A Choice for Pro-Lifers

[LisaLL]

A choice for pro-lifers.

Please choose which goals you prefer from the following two scenarios and justify why. No mixing and matching. It's Choice A or Choice B.

A) An increase or essentially no change in the number of abortions, substantial increase in the number of deaths secondary to pregnancy-related causes, and an increase in unintended pregnancies (which leads to increased abortions and adoptions), an increase in STDs, and abortion illegal.

B) A significant decrease in the number of abortions, decrease in deaths secondary to pregnancy-related causes, decrease in unintended pregnancies (resulting in fewer abortions and fewer US adoptions), a decrease in STDs, with abortion remaining legal.

I'd like to hear about what takes priority, what is the goal. These two choices are the outcomes for two very different policies on unintended pregnancy.

[brainshrub]

1. The easy way to show how crazy pro-birth folks are is to ask one question:

What should the penalty be for having an abortion?

Then stand back and watch that person lose all credibility.

[vpigrad]

9. A friend of mine has been asking that question for years!

She said the usual response she gets is a year in prison. She usually replies that a year in prison is better than 18 years in hell being forced to raise one of those things. I agree with her.

[brainshrub]

11. I was going to protest that answer.

But upon reflection, I'm inclined to agree with you and your friend.

The usual response I get is "The death penalty."

[vpigrad]

12. The death penalty!

You actually have people say that to you? Wow, and I thought I lived in Freeper-hell. I can't imagine murdering someone over an abortion. Those freepers are even more violent than I thought.

[brainshrub]

13. Freepers, by their very nature, are a violent bunch.

They are motivated to behave out of a fear of pain.

[dummy-du1]

24. Why not?

If the male genitor is put to death, too, I have no objections. But I guess, that in this case the voices in the heads of their leaders would change their tune very soon.

[Mabeline]

18. If abortion were made illegal, I believe the penalty should be

sterilization. The death penalty is the same as abortion to me.

I cannot answer A or B. I am pro-life, pro-birth as some say. I am one of those rare people who doesn't believe abortion should be legal for any reason.

[LisaLL]

22. sterilization

Mabeline,

Really? Even if the woman is carrying a fetus with a condition that is incompatible with life outside of the uterus? Even for a woman whose life is in danger? Even for a raped 13 year old?

I want to make sure that I understand this correctly. For you, the punishing people is more important than reducing the number of abortions? You would deliberately oppose policies that reduced abortions if it meant that abortion would be (extremely rare but) legal?

I value health and safety of women and children, honesty, empathy, responsibility and effective problem solving. I'm trying but having difficulty understanding your pov.

[Mabeline]

29. In answer to your question..

How can anyone know with certainty that the baby she carries has a condition that is incompatible with life outside of the womb? Does the doctor have all inclusive knowledge? For a woman who's life is in danger, how do they know she will absolutely die? For a raped 13 year old, why make a person whose only position in the act was that they were created from it, pay for it? Shouldn't the person who raped her be the one to pay?

IMO the only one who has such knowledge that could tell you with a certainty that a baby would or would not live outside the womb, or that a woman will absolutely die if she carries to term is God. I feel this way because I know a family where this happened, the pregnant woman was told she would die if she carried to term. She refused to even discuss abortion and that woman is now a grandmother.

How is wanting to save the life of one tiny person so wrong? Also remember I said "if abortions were illegal", when something is illegal there usually is a punishment. Sterilization would be the punishment for an illegal act.

To me the greatest thing to do is reduce the need for abortions. IMO, for most that is abstinance. Too many women want to go out and "do their thing" without thought to the consequences of the act. Yeah, sex is fun, feels good, I like it, most do, but how can intelligent people not think about such a simple thing?

As for opposing policies, no I wouldn't if it helped reduce abortion. But I also wouldn't be against outlawing the death penalty either. The later gets me into a lot of hot water with some of my family..."Scott Peterson should fry.." and such, but while I think he is definately a monster what do we actually get out of killing him? Vengence? It won't bring Laci or Connor back. It's perpetuating the same behavior that got him where he is.

And thank you :-) , for asking me to explain my pov instead of just blindly attacking me as I have had happen. I try and avoid confrontations where they will likely turn into a poopoo slinging party.

