Roe @ 36: Poverty and Reproductive Freedom
Published January 16, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
From Feministe I see that next Wednesday, the first full day under an Obama Administration (Yippee!), Roe v. Wade was passed 36 years ago. Citing the ever exceptional research from the Guttmacher Institute, here are some important highlights to consider for women's rights, reproductive justice and anti-poverty activists alike.
In 2000, 2% of all U.S. women of reproductive age had had an abortion. Since abortion was legalized, about 20% of all pregnancies end in abortion. Yet "stark" economic and ethnic/racial disparities exist:
- "poor women are four times as likely to have an unplanned pregnancy, three times as likely to have an abortion and five times as likely to have an unplanned birth."
- In 2000, "Women who are aged 18-29, unmarried, black or Hispanic, or economically disadvantaged—including those on Medicaid—have higher abortion rates."
- "Abortion rates for women with incomes below 200% of poverty and for women with Medicaid coverage increased between 1994 and 2000...the abortion rate among poor teenagers increased substantially."
The most commonly cited reasons for abortion were "that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%) [or] that she could not afford a baby now (73%)".
Now, before (and don't even start!) any commenters try to use this data as evidence of behavioral or value differences between poorer and more affluent women (or among women of color - don't even think about it), consider why the abortion rates might vary between women who have financial access to contraception through their employer-based healthcare or through private doctors and women who rely on publicly funded family planning:
- Publicly funded family planning clinics provide contraceptive services to [only] seven million women each year. Without these services, unintended pregnancy rates would be nearly 50% higher for all women and about two-thirds higher among low-income women.
- 1.4 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely result in about 640,000 unintended births and 600,000 abortions, are averted each year because of these services.
- Research shows that these services save $4.3 billion in public funds. Nationally, every $1.00 invested in helping women avoid pregnancies they do not want saves $4.02 in Medicaid expenditures that otherwise would be needed.
- each $20 million increment in new funding under the Title X family planning services program alone would help women avoid another 17,200 unintended pregnancies, including 7,000 that would end in abortion.
- Expanding eligibility for Medicaid-covered family planning services nationwide to the same income eligibility levels used for pregnant women would yield even greater results, further reducing unintended pregnancy and abortion by 15%, while achieving an additional $1.5 billion in net savings annually.
(My edits and emphases throughout)
The abortion rate is at its lowest level since 1974, which some people like to hail as progress. Maybe, but is it successful like welfare reform? Meaning, are abortion rates declining because women have full access to contraception and are making fully informed decisions about their reproductive options? Or is it because we continue (trying) to restrict access to family planning, contraception and legal medical services - including abortion, forcing more and more women to give birth whether or not they and their loved ones are ready to bring a child into the world?
(For those of you who want to go "but, but, but adoption!" - this is a conversation, albeit a difficult one, about unintended pregnancies. Read more here about the fallacy of the abortion versus adoption argument.)
(photo by infowidget)
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Memphis Infant Mortality Rate Higher than Vietnam's
-
What's the best way to feed 35m hungry Americans?
-
Arizona to eliminate public assistance for poor families
Comments (47)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Leigh is a PhD candidate in urban planning at MIT, and a consultant on U.S. Gulf Coast recovery. She sits on the Board of the Allston-Brighton Community Development Corporation in Boston, and has worked with non-profits, foundations and local governments on policies and programs aimed at reducing urban poverty and inequality.
I do believe women have the right for abortion, however I think that birth control should be started given to students beginning in junior high. That upon completion of High School then it is up to the individual women and men to practice birth control or not. Just like the parents can no longer deny them alcohol, same as safe sex. It should be administered in manner that there is no mistake or option of not being responsible. They are kids and just like parents do what is best by withholding alcohol, driving rights, being on the phone or computer inappropriately, so should birth control be dealt with. I really wish and whole heartedly believe the impact would be monumental on many different levels all positive outcomes.
Posted by SusanE Tisdale on 01/16/2009 @ 07:32AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Susan, I agree that safe and widespread access to b/c is key. I generally agree that it should start in jr high, also.
Posted by Leigh Graham on 01/16/2009 @ 08:23AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Susan and Leigh,
Should we also give alcohol to jr high students also so they won't have to "hide" their inhibitions?
