People have to know about cheap birth control to get it.
Put RU486 and other drugs on the shelves and let people know it and make it affordable.
Then it is no ones problem and abortion goes away

But as the same groups don't want you using that either, there the hypocracy comes in

And that is certainly something that we need to advance as part of our cause.

However, by doing something - by going after this issue in a persuasive way - by reassuring our base that we are not advancing any limits on abortion, but rather providing more support for women - we can restle the issue away from religious right and the next time the evangelicals go into the voting booth they may think - you know - the Demcorats actually want to solve the underlying problem - and the Republicans say life isn't worth the money...

The Ds have always been right for me on the other issues - I'm voting for the Ds.

For my more serious response:

Like Taz says its a matter of priorities. Not everyone supports the War in Iraq but everyone's taxes goes to it.

But if you believe that only war and a few other things are so important, if you believe that the government, an absolutely vital part of modern society without which we would all be much, much poorer, particulary those who are now the richest, should otherwise tax money at the absolute minimum to support such important things as wars that not everyone agrees with, and that the kind of things being talked about here just aren't as important as people keeping money for themselves, then we're just not going to persuade you to believe something different.

Someone is always getting money for their constituency - when the Ds are in we take a little more from the wealthy and corporate world - and redistribute it - politics is about wealth distribution.

You put it where it will do the most good and I think it could do a lot of good here.

I agree. We are all a part of the same community, which needs the government to work well. We all need each other and would not achieve what we could without others. This includes the rich. Not that I would take so much money from them that they'd no longer be rich, but there's nothing wrong with "taking a little more form the wealthy."

I believe that many of the most wealthy in our society would be willing to give their tax cuts back. I believe many could be convinced that in this time of war and scarifice it is the least that they could do. However, the selfish person of George W. Bush will not allow them the opportunity to do this.

Yes. I think that my last signature line has some relevance here.

Perhaps this is why he endorsed Kerry.

I wish Kerry would have used him more in the campaign, but perhaps Buffet did not want to be used any more than his endorsement.

WHat is being talked about here is a plan in which Democrats can take votes away from the Repubs by trying to show 'the people' how they hold some higher-moral ground, or have the better opinion of what is right & wrong concerning the issue of abortion....plans of getting more votes by trying to prove that being pro-abortion is somehow more Christian then Pro-Life...plans to have the rest of the tax payers cover the cost of ALL stages of an unplanned pregnancy...and plans of giving the gov't even greater control over & more interference in PERSONAL responsibilities.

We are talking about federal involvement in abortion, not the moral discussion of whether it is right or wrong.

Is it really so generous to feel it is Ok to do whatever 'you' want - in this case get pregnant - and yet be selfish enough to think it should be someone else's responsibility, in this case your fellow tax payers, to bail you out if you are not in a good financial position to give birth?

Graham hit it right with the need for education, allowing birth control etc. - which is where the radical right loses credibility. THAT stance however, just like them thinking abortion is murder - is more moral in nature, and not so political.

My point was though, this is what could happen if parents were required to find out. I'm not for this requirement because there are potentially so many bad things that could happen to the girls. I'm not even remotely trying to claim that this would be the norm. I think most parents would be extremely understand and realize the difficult choice their daughter had. But, there are exceptions so you can't make a rule without taking into consideration the exceptions. I think this story serves as an important reminder for all of us. Regardless of the woman's age, what to do about an unplanned pregnancy is HER choice, not her parents, not her boyfriends, because SHE is the one who has to live with the consequences.

No - what is being talked about here is how the Democrats can advance their own agenda (health care for all) and also demonstrate their respect for life...


We are not talking about federal involvement we are talking about the rights of women and the need for them to have a better quality of options available - including promoting adoptions and helping children and promoting health care coverage and day care for those who can least afford it but who we would like to be active participants in our society.



Politics is about choices and priorities.

Do we value human life?

Yes.

Do we value our constitution?

Yes. It provides a right to choose. We must safeguard this right.

Are there other ways that we can value human life other than how we already do which also safeguards the right to choose?

Many of us believe there is.

I agree with you, although I experience your tone as angry and threatening. I think the emphasis should be on prevention of unwanted pregnancy. In fact, I would prefer that we try to promote smaller families in general. I don't like the idea of making it so easy to have children out of wedlock. It's bad for women who must raise children alone and it's bad for children because they are usually at an economic disadvantage. We don't want to promote a culture of pregnancy!

If the goal is universal health coverage for all Americans, then pre-natal and post-natal care would be included as a matter of course.

Two points:

1. The fact that we allow parents to raise their own kids results in problems, period. Bad things will happen because some parents are going to mess it up, even some of the "priveleged". But we go