[LisaLL]

30. follow up question

Maybeline,

>How can anyone know with certainty that the baby she carries has a >condition that is incompatible with life outside of the womb? Does >the doctor have all inclusive knowledge?

There are certain conditions that are diagnosable by ultrasound or by amniocentesis that are fatal. Many are absolutely diagnosable. And doctors do not take it lightly to make such a diagnosis. Anencephaly is one such condition, some chromosomal abnormalities also. Others like Tay Sachs are 100% fatal in the first year or two. I personally find it inhumane to force a woman who desparately wants a baby to continue a pregnancy that has no chance of resulting in a surviving child for several months after receiving that kind of diagnosis. Obviously, if she *wants* to continue the pregnancy, because she hopes for a miracle, that's another story.


>For a woman who's life is in danger, how do they know she will >absolutely die?

There are cases when a woman will most probably die. A woman with a peripartum cardiomyopathy who gets pregnant again (and continues it) has a mortality rate that approaches 100%. Perhaps 99%, perhaps 99.5%. I saw a patient, an infertility patient, who finally became pregnant and the same month was diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. Delaying her treatment for 8 months would have resulted in an extremely high risk that she would die of her disease in that year. Another patient diagnosed with breast cancer in her 7th month of pregnancy was induced early (maybe at 36 weeks) so she could start treatment. As you know, if someone is near viability, delivery of a premature infant is done not abortion. A woman actively hemorrhaging pre-viability from a placenta previa, if other attempts to stabilize and transfuse her faster than she loses blood are not successful, and going into shock she will die.

The intense training of obstetrics and gynecology, experience with thousand of patients, extensive review of available literature, and the utilization of maternal-fetal medicine specialists for additioal help in diagnosis and management makes the diagnosis, management, expectations much more precise than what you describe.

So, how close to absolutely die is close enough? You and I probably have different definitions.


>IMO the only one who has such knowledge that could tell you with a >certainty that a baby would or would not live outside the womb, or >that a woman will absolutely die if she carries to term is God. I >feel this way because I know a family where this happened, the >pregnant woman was told she would die if she carried to term. She >refused to even discuss abortion and that woman is now a grandmother.

With all due respect, the example of one person from 20 years ago when diagnostics were significantly more primitive-- doesn't really balance the extent of knowledge we have now about medicine. Medicine has advanced by leaps and bounds even within the past 10 years.

>How is wanting to save the life of one tiny person so wrong? Also >remember I said "if abortions were illegal", when something is >illegal there usually is a punishment. Sterilization would be the >punishment for an illegal act.

Wanting to prevent abortions is not wrong. Enabling women to be able to choose to continue their pregnancies because of better resources is not wrong. I guess what I don't understand is this: we have the ability to reduce the deaths of tiny persons and big persons as well, and choosing not to because of the principle of making it illegal and punishing women for sex we don't approve of is more important to some people than saving as *many* lives as possible, I feel, in my view, is wrong. My goal is to save as many lives as possible.

You're right, you said "if abortion were illegal". Does that mean you are not working towards making it illegal and would support the options that prevent pregnancy, abortions, and prevents maternal and fetal deaths if that included keeping it legal?

[Mabeline]

35. No, I'm not working towards making it illegal,

though if it were to come to an issue of vote, I would probably vote in favor of making it so. Abortion shouldn't NEED to be legal or illegal. I believe that the ideal situation would be if they were not needed, period, but that is unrealistic.

In the case of just getting pregnant and not wanting it, a woman shouldn't have been in the situation where they could get pregnant if they didn't want a child to start with, because pregnancy can often be the result and often is, lets face it sex makes babies, not always, but there is always that chance. I honestly believe that abstinance can prevent unwanted pregnancies, is that unrealistic in todays world? Probably.

I myself was in the situation of infertility, we were married for 12 years before we conceived our first, which turned out to be a complete, but wanted surprise. (I guess I should say here too that I have a form of Muscular Dystrophy, sp?) If my doctor had told me my baby had something medically wrong that would cause his death before birth or after, I would have carried him for as long as he lived, and birthed him and loved him every second he was in my life, and grieved for him after his death. I would not have taken his life. Likewise if my doctor had told me giving him life would have taken mine, then I would have gladly and with love given my life to give him life. My first pregnancy was induced due to over due, and ended in a c-section to save both of us. When my son was a few months shy of 2 I got pregnant again, had GD and decided to have my tubes tied, preventing anymore pregnancies, I love my boys, and another would be loved, but I don't want to have anymore.

