I wish that anti-choice people could get this through their thick heads:

[Political Heretic]

Being against the right to chose and abortion is based on the believe that abortion is morally wrong, correct?

And if that's true then the ultimate goal should be to reduce the number of abortions to zero, correct?

And it would follow then that any reduction is a step in the right direction, yes?

Okay, so how greatly have you reduced the number of abortions by basing your entire decision to vote or not vote for a presidential candidate based entirely on their philosophical position on abortion? Especially given that so far, few presidents have had dramatic impacts on basic abortion law at all?

It seems to me that if anti-choice people were really serious about making a "dent" in the number of abortions in the US, they would get involved in their local communities to make sure that poor women have full access to the resources they need to have a real and actual choice. If you can't afford to have a child, that limits your options. Anyone who works in the system knows that our adoption system is a mess, and its certainly not an "easy out" to give a child up for adoption.

It seems like anti-choicers would be more appropriately called pro-life if they were actively engaged in efforts that would work with women to reduce the limiting effects of poverty on their freedom to choose. Being a social worker, I'm pleased to have actual data which clearly shows that poor women are overwhelmingly the ones having abortions. There is an extreme drop off as you get to women of higher income. Now, its hard not to conclude that that is at least partly indicative of the fact that lack of resources is a big element effecting the number of abortions in our country.

So how about anti-choicers become actual pro-lifers and start working on poverty issues for low-income women (and everyone), working on providing an adequate support system for women, working on ensuring access to comprehensive, quality health care for women at all stages of life - and heck, if they feel so strongly about babies being born then by all means form community groups to help connect women who voluntarily seek their help to good services and options other than abortion. I've got no problem with that.

But no, instead they think the best thing to do is go dirsupt a senate confirmation hearing to shout "Baby Killer" to a judge that's never ruled on abortion, and for an appointment that will not change abortion law!

Brilliant. :eyes:

[bluestateguy]

1. Poor people are easier for governments to control

They are also easier to manipulate because they tend to be less educated.

Well off women will find ways to get abortions safely in other countries if need be.

Making people have children they cannot afford ensures that they and their offspring are locked in a cycle of poverty. That makes it easier for governments to control them.

[Ohio Joe]

2. Being anti-choice has nothing to do with reason

It has to do with controlling women.

[get the red out]

10. Yes, or they wouldn't also be anti-birth control

If you are really hoping to limit abortion you should be all for birth control being readily available. But when you can keep women from having access to it (except the well off ones of course, as mentioned above) you set them up for unwanted pregnancy

They want women punished for sex, the baby is punished also; the punishment is grinding poverty with no way out.

[Ohio Joe]

12. Well said, I agree completely - nt

[ellenfl]

3. and, of course, it's a man protesting choice.

i say, if you don't want abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE . . . but don't tell ME what to do with MY body.

ellen fl

[el_bryanto]

4. Good thought

And totally fair - well to be fair i suspect some grass roots people are working on that, but the program as a whole, is a political football and nothing else.

Bryant

[Peregrine Took]

5. On a related note, I think the age rules on adoption are very outdated.

My husband and I are in our 60's but we are daily runners (25-30 miles a week) are in excellent health, have "ok" financial resources, etc.

We married late in life and would have been interested in adoption but never applied as we knew we'd be turned down for an infant or toddler.

[Iris]

9. I think the age rules are less restrictive now.

Especially with private adoptions.

[panader0]

6. Are they willing to adopt?

Why don't they form support organizations for pregnant women, offering to take care of them financially , emotionally, and medically during pregnancy, and then adopt the child into a secure family? Or just STFU.

[xxqqqzme]

7. They prefer being part of the problem

not part of a solution. Being part of a solution is hard work.

[sweetpotato]

8. Its not about babies - its about control

Easiest way to control a woman is to keep her pregnant.

"They" also consider pregnancy and childbirth punishment for women having sex. Its in the Bible.

[ejpoeta]

11. i think it has to do with controlling people. they do not want to limit abortions...

they want to make it so we have to have kids. if you have sex, then you should face the consequences. how many of these people are also against birth control and other preventative measures!! I don't believe any child should be a punishment. I'd rather have a child brought into the world by choice and given all the opportunities that their parents can give them. these people just want a lot of poor folks who will keep their heads down and do what they are told because they have mouths to feed.