Regarding poverty, a person can be in economic poverty and still be happy; conversely you can have luxuries and be in emotional poverty.
Its too back that so many blacks are being exploited by the abortion industry. Why not give them the emotional help and self respect which they deserve.
It's also true that poor girls are sexually exploited more than middle class girls. So abortion become a "business" convenience for pimps since their 'girls" can stay in circulation.
Let's respect people and the lives of the unborn innocent; not rely on the violence of abortion where doctors get paid to end a life.
The Democrat party to "reduce abortions" is only false propaganda. They really want to change from surgical abortion to chemical abortion.
Posted by Paul boboige on 01/16/2009 @ 08:36AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Paul, to say I disagree with you would be an understatement.
Posted by Leigh Graham on 01/16/2009 @ 09:36AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Paul, the assumption that all these unplanned pregnancies are a result of some form of prostitution is insulting in the extreme. Many of these women are in long term relationships or married. They may have met someone they liked and wanted to enjoy their company. There's nothing wrong with that.
To assume that sex is always exploitive is to assume that women are never interested in it. Which is ridiculous. That's the sort of stupid myth that tells young girls they should expect bad things out of relationships, and bad things out of sex, which makes them slower to leave relationships when they're treated poorly or are incompatible with a partner. It makes them more hesitant to insist on the use of barrier contraceptives, and embarassed to keep or acquire condoms, lest anyone think they're a 'bad' or 'dirty' woman.
You show a hatred for sex and hatred for women who decide not to be celibate, as hardly anyone does.
Posted by Natasha Chart on 01/16/2009 @ 12:30PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Until we have a 100% effective birth control method available to all [and NO, abstinence is NOT the answer, never has and never will be; study history], unfortunately, there will have to be access to abortion.
Yes, Natasha, the anti-abortion movement targets women, treating them as "receptacles" of potential life deemed more important than their lives despite the number of years and energy already invested--that is simply anti-female. To make abortion unnecessary, we need science to pursue full-proof contraception. It is too ironic that insurance companies will pay for Viagra, that so much money has been spent on male virility and producing viable sperm while effective contraception languishes, false information about condoms [which do not even stop an already combined sperm and egg] is deliberately spread, contraceptive coverage is being dropped by insurance companies, and pharmacists can now refuse to fill such prescriptions. Pro-life? No. Anti-female.
Posted by lana matthews on 01/16/2009 @ 01:29PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I have never understood why the "Christ Followers" feel they are compelled to impose their beliefs on everyone. Remindes me of the crusades back then they just killed every one that did not follow Christ. Today they maintain the same basic philosophy except they try to use laws and our lawmakers to force all Americans to do as they do.
A WOMAN'S BODY IS HERS SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WITH AND MAKE DECISIONS AFFECTING HER BODY AND NO OTHERS...
Posted by Cherokee Fred Jesus on 01/16/2009 @ 01:37PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Fred, lana, Natasha - all for the win!!!
Great responses, all of you. And true true true.
Posted by Leigh Graham on 01/16/2009 @ 01:45PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Lana,
You are seriously mis-informed that pro-lifers are ant-women. Half of the lives saved by abortion alternatives are women.
In China the figure is around two-thirds because the monther wants a son instead of a daughter.
Posted by Paul boboige on 01/16/2009 @ 04:58PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
How can anybody say that the rights of a woman is so great that they can kill their baby without consiquence... KILLING! .. how terrible and what a serious blow to a "civilized" society
Posted by Kyle Kearns on 01/16/2009 @ 07:44PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
We need a reliable male birth control pill. Period. Abortion isn't pretty or pleasant, but I bet we could cut both the number of abortions (by a drastic amount) and the number or unwanted babies by simply having birth control available for teen boys. Condoms don't work all that well.
Posted by Jennifer Leaf on 01/16/2009 @ 08:29PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Sorry to burst your bubble Kyle, but as a man, you should get no legal nor 'moral' say in this conversation. It is not my place, nor yours, to impose laws that do not personally affect you on a woman who herself might be pregnant, no matter how much you think so. Grow a vagina. Then you get to speak.