I'm sorry, I just cannot accept taking the life of a child that may/is going to die just to ease a mothers pain or because they won't have to see their child suffer, or to ease their fear of their own death. No one wants to die, I don't, and I believe those babies don't either. In the big picture, there are many, many more abortions done for unwanted pregnancies than medical need, just as you said the medical field is more advaced than it was twenty years ago and just as there are better diagnostics there are now procedures/meds that can be used for many babies in utero now that can save their life that couldn't back then. You are right, to me inducing labor to deliver a viable baby or doing a c-section to save the life of a viable baby is not abortion. I can also see delivering when the baby is viable if mom needs medical care promto. My niece was delivered during her 6th month in utero because her mom had high blood pressure and complications were setting in.

So, how close to absolutely die is close enough? To me if the delivery were induce to save the life of baby and/or mom, I'd agree to it as soon as the baby were viable, and if I'm not wrong that can be really early in the pregnancy now...

I guess my official stand would be this, while I am a Christian, and I do believe all taking of life is wrong, I ain't one of those Bible thumpers who lines up outside abortion clinics and threatens the doctors or women going in. I am one who lives my life, grieves for the lost lives and lets others make their own decisions. For in the end we all have to answer to God for what we do, not what others choose to do. But if I supported pro-choice, for any reason, I'd be condoning something I believe is wrong, and I would be responsible for that.

[LisaLL]

38. think I get it.

Mabeline,

>Abortion shouldn't NEED to be legal or illegal. I believe that the >ideal situation would be if they were not needed, period, but that >is unrealistic.

However, it is realistic to reduce the number of abortions by half (or more) in this country by utilizing what is effective (contraceptive use, accurate sex ed which includes contraception and abstinence, access to emergency contraception).

>In the case of just getting pregnant and not wanting it, a woman >shouldn't have been in the situation where they could get pregnant >if they didn't want a child to start with, because pregnancy can >often be the result and often is, lets face it sex makes babies, not >always, but there is always that chance.

It is more complex than not wanting it. No woman wants to be in a situation where she is pregnant and does not have the means to raise a child. I do not agree that sex is only ok when one is trying or willing to have a baby.


>I honestly believe that abstinance can prevent unwanted pregnancies, >is that unrealistic in todays world? Probably.

If there was any evidence at all that this was effective, I might say unrealistic. However, many nations have tried this and it just doesn't work. <This is said kindly, not as a flame>. At some point it's important to look at what actually does work.

>If my doctor had told me my baby had something medically wrong that >would cause his death before birth or after, I would have carried >him for as long as he lived, and birthed him and loved him every >second he was in my life, and grieved for him after his death. I >would not have taken his life. Likewise if my doctor had told me >giving him life would have taken mine, then I would have gladly and >with love given my life to give him life.

Some people will risk their lives for their children. Some will risk their lives for their parents or siblings. Some will risk their lives for total strangers. It is a gift for someone to do this but, to me, it is unacceptable to force anyone to risk their life for another. And, when women die during pregnancy, the fetus usually dies, too.


>In the big picture, there are many, many more abortions done for >unwanted pregnancies than medical need,

That doesn't change my premise of preventing pregnancy and reducing abortions, though.

>just as you said the medical field is more advaced than it was >twenty years ago and just as there are better diagnostics there are >now procedures/meds that can be used for many babies in utero now >that can save their life that couldn't back then.

Yes but not for everything. Not for anencephaly, Tay Sachs, certain trisomies. Many babies die from the complications of prematurity.

>So, how close to absolutely die is close enough? To me if the >delivery were induce to save the life of baby and/or mom, I'd agree >to it as soon as the baby were viable, and if I'm not wrong that can >be really early in the pregnancy now...

No, not really early. 25 weeks is considered viable by some. 24 is grey zone last I checked. 27 weeks is certainly viable. Prematurity also has significant risks. Sometimes a pregnant woman can be stabilized for a few weeks to get her to viability, but sometimes it is simply not possible. When a pregnant woman hemorrhages, it is like blood pouring out of a faucet. Sadly, there is not time to get a few more weeks to viability in this situation.

