 16 week cut-off (i.e. abortions should only happen after 16 weeks for medical reasons).

My daugher was born with a knot in her umbilical cord. The midwife held it up and said "look at that". We would have freaked out if we weren't already totally freaked. She could easily have died during birth, or suffered serious disability. She didn't. She was lucky. She made it onto the stage, but up until that point, she was still waiting in the wings. She was part of her mother's body.

some persons do not value all human life...some influential people want to deny that every human life has intrinsic, sacred worth

Not helpful, really... am I a nazi? In my view, this type of rhetoric can be credited with much of the polarisation you guys see in your country.

To my mind, where this argument falls down is in reality, every day.

Reagan argues that all human life has equal value, and that the fertilised embryo is equally human. It is sacred, God-given, absolute.

Yet (as far as I understand it: please educate me if wrong!), most "pro-lifers" would agree that abortion is acceptable if there is a medical risk to the mother. This situation arises every day.

How is it possible to hold both of those views? Does "risk" to the mother trump "death" to the baby? But what happened to "sacred"?

[Insidious Rex]

Here's a classic example of what I think some of us have been saying here about the hypocrisy of being actively against abortion while supporting the cutting of programs that could help poor kids (and perhaps avoid more abortions!): the Catherine Ferguson Academy provides an environment where pregnant teens and young mothers can achieve the education that would be nearly impossible at a regular school. And their success rate is superlative. Invariably kids like this either drop out, leading to a guaranteed ward of the state for a solid generation at tax payer expense or if its early enough they choose abortion since they see no other alternative. Many conservatives feel its fine to close a program like this and yet cry about how much we are paying into welfare for "lazy sobs who could easily get an education and a job of their own". Many right to lifers protest daily against abortion but dont protest against the cutting and slashing of programs like this when tax breaks for big business still stay in place. Isnt this just plain wrong? Shouldnt all christians be in support of such a program especially when there are clearly options for potentially keeping it open? What was that Jesus said about teaching a man to fish versus buying him a fish? Why arent they protesting with signs in front of the Detroit Public School offices?

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

... What was that Jesus said about teaching a man to fish versus buying him a fish? ...

I believe that was Confucious.

But still, I agree about retaining programs that help those in such circumstances - and strongly disagree with all the corporate welfare we have going on.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Though all this does diverge from the abortion issue. Still, you raised it, and I hear this all the time - but I don't buy it.

I think it's an important point.

Money DOES buy results. It's what capitalism is all about. Invest in something that you want to promote. Invest in anti-abortion and you get a lot of kids. Invest in kids and you get responsible adults.

I often hear the union vs. charter school argument, but that's just a smokescreen. Republicans generally don't want to INVEST in either. They would like to see public school money go towards charter schools instead, either because it is a place where profits can be made or because it is a place where they actually think a better education can be had. Either way, they do not actually want to put more money towards education, charter or otherwise. They actually want to put a lot less into all forms of education.

Capitalism is about rewarding the best, not about rewarding everyone. I think that there is a certain level of existence that every child should be afforded, whether their parents have a trust fund or are hooked on crack. The republican point of view is that people are better off if they earn that right. I don't agree.

There is a fundamental disconnect when the right to life is more important than the actual life that a child is destined to be born into.

[inked]

"Better 500 rupees now than 5000 later on ..."

The War Against Girls
Since the late 1970s, 163 million female babies have been aborted by parents seeking sons

A Wall Street Journal book review of:

Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men
By Mara Hvistendahl
PublicAffairs, 314 pages, $26.99


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...165631366.html

"Yet today in India there are 112 boys born for every 100 girls. In China, the number is 121—though plenty of Chinese towns are over the 150 mark. China's and India's populations are mammoth enough that their outlying sex ratios have skewed the global average to a biologically impossible 107. But the imbalance is not only in Asia. Azerbaijan stands at 115, Georgia at 118 and Armenia at 120."

"If you peer hard enough at the data, you can actually see parents demanding boys. Take South Korea. In 1989, the sex ratio for first births there was 104 boys for every 100 girls—perfectly normal. But couples who had a girl became increasingly desperate to acquire a boy. For second births, the male number climbed to 113; for third, to 185. Among fourth-born children, it was a mind-boggling 209. Even more alarming is that people maintain their cultural assumptions even in the diaspora; research shows a similar birth-preference pattern among couples of Chinese, Indian and Korean descent right here in America. "

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I wonder what the data would show about birth preference patterns in America as a whole?

[inked]

The WSJ Opinion pages on the "missing 160 million girls":

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/op...me&ref=general

An interesting referral to the Right and Left American politicos and Planned Parenthood and International Population control.

[inked]

GW, here's an answer to your question:

"Americans younger than 30 are the most likely to say they'd prefer a boy, with 54 percent making that choice, and 27 percent preferring a baby girl. The gap then declines steadily with age. Education also plays a role: People with a postgraduate education break even in their preferences, while 44 percent of those with a high-school education or less prefer boys, compared with 25 percent who prefer girls."

There's more with comparisons back to 1941 - the first recorded survey to ask the question - and intervening years, as well as gender stratification and education stratification.

See here: http://www.livescience.com/14757-ame...efer-boys.html

[inked]

Fourth Trimester abortion................

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ion-mark-steyn


What do you think of this event, the jury findings, and the appellate court's response?

Should 4th Trimester abortion be legal?

What is the length of the 4th trimester? Why? Should there be a terminus?

[Rían]

Wow ...

[GrayMouser]

I think that the original jury decisions are totally wrong.

Here is a 19-year-old woman, with no relation to the father of the child, living with parents who don't even notice she is pregnant,

In a country where abortion is totally legal, easily available and free, as are maternity counselling and childbirth services, she gives birth in her parent's basement, strangles the child in her underwear, and then tosses it over her neighbor's fence with no attempt at concealment.

Later, she tells the police she is a virgin, and then claims she gave the baby to the father.

Psychiatric problems, much? Naw, she's a witch, burn her.

Absolutely disgraceful actions by the Crown Prosecutor- significant it happened in Alberta, the Texas of Canada.