Posted by Eric Nusser on 01/16/2009 @ 10:53PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Roe v Wade is a great legacy, one that protects the individual from government interference in what is an extremely private decision about life and health. The impoverished deserve full access to health care choices.
I disagree, Eric. Men get a say, too (though not the final say). Encouraging men to support women in this matter is critical, I'd argue, as the anti-choice contingent is highly unified, men and women both.
Posted by . . on 01/17/2009 @ 04:53AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Kyle Kearns, you are such a loser, if you really want to save lives, go pro-abortion. There are three things that could happen if we all go pro-life.(which is actually pro-death) 1. The baby could grow up to be like Hitler and kill us all. 2. The baby could be the last baby born because of overpopulation, and too many people can cause a dangerous effect of global warming, killing us all. 3. The new people could kill all animals and look to other people as food.
If you really care about life, go pro-abortion, because another baby could be the end of all life. Abortion is not killing, it is saving lives.
Posted by Michelle Papaycik on 01/17/2009 @ 08:26AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I just wanted to write to express my disappointment at the sterotyping in some of your posts. Not all anti-abortion activists oppose abortion on religious grounds. Quite the opposite, I see many of the pro-abortion arguments as being being illogical, because they appear to promulgate that life begins at birth itself and that fetuses are not yet human, and thus worthy of human rights until they are born.
Once we are born, the law protects a person's right to life above another person's well being (social, fiscal etc..) Why then are fetuses' lives not protected above the social and economic well-being of their parents? Note that I would not in cases where a mother's physical life is endangered by pregnancy(in cases of disease, pregnancy complications etc.) force her to choose the child's life before her own, but why should we as poor women (and I am a low income woman at the moment) be able to put our financial health ahead of a fetus' life. That to me defies logic, as our American credo is "Life.." followed by "liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
And just to let you all know, I am pro-LGBT rights, anti-death penalty, and for major welfare and health care reform (including access to birth control methods for to all) to aid more Americans in a more meaningful way. I am a democrat for life...and I don't fit your media promulgated model of "pro-life, religious fanatic." The stereotype just serves to discount the movement before intelligent, productive conversation can even occur.
Posted by amanda skehan on 01/17/2009 @ 10:49AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well said Amanda!!!! Another thing that's contradicting in pro choice arguments is that they say its a critical option for a woman's well being, yet studies all show that abortion can be incredibly harmful to a woman who gets one both physically and psychologically. If women have the "right" to abortion than they should damn well have the right to informed, safe consent, something which the majority of them do not receive in abortion clinics who try to illustrate it as a safe operation akin to removing a tooth.
And if you want point to how the studies are "disputed", they're disputed in the exact same way that studies pointing to global warming are "disputed" (ie get two biased sources to dispute it on weak grounds just so you can go "there! its disputed so i don't have to listen"). So unless you all want to give up your love of the "green" cause, then I suggest you all take a good, hard, HONEST look at all the effects that abortion has on a woman who gets one.
And to the person who said "The baby could grow up to be like Hitler and kill us all", that's retarded, the baby could just as easily grow up to be the next MLK, the curer of cancer, the person who ends poverty.
Lastly, the fact that things like "legalize medical marijuana" amongst other shams got more attention and push than the campaign to end the monstrous genocide in Darfur is disgusting. I thought that with the election of a person like Obama (or even McCain when it comes to foreign policy) would begin a new era of concern for other countries from the States regardless of economic interest, but instead its all ready looking like we're going to get a repeat of the Clinton years.
Posted by Daniel McGarry on 01/17/2009 @ 11:37AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Amanda - I don't know who you are referencing re: sterotyping. Please show me in the post where I mention religion, or pro-life advocates. The closest inference is in the mention of adoption.
Other than that, I warn off people who hold classist or racist beliefs, and I criticize policies.
But perhaps you're speaking to someone else...otherwise, your criticism is unwarranted.
Posted by Leigh Graham on 01/17/2009 @ 12:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Daniel - I know abortion counselors who work closely with women to ensure they are making the right choice for them. I know women who have had abortions who felt strongly that it was the best choice for them, and did not have the presumed gutwrenching torment that many women do have. Stop acting as if women who choose to end unwanted pregnancies are doing so in a drive-by, uninformed, on-a-lark kind of manner. It's insulting to women's intelligence and agency.