>I guess my official stand would be this, while I am a Christian, and >I do believe all taking of life is wrong, I ain't one of those Bible >thumpers who lines up outside abortion clinics and threatens the >doctors or women going in.

That's good.

>I am one who lives my life, grieves for the lost lives and lets >others make their own decisions. For in the end we all have to >answer to God for what we do, not what others choose to do. But if I >supported pro-choice, for any reason, I'd be condoning something I >believe is wrong, and I would be responsible for that.

Got it. I disagree with you but understand where you are coming from. You feel that the principle of allowing legality (and supporting contraception use?) would be condoning abortion and condoning sex you feel is inappropriate. Even if the policies I support reduce the loss of more lives and results in fewer abortions and fewer women dying, that matters less than the concept of allowing something that you feel is wrong. It wouldn't matter what the research showed, even if 7/8 of all abortions could be prevented with abortion remaining legal because it's the principle. Is that correct?

[Mabeline]

40. If I am undertanding your stance on this issue..

I think I understand what you were asking now. I am inclined to agree with you on the issue that there needs to be more effective ways to keep unwanted pregnancies from happening, and though there are different types of bc pills and I do have problems with some.. if there are ways to reduce the need/want of abortions then yes, I support that.

I also think that sex education in schools needs to be separated, I had an awfully embarrassing experience during my 8th grade year during boy/girl sex ed. The boy sitting beside me let me knw he wanted to experiment.. I think it would be much easier if they were taught separately. Though by the time I was in 8th grade my parents taught me about sex ed. Which is another thing I think needs to be done. More parents need to open that door and talk to their children, not just preach at them. But I believe that if a person is under age the parents need to know if they are asking the schools for birth control. If parents are going to be held responsible for their children, then they deserve this respect. After 18, then they are adults and can get bc on their own. (I am curious at the meaning of emergency contraception.)

I didn't mean to come across as saying sex should only be when a woman wants to get pregnant, sorry if I sounded that way, I was trying to say women should be informed enough to know what the consequences of their decision could be if they decide to have sex, with or without bc use.

[LisaLL]

42. follow up

Mabeline,

I am looking forward to responding to this post but it may take me a few days because we are traveling to visit relatives (and may not have time to log on to the computer). If I can, I'll write sooner. Have a nice Christmas.

[LisaLL]

43. resp to Mabeline, preventing preg, preventing abortions

Mabeline,


>I think I understand what you were asking now. I am inclined to >agree with you on the issue that there needs to be more >effective >ways to keep unwanted pregnancies from happening, and though there >are different types of bc pills and I do have >problems with some.. >if there are ways to reduce the need/want of abortions then yes, I >support that.

Excellent! We have common ground here. Here's the thing: there *are* effective ways to keep unwanted pregnancies from happening. We can prevent unwanted pregnancies as a society by supporting the policies that rely on what's effective and *educating* everyone on what does this. The policies supported by ob/gyns, pediatricians, scientists, public health specialists, credible medical groups--(the people who know how to evaluate what is effective) are the ones that prevent unwanted pregnancies and decrease abortions.

>I also think that sex education in schools needs to be separated,

That's an interesting idea. I know the content of most of the programs but don't know which ones separate girls and boys.

>Which is another thing I think needs to be done. More parents need >to open that door and talk to their children, not just preach at >them.

I agree with you 100%. Parents *definitely* need to be doing this. Communication is a two way street, so they need to be talking and listening. Every day-not just once in a while.

One problem is that many parents are not knowledgeable about these health issues--so they should be educated and informed as well to make sure they have accurate info to give their kids. Perhaps families should go together in groups to their doctors for counselling education about this and parents continue the discussion at home.

>But I believe that if a person is under age the parents need to know >if they are asking the schools for birth control. If parents are >going to be held responsible for their children, then they deserve >this respect. After 18, then they are adults and can get bc on >their own.

In an ideal world, teens would (and many do) include their parents in these kinds of decisions. However, here is the reality: When teens are told that their parents would be told if they obtained contraception, they find that the teens say that they would not obtain contraception but would continue to be sexually active. This would result in more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions. There was a study done to evaluate the outcome when a county made it a policy to inform parents as a requirement for contraception. Before this policy, that county had the same rates in decline of teen pregnancy and abortion as the surrounding counties. After this policy, that county had *higher* rates of teen pregnancy and *higher* rates of teen abortion relative to the surrounding counties.