Finally, medically, it is an extremely safe procedure, so the dental comparison is warranted in that sense.
Posted by Leigh Graham on 01/17/2009 @ 12:05PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'd like to add that it'd be nice to see this level of enthusiasm for the low-income women (and the children they are already raising!) referenced in this post as their "unborn" get. Why not take that energy and devote it towards activism for full access to contraception, more generous public assistance programs and more comprehensive social service programs for low-income women and children?
Posted by Leigh Graham on 01/17/2009 @ 12:08PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Leigh I was speaking to other people with regards to sterotyping anti-abortionists (specifically fred and lana.) With regards to your initial post, I agree with your assesment that poverty and one's estimation of their own ability to afford a child is a great deciding factor in having an abortion. Thus, as I posted earlier, I have as much concern for parents (not just mothers) and their born children. This is why I believe that we need to make healthcare accessible to all and also develop more impactful welfare programs.
I will devote myself to both aims...anti-abortion activism and better social aid programs because I believe that both are essential to promoting the well-being and dignity of ALL humans.
Posted by amanda skehan on 01/17/2009 @ 12:32PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Pro-lifers, you should respect the choices of others.
It's an INDIVIDUAL'S place to decide what's best for them in their situation, not the general population, or the special interests.
Posted by Rachel Schweizer on 01/17/2009 @ 04:45PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
All I know is that so-called Feminist are doing some strange things.
Please sign my petition and pass it on
http://www.petitiononline.com/ivfrape/petition.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SAVE BABY X
Artificial Insemination used for Immigration & Paternity Fraud and the complete removal of this child's rights to a father.
Baby X has been stripped of his rights to have a father, by the State of New Jersey and Bergen County Courts, by a malicious plot involving NJ Bergen County Family Court and the corrupt Judge Edward Torack, Dr. Tanmoy Mukherjee, of the Mount Sinai Hospital/Reproductive Medical Center of New York.
Baby X is a victim of a sinister plot by the ruling class to destroy
Black Families and Men using the false flag of Child Support system and Women's Rights. Baby X was created during unauthorized artificial insemination by Dr. Mukherjee and a Black Woman facing deportation for defrauding a university in New York City. In order to avoid deportation, Dr. Mukherjee and The Mother of Baby X conspired together to take and illegally use the semen of a Black Male US Citizen in order to perform an artificial insemination, and create an anchor baby. They also conspired to victimize the said Black Male with the responsibility of Child Support without his consent to an IVF.
During hearings at NJ Bergen County Family Court, Baby X's Father was able to present a copy of Baby X's Mother's immigration records (which should a history of immigration fraud conducted by Baby X's Mother) and get Baby X's Mother to admit, under questioning, that she had the child via Unauthorized Medical Experiment/IVF.
Immediately after clear evidence was presented in the court, that Baby X was created by an via Unauthorized Medical Experiment/IVF for the purposes Immigration Fraud, the Father was completely banned from all courts and all judges - by the corrupt Judge Edward Torack of NJ Bergen County Family Court.
The court ban against the Father to Baby X includes the denial of the following rights:
1) Ban against a "Request for a DNA test of all parties"
2) Access to appeal & any other judges/courts
3) Ban against visitation between Baby X and Father X.
4) Any modifications to Child Support, including a decrease in income of Father X
5) Any ruling on evidence pertaining to immigration and paternity
fraud in the case.
The end result is to totally strip Father X from any rights to the
child except to shut up and pay. He did not have a right to say when where and how to have a baby, and he did not have a right to have any representation in court. And therefore the State of New Jersey has stripped Baby X's right to have a Father!
Posted by Freeman Jackson on 01/17/2009 @ 05:59PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
For some reason I have never met a woman who had an abortion that does not stop talking about having babies. The women that were raped felt horrible about having an abortion but were told by their parents that it was the best thing to do. Now they have psychological problems because of not only the rape but abortion. The women that were on their third abortion were always told by their boyfriend to have one. They could care less how their girlfriend was feeling. The woman would be depressed and the man would be rejoicing. Some men need to wake up, grow up and put on a freaking condom. If you do not have a condom there is always other ways to have a good time :) If all sound women were real feminist they would be stronger than men and raise that baby or find a good family to take care of it. However cases of incest, women that suffer from mental illness or retardation are different cases. It seems that it is smart women that get themselves in these horrible situations. It is natural for a woman to give birth. We are animals and it is instinct to give birth/life not take it away. I imagine there are men out there that were caring for their girlfriend after an abortion but if they really cared they would have put on a condom. Also there are plenty of gay couples that would adopt.
Posted by Sarah Steiner on 01/17/2009 @ 06:58PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I really detest that phrase: 'reproductive freedom'. It sounds awful. Actually, it sounds like: I'll keep you, but I'll throw you away because I have the freedom to do just that. It sounds like: ok, I'm ready to have you so I will call you a baby. I am not ready or wanting you, so you are a fetus.
It says: life is cheap.
It says: life is chooseable to have or not to have.
To me, 'reproductive freedom' is a most arrogant phrase.
Either life matters or it doesn't matter. I don't think each person has the right to decide which one counts--or doesn't count.
The essence of life is that it grows and developes. That is what life is. To stop the process from growing and developing is called murder, or if you don't want to face that reality, you call it, abortion, or reproductive freedom, or some phrase that doesn't say the reality.
Ok. I am 69. I have never had a child. I never got pregnant. I knew what caused pregnancy and said 'no' for years and years. Then I got married. Situations were such that, I could have gotten pregnant, but just choose not to. It was a mutual decision.
What is so hard about 'no'? Why is it so hard for everyone to say no?
Oh I can almost hear the righteous ones screaming: oh! what about a child from rape? or incest? or something worse? (which isn't really what 'reproductive freedom is about, now, is it?)
So, a child is a child. A baby is a baby. It starts growing and developing from the very beginning. That's that.
Why is it so hard for people to see that?
If they want to kill their child, then call the act what it is. Don't hide under terms and phrases. If our Laws want to make murder legal when it comes to babies, ok, then so be it. That's the way the law is.
But always know: all that is legal is not good; and, all that is good is not legal. gh
Posted by Georgia Hedrick on 01/18/2009 @ 06:19AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Rachel,If our convictions tells us that young children are being dismembered then wouldn't we be sub-human not to speak up? Above all, this is a highly nuanced issue, which deserves more than a little conversation and debate- to find a suitable answer to the problem there will have to be great debate.
Posted by amanda skehan on 01/18/2009 @ 07:50AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
religiious guilt & lies that menstruation is murder must be exposed, theocracy is bad & illegal, the Vatican is wrong about "life" in a corrupt organization of billion dollar bankers (Banco Ambrosiano) pedophiles & evidence destroyers, if women were priests 300 years ago, "the church" would have reformed it's evil ways by now & aboriton would be safe, legal & rare, a world built making life safe for all, not Hitler & the Pope causing the death of 40 million people from '33-'45.... Life began over 2 billion years ago here on earth when the first amino acid self replicated & we are simply proof of continued "life" of our forebears, sperm, egg, vagina & penis are not perfect "tools" of theocrats, not every uterus will perfectly be ready for every blastocyte, "souls" do not magically arrive into a blastocyte the moment a sperm invades an egg or the first male double helix of DNA splits & re-pairs with a female double helix.... religion & theocracy is wrong, sceince is right, stop promoting mandatory pregnancy laws which is pure slavery & stupidity against women, peace, Larry 843-926-1750
Posted by Larry CarterCenter on 01/18/2009 @ 07:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Dear Larry,
Maybe your anger is the cause of your numerous misspellings and historical inaccurracies. Calm down. it is okay. Just read more, please.
I have heard so often of the evils of 'The Church'.
I base my thoughts on 'Marie, concue sans peche'.
Where did the 'menstruation is murder' idea come from, btw?
I know that life is special; and laws, well, are not the best we have to preserve life.
Again, I say, in peace: all that is legal is not good. gh
Posted by Georgia Hedrick on 01/18/2009 @ 08:50AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Dear Larry,
I'm not concerned with souls entering physical bodies...that cannot yet be proven. I am concerned with genetically human beings being killed. They are certainly alive because their cells are splitting and performing basic functions.