So, given the choice between *increasing* abortions in order to reduce some parents feeling disrespected and actually reducing abortions, my preference is doing what it takes to reduce abortions. I value life, health and safety too much to support a policy (parental notification) that would increase abortions. I don't think it is appropriate to turn this issue into a power game because the outcomes are just too important.

> (I am curious at the meaning of emergency contraception.)

Initially, the use of emergency contraception was something we offered to rape victims in Emergency Rooms. After an unprotected incident, a victim could take a medication (now we use progesterone) to reduce the risk that she would become pregnant as a result of the rape. The way it works it that the med prevents the release of an egg, delays the release of an egg by several days until after the risk of pregnancy has passed (after the sperm dies), or by impairing ovulation which renders the egg less "fertilizable". There is a theoretical risk that in rare cases a fertilized egg may not implant. If someone is already pregnant with an established pregnancy and takes it by accident, it does not harm the pregnancy.

When this med is available to women for use after a condom breaks, a rape, or an unprotected intercourse, it is a way to prevent pregnancy from occurring. One half of unintended pregnancies and one half of all abortions could be prevented in this country by improved access and education about this. I would think that anyone who *really* wanted to decrease abortions would be thrilled at the opportunity to prevent 600,000 abortions a year. Some people don't and many are spreading lies about emergency contraception.

Other facts about emergency contracpetion: It does not cause people to be more sexually active. It does not encourage more people not to use contraception. it does not cause an increase in risk taking. When available, women do not rely on it instead of continuous contraception. It is safe and it prevents pregnancies and abortions.

>I didn't mean to come across as saying sex should only be when a >woman wants to get pregnant, sorry if I sounded that way, I was >trying to say women should be informed enough to know what the >consequences of their decision could be if they decide to have sex, >with or without bc use

Thanks for clarifying. I agree that people need to be informed and given accurate information to make good decisions about their health. Everyone should know that if you have sex, it could result in pregnancy or an STD. Everyone should know that contraceptive use and condom use *greatly* reduces the risk of pregnancy and STDs. Everyone should know that most contraceptives are significantly safer than pregnancy. Everyone should know that if they plan to abstain and then don't abstain and fail to use contraception (because they were unprepared) they are at high risk of pregnancy. When people don't understand their risk of pregnancy and when they believe myths about contraception being dangerous that contributes to unwanted pregnancies.

In the same way, all people should be informed about the consequences of the policies they support---whether they increase or decrease abortions. Sadly, many National pro-life organizations are supporting the policies that increase abortions in the name of being "pro-life". As someone who is dedicated to helping women prevent unintended pregnancies and someone who knows the medicine, science and research about what is effective, I find that very upsetting.

[cally]

39. Hi Mabeline

I don't know how the rest of DU will respond, but I value your post. I'm trying to understand the abortion issue. I just don't get it. I don't understand how anyone doesn't honor a woman's life. I also don't get how if I'm a Christian, which I am, then supposedly that makes me anti a woman's right to choose.

This issue is all about deciding what LAWS should rule. It's not about what we think is moral, faithful, or right for us. Should we, as society enact laws to enforce a religious faith. It's not about your experience or mine, but whether we should promote laws promoting our/your belief.

[Jean Louise Finch]

31. "Paying for it"

You wrote >For a raped 13 year old, why make a person whose only position in the act was that they were created from it, pay for it? Shouldn't the person who raped her be the one to pay?<

Upfront: I'm rabidly pro-choice. But, to be honest, I do respect your opinion more than those that are willing to make an exception in the case of rape or incest, because I think that that is contradictory...it turns the fetus into a punishment for those that got pregnant accidentally while simultaneously making it disposable for those that were victims. I don't think those two statements can work together.

But this statement (above) really bothered me. Of course a rapist should "pay for it". But by outlawing abortion, you would also make the victim "pay for it". You would make a 13 year old girl carry to term a pregnancy that is a constant reminder of a horrific and violent attack? It's not like it's over in a day or two -- there's 9 months of incredible changes to that girl/woman's body, some of which can be life-threatening (particularly in a 13 year old girl). There's the indescribably painful birth and recovery process, and then there's the psychological impact of either (a) raising a baby that is the product of rape or (b) giving up that baby for adoption. You would be making that girl "pay for it" with irreversible life changes. If she wants to keep it, I would wish her nothing but the best. But to make her keep it, I just think that is cruel and an extension of the invasion and attack she's already suffered.