While you make the point that a first trimester fetus does not yet look human, one could also note that infants appear and behave very differently from grown adults. Their heads are over large, they cannot walk or speak (for the most part) and yet we extend basic human rights to them. Likewise people with certain ailments such as down syndrome appear somewhat physically different than the mainstream population, but who among us today (of a non-eugenics mind) would deny their right to live? It is a dangerous road to start defining humans by their likeness to a standard human type. There was a time when Africans and Jews were denied their humanity by a white population who cited physical and behavioral differences between these groups and white Europeans.Today these argument are (hopefully) discounted as genetically we are all human...even the fetuses;)
It appears that everyone here is passionate about helping people...it's just that we disagree on how to best to do it.
Posted by amanda skehan on 01/18/2009 @ 09:50AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Daniel - "yet studies all show that abortion can be incredibly harmful to a woman who gets one both physically and psychologically," that's just a lie. Every bit as much as the global warming denial you claim to despise.
Amanda - You can't force an adult, or even a dead adult who isn't an organ donor, to donate even the tiniest scrap of skin or hair to the most pitiful burn victim. You can't force someone to donate an organ, not even one they have two of, to save the life of another adult. It's wrong to ask a person to give unwillingly of their own body for another, even if that person is indisputably alive, even if the chance of harm (and pregnancy can be far from harmless if you don't have proper medical care) is so negligible as to not be worth mentioning.
An ethical system that puts the wishes of a live woman behind the wishes of a dead person is completely upside down to me.
Posted by Natasha Chart on 01/19/2009 @ 05:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Why should we allow abortion to exist when it proves to be a procedure that causes harm to the mother. Mothers are more likely to have a subsequent miscarraige and experience other health problems that are directly caused by the abortion. This is nothing compared to the emotional after affects that can last as long as the mother lives. We do not have the right to kill babies. It's just that simple. Life must be preserved. I was conceived out of wedlock and i'm sure glad my mother didn't kill me.
Posted by Jason Barrett on 01/20/2009 @ 07:44AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
...Also responding the comment that Abstinence is not the answer. It would be better not to have sex and thus not have unwanted pregnancies and then abort them.
Posted by Jason Barrett on 01/20/2009 @ 08:04AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Dear Natasha,
I would hardly compare bringing a pregnancy to term to donating an organ. I beileve that we should have governance of our own bodies, but I also extend that right to fetuses. In terminating a pregnancy a woman makes a choice for her own body which imperils another human being's choice over his or her own body.
As to health risks in general (though I would not dispute that pregnancy can be very dangerous to a woman's health in some cases) if we lived in India or the Democratic Republic of Congo, where labor involves high mortality rates, than I'd say you have a point. With C-Sections so readily available in the U.S., labor is not so very risky. Medical risk is not the primary reason for most abortions anyway. It's financial concerns which impact a woman's decision.
Furthermore, I am not asking for the rights of the dead to take precedence over those of the living. Abortion involves terminating life- so I am asking for life to take precedence over other concerns.
Posted by amanda skehan on 01/20/2009 @ 12:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes, life should take precedence which is why we need to end this horrible practice now. Why do we have laws such as the baker act? ANSWER: to prevent a person who is in extreme emotional or psychological instability from harming themselves or someone else. This argument that the fetus is not considered a human life is philosophically shallow to say the least. I find it interesting that the ones making that argument are the ones who benefit the most from poor female voters in their own congressional district. This is murder.
Posted by Jason Barrett on 01/20/2009 @ 07:31PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It is fantastic that Roe survived for 36 years and that Baird vs. Eisenstadt, legalizing birth control (prochoiceleague.org), survived 37 years. The holy fanatics on this side of the world have relentless sought to end or restrict these rights. The rheteric of their mullahs resulted in countless acts of terrorism. It should be a priority with the new administration to preserve these rights and the safety of all who exercise those rights. Many police departments, media people, and even 'professional consultants,' have lost interest or the ability to adequately address security issues. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta
Posted by Rev Bookburn on 01/20/2009 @ 07:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
There are wackos in everything. I do not believe in violence as a form of protest. Our philosophical shallowness has lessened the value of human life. These kids could be our future presidents, scientists, artists that could contribute so much. Our declaration of independance declares that we have the right to life and our constitution protects life from government action. The Baker Act and Marchman act were created to protect innocent life and well being. This country goes out of it's way to protect the rights to life of everyone except the unborn. A life isn't non-human just because we can't see it yet. If it's ok for the government to kill kids, who's next?
Posted by Jason Barrett on 01/20/2009 @ 07:55PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Ladies hang in there " You and only you have the right to control what you do or do not do with your body"
Oh and keep up the good work!
Posted by Philip McCleary on 01/20/2009 @ 10:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Women have the right to choose, but the moment of choice is much earlier than what I am reading about. Women make an informed choice when they engage in sex. They know (even if they are "protected") they run the risk of pregnancy. Hey, I am a result of failed protection. I am glad that I had the chance to live my life--even with all of my trials. The fetus or baby, whatever you want to call it, is innocent. I worry about a society that does not value life because of inconvienience. I worry about a society that does not protect the innocent. I am a woman, and I enjoy sex as much as any one here does. However, I know that if I don't want to risk pregnancy, I have to say "no". Sometimes the choice doesn't allow us to have our way with everything. It's called sacrificing for the greater good. It's called having self-discipline. It's not always the easiest choice. There are great methods of contraception, which I use. I'm all for helping people have access to it, but it's still not fool proof.
Posted by Jennifer Tiszai on 01/21/2009 @ 04:10AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It amazes me that people keep saying: 'ladies, protect your own bodies'. That's good if you are referring to exercise, diet, proper life style. But when you have a new 'renter' aboard, you have just that: a new renter aboard. It isn't just you anymore. Isn't that why women who do not want this this 'renter' aboard go for the legal act of terminating its occupation? It's legal to kill babies once they begin developing within the woman. Just call it what it is, that is all I am asking.
Just say it: it is legal to kill growing babies in this country as long as they are under a certain age growth within the mother. It is not good; it is just legal. Why can't we just label it what it is?gh
Posted by Georgia Hedrick on 01/21/2009 @ 04:48AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It is a sign of true poverty in a nation when its people will take the lives of its unborn babies (and yes, the pill also acts as an abortifacient to kill unborn babies...read the fine print found on the label of the murder weapon itself). There is less evil in making into policy that we as a nation take the lives of grown adults for whatever reason using the same barbaric techniques employed in abortion (or even the more sinister and hidden techniques employed in contraception) than the taking of the innocent life of an unborn baby. Because of abortion and contraception alone (the shear numbers of lives taken) we are truly the most barbaric society ever known to man. If we are willing to take the life of an unborn baby (a human life in its most helpless state when it most needs the protection of parents and society) then every other life taken in less helpless stages of human existance (the state of childhood or adulthood) is also not sacred. If we cannot appreciate the lives of others (unborn babies) then we cannot appreciate our own life. There is no escaping this truth...if we do not appreciate the one we cannot appreciate the other.
Posted by Lane Soukup on 01/21/2009 @ 07:32AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Lane,
The pill may sometimes cause embryos not to implant, but if you take the pill according to It's when you skip days that you get pregnant and then risk an abortion via failed implantation caused by the pill. Of course, rosemary and a variety of herbs can have the same effect.
I'm curious, are you opposed to condoms as well? I'm not being snarky, I'd just like to hear your thoughts. I happen to think that they may have been one of the best inventions mankind ever came up with. And at this point they are the best method for reducing both unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
Posted by amanda skehan on 01/21/2009 @ 08:10AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I read several of the comments above and was deeply saddened. How can our nation be so blinded to the truth? Have none of you that support abortion seen an ultra-sound of a baby??? I have three children and cannot imagine that you do not believe these are live babies we are talking about. What is a pregnancy then? I am baffled that some of you are the same ones who are huge animal rights supporters etc. yet when it comes to our own children feel murder is ok if our life-style demands it. These are children we are talking about. Do not children have rights to be heard as well as us women???