Just a note: I do appreciate you explaining your position and point of view. I hope that through dialogue this issue could be resolved, but I guess I have my doubts.

[Mabeline]

36. That's a good question...

But IMO rape is horiffic no matter the age of the victim. The 13 year old would need counseling no matter what. I still believe the child deserves to live. If the mother and her family cannot or does not want to keep it, she should put it up for adoption. I still don't think the child should pay for what it's sperm injector did (loathe to use the term father here.).

You know, it wasn't that long ago that girls were allowed to marry at 13. They became sexually active and got pregnant. Yes, some died, but many went on to have long healthy lives. My own grandma was 12 when she married my granddad..he was 22. Had her first at 13, he was tiny, you couldn't tell it to look at him now though, LOL..

Child birth is painful, no matter what age you are. I was 33 and didn't dilate, something about a high cervix and something else..I was gonna go natural and when I had to be induced my doctor used pitocin..after a few hours of painful contractions they upped it. I was maxed by the time my baby had to be delivered via emergency c-section.

Also...about the 13 year old rape vic...I'd come really close to wanting to let the girls mom and dad have the rapist alone in a room with a filet knife for a few minutes..;-)

[Jean Louise Finch]

37. I agree

I certainly didn't mean to imply that rape was not horrific at any age. I was just using your example (or the example of the poster before you) to make a specific argument about a 13 year old rape victim. Girls are STILL getting married all over the world at age 13, and I don't think it's a good thing.

I'll give you this: you are consistent and not willing to accept abortion in some cases but not others. I do disagree with you entirely, as I don't think a woman (at any age) should have to bear the brutality of a rape and then an unwanted pregnancy. In my opinion, even if the pregnancy goes completely smoothly (like in the case of your young grandmother), and then the baby is given up for adoption, it's still a radical, potentially dangerous change in someone's life and body, which I don't think a woman should be forced to bear. But I understand your position, even though I disagree.

[Mabeline]

41. You know what I find refreshing

is being able to exchange ideas and oppinions without arguing...thank you. And I agree that 13 is way too young to be getting married (and to think in some places parents actually arrange them.). My grandparents were married back in the early 1930's...and I am glad to see that, in the US anyway, this has changed.

BTW- Your avatar looks like Jack Skelington, I love that movie.

[LisaLL]

32. follow up

Mabeline,

>To me the greatest thing to do is reduce the need for abortions. >IMO, for most that is abstinance.

It would be a nice idea if it worked but it does not.

Many women faced with unintended pregnacies are married. Abstinence is often not a viable option within a marriage for many people.

Also, it turns out that there is no credible evidence that those programs that are abstinence-only-until-marriage reduce pregnancies or increase the number of teens that abstain. (Delay of sexual activity and reduction has been shown with the comprehensive programs. The most recent declines in teen pregnancy is 25% due to teens waiting longer and 75% due to better use of more effective contraceptives).

More people do delay sexual activity when given accurate explanations of the risks.


>Too many women want to go out >and "do their thing" without thought >to the consequences of the act. Yeah, sex is fun, feels good, I like >it, most do, but how can intelligent people not think about such a >simple thing?

I value responsibility and do not promote promiscuity. To me, responsible means that sex occurs in committed relationships and responsibility is having the foresight to reduce the risk of pregnancy occurring by using effective contraception (and I advocate using more than one method at a time to further reduce risk---depo plus condoms, OCPs plus condoms, Norplant plus condoms, etc).

But increasing the punishment or sticking only to abstinence as an option does not reduce abortions. It has not worked in any democratic society.

>As for opposing policies, no I wouldn't if it helped reduce abortion.

Excellent.

>And thank you , for asking me to explain my pov instead of just >blindly attacking me as I have had happen.

You're welcome. My goal is improving understanding (my own and others)and making sure that when people have the goal of reducing abortions, they support the policies that actually accomplish this. Good information breeds good decisions. I am saddened and frutrated to meet people (as I have) that I think genuinely want to reduce abortions and prevent unintended pregnancies but have been given propaganda instead of information and are actually increasing pregnancies and abortions by their actions. It's a shame when they are completely unresponsive to hearing what the evidence is and how to tell the difference between valid evidence and political propaganda.