Posted by Valerie Buller on 01/21/2009 @ 06:38PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Hello Valerie
It is not murder plan and simple. In my 52 years on this earth I have never been to the funeral of a first trimester cell clump. That is all it is, a clump of cells no more or less living than a group of cancer cells. No one holds funerals for these clumps of cells, the law does not require that they be sent to the coroners office to determine the cause of death. Why because they are not beings and can not exist outside the mother. As a child that was made for all the wrong reasons I know I would have been better off to have not known the things I learned as a child. Maybe my soul would have then went to a child that was wanted and one that would have been well cared for. But my mother did not have the right to choose. Oh and I do not support the animal rights bunch. Animals were placed on this earth for us to eat not to be made in to pets. My 10 year old niece said it best when she was asked the names of her 4-H pigs. Bacon and Ham she replied.
I wish you peace
Phil
Posted by Philip McCleary on 01/21/2009 @ 07:26PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The growth of a child within the mother is a 'clump of cells no more or less living than a group of cancer cells'?
Then what: poof! magic happens! ??? If you leave that clump of cells in the mommy's womb long enough, it turns into a baby??? Now that's a nutsy explanation to a real child: "Dear, you were once a clump of cells, like cancer, but, don't worry, you turned into a real child somewhere a long the line of development. and you became a child and were born.'
Not only is all that is legal, not good, but explaning an ungood law to a child gets to sounding ridiculous.
Try that on your child, Mr.Philip: tell the child: "Once you were a clump, a cluster of cells, like cancer, dear..." Nice.
gh
Posted by Georgia Hedrick on 01/22/2009 @ 04:11AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Hello Georgia
You used my words to prove my point. Thank you. What starts out as a clump of cells does at some point become a seperate life that can live outside the mother. After that point is reached I find that destroying the child is murder. An example is a 3rd trimester abortion or so called late abortion. I also feel a need to say that in my family we would never ever assist any family member down the road to abortion. We have and will always band together to support the mother. There was one time when an abortion happened outside of our knowledge at the time and the pain is still to this day very hard to take. But I must support the right for others to choose what is the correct path for them.
I wish you peace.
Phil
Posted by Philip McCleary on 01/22/2009 @ 01:16PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
When the "YOU" is trying to tell someone else what to do and what not to do...
the YOU in you is trying to CONTROL "OTHERS"... WE are all guilty of this Ego (with that said...)
LIVE AND LET LIVE. LIVE YOUR LIFE in the best way "YOU" see fit.
THE OTHER is of no concern unless he or she is harming "YOU" or someone "YOU" know.
A woman's womb is a seperate, private entity. A woman's womb is her own sanctuary. It requires no other arguement, no other discussion. It is hers and hers alone. In the quite stillness of the womb, it is not the concern of the "OTHER," the YOU. It is hers and hers alone. YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE.
PRAY AND WISH GREATNESS AND LOVE FOR THE "OTHER".
DO NOT JUDGE, LEST YEA BE JUDGED.
DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU.
JUST LIVE THE LIFE OF "YOU".
We must all evolve past the simple old arguements. We must move on to love each other and judge each other not.
We are all Pro-life, Pro Peace, Pro-Choice. Embrace your own humanity and accept that as human beings, we are all, ALL of these things.
Live and Let Live... YOU can only choose to live YOUR OWN BEST LIFE. I love everyone regardless of their life "choices". May the universe (insert your God here) bless us all with many kindnessess and a life without ditress, turmoil or struggle. In the life and teachings of Jesus I pray... Amen.
Posted by Kristi Lara on 01/22/2009 @ 02:32PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
No Philip, I did not make your point. However, I learned that the people who say such as you say and others say when they decide when life if baby-life, and when life is cancer-life, I learned that there are a lot of people out there playing God.
Risky, dangerous business, playing God. gh
Posted by Georgia Hedrick on 01/22/2009 @ 02:45PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Choice is made when an intelligent being decides to risk the chance of pregnancy. That is choice. When an intelligent being says "I'm willing to risk it," that's fine. You cannot, however, then say that it's only "my body". Your choice set another life in motion. Deal with the consequences. The choice has already been made.
Posted by Jennifer Tiszai on 01/27/2009 @ 04:34AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.