>I try and avoid confrontations where they will likely turn into a >poopoo slinging party.

Absolutely!

[brainshrub]

23. I wish I had an answer.

I, to, believe that abortion is wrong. I also feel that if abortion were illegal it would only make the situation worse by forcing the entire practice underground.
Making abortion illegal would also set up a legal framework that would make a womens body the property of the state.

The whole issue of abortion is a moral conundrum for me; And precisely for this reason I have to stay on the side of the "Pro-choice" side of the fence.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I'm pro choice, so can't answer your question

but I have a friend who is pro life-she was adopted by a Catholic couple who were active in the pro-life movement (at least they walked their talk and adopted kids). She would say one was better, because the idea of abortion being a sin/should be illegal that it is ingrained in her.

[Pachamama]

4. Atleast her family "walked the talk" and adopted..Look at all the children

in the world needing adoption or who are in foster care and in need of care - Why hasn't W and Laura adopted? They have the means and help....what about so many other Pro-lifers out there? I can't speak for all, but I am tired of hearing the Pro-lifers who are Pro-death penalty, Pro-war on Iraq, and vote against programs that Dems want to have to help children and ofcourse, have never adopted any children. Nothing Pro-life about those things. Atleast your friend had a family that was principled and lives by those principles.

[IHeart1993]

34. I agree

I come from a Catholic parish that has a lot of right-to-lifers, many of them will most likely to never have to make the decision whether to abort the child or not. But then there are those families who adopted. Those families lived by their beliefs.
Nicest guy in my class was adopted.

[LisaLL]

5. sin

Even if it means that more abortions will happen by making that choice? I'm trying to figure if the principle of punishment is more important than actually reducing abortions. I suspect for many, it is.

[Pachamama]

3. The Pro-life movement isn't Pro-Life - they are Pro-Birth...big difference

Like your choices...but those make too much sense and are truly "Pro-life" but since the Pro-life movement is really Pro-birth, they won't choose either....and sadly, the rate of unintended and unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS to the infants, and an increase in the abortion rate will continue because of the lack of proper sex education and prevention of unwanted preganancies. And ofcourse, Pro-Birth people are so keen to have babies born, but don't seem to put the same passion into caring for the babies once born. Programs like Headstart and other programs to care for children never seem to be on their front-burner....

Once again, I think the Pro-life movement should be called the Pro-birth movement....

But hey, what do I know, I'm just a well-educated Pachamama of two Pachababies.... :eyes:

[Undercover Owl]

33. pro birth

So, for pro-birth folks, just letting the baby be born is the only thing they worry about, and they don't care about how the child will be raised, etc.

Unwanted babies should just be let loose in the woods, then.

'Sorry kid, can't help ya. We made sure you got born, now you're on your own. Run along now.'

[ThorsHammer]

6. B, no question

Choice A will please the 'pro-birth' side, choice B is the pro-life choice. As a pro-life person, I would gladly trade some words on a paper (choice A) for see fewer abortions, less deaths, less unintended pregnancies (choice B). To me, choice A would be a sanctamonious (sp?) choice.

[LisaLL]

7. thanks

Thorshammer,

Thank you. It is also the pro-choice choice. I think that this is what the abortion debate should be about. Do you think other pro-lifers that you know would also unite with pro-choicers on this and discuss abortion in these terms?

[rucky]

8. Only a baby killer would ask a question like that...

kidding. But I have been called one before for having this discussion:

I always ask the pro-lifers how many kids they've adopted.

Between opposing abortion, gay marriage/adoption and birth control, they aren't leaving people with many options. Their plan is destined for failure untill they start seeking some middle ground.

[LisaLL]

10. middle ground

I'm trying to find the middle-ground pro-lifers--I think if many of them knew that the policies they support achieve A rather than B, they may change what they support. Obviously some of them won't. It depends on their goals.

My gut instinct is that the leaders of the pro-life movement are manipulating the data to get followers and understand the outcomes of their policies. My gut instinct is also that many pro-lifers have been misinformed and would truly be heartbroken if they knew that their policies contribute to increasing abortions.

[Karenina]

14. If they are not aware of the results

of the policies being insitututed on behalf of THEIR beliefs then they are simply NOT using that divine gift of a BRAIN and CHOICE that is supposedly their inheritance.

How about they CHOOSE their "moral values" for themselves, showing an example for family and friends and retract their noses from the private parts of women whose paths they will never cross?

THAT would work.

[ThorsHammer]

15. Again, it's pro-life vs. pro-birth

Like I mentioned above, most pro-life people disapprove of abortion but would still take choice B. Pro-birth people would want it banned at any cost, regardless of the consequences. I think you could convince the pro-life and moderate people, but the pro-birth crowd is a lost cause.

[Razorback_Democrat]

16. Of course I choose #2

That should be the goal of any civilized society

to make abortion rare
to reduce deaths secondary to pregnancy related causes
to decrease unintended pregnancies
to decrease STD's
to increase assistance to pregnant women during and after their pregnancy

etc. etc. etc.

One can be pro life but also not be against legal, but rare, abortion!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. "Pro-life" isn't about abortion. It's about sex.

Most "pro-lifers" see pregnancy as punishment for women who enjoy sex and don't want children.

Their God doesn't like naughty ladies.

[Pachamama]

21. Here's to the "naughty ladies"....aka "Bad Babes"...

:toast: I'm proud to call myself a bad babe....

Hmmm...I've had kids too...and I like sex, and I don't want more...

My God gave me my sexuality...and I use that gift daily :)

[franmarz]

19. I have no problem with pro-lifers-

My consternation comes from the facts that so many people are against birth control, however they continually defeat proposals at the poles to increase the funds that would take care of the products of an increasing population. In other words, they oppose the prevention of making babies, but dont want to help pay for them when they arrive.

[LisaLL]

20. Any ideas?

So, any suggestions on delivering this message to the pro-lifers (like those who replied here) that really want to reduce abortions and do so safely who might be supporting Republicans and Conservatives even though those policies result in outcome A?

My hope is that instead of a close to 50-50 split on "pro-choice" vs "pro-life" battle, we could actually be an 80-20 split on "pro-preventing pregnancy/reducing abortions/keeping abortion legal" vs "Pro-increasing abortions and the other risks of sex in order to punish people". It will take a lot of education but it's worth it.

[cags]

25. I can't choose with only those as options.

I just can't get behind elective abortion.

I think Choice B is attainable while still making it illegal.

[LisaLL]

26. options

But can you get behind reducing the need for elective abortion-safely?

Choice B is not attainable while making abortion illegal. We are not the first and only country to explore Prevention strategies and punishment strategies, legality vs illegality. Choice A is what the evidence supports when the policies of the current Republician party or Right-to-Life groups occurs. Choice B is the Progressive/Democratic/pro-choice policy outcomes based on medical and scientific evaluation.

Once abortion is made illegal, the deaths from pregnancy related causes skyrockets. This is a definite. Check out the maternal mortality trend of Romania in relation to when abortion went from legal to illegal and back to legal again.

So, given that Choice B includes abortions remaining legal because maternal mortality would be increased if it weren't, can you choose A or B? The net loss of life for all is reduced in B. The net loss of life for all is increased in A.

[cags]

27. I will concede that with this current administration

my goals will not happen, but yours won't either.

Reducing the need(and I use that word loosly, elective is not a need) for elective abortion is of course necessary.

[LisaLL]

28. goals

Neither of our goals will happen under this administration. Their policies result in A.

My goals could be achieved under a Democratic administration that understands how to tell the difference between medical evidence and propaganda. We were on the right track with Clinton. More recent research gives us better information on what works most effectively.

"Elective" is a poor choice of words. It usually refers to the circumstances when women feel they are unable to provide the resources (tangible and intangible) that she feels is necessary to provide for her children and be a good parent. "Defensive" or "protective" may be a better words for this than "elective". It is a better describer of the situation when a woman feels that a pregnancy and having another child will impair her ability to take care of her existing children. "Defensive" or "Protective" also works for when women feel they need to delay having a child until they are in a position that they can provide for her childen.

"Elective" makes it sound as if women are being hasty and have no reasons. As someone who has counselled *many* women with unintended pregnancies, this is not the case. Women limit their family size, control their fertility, and turn to abortion because of a deep respect for what it takes to be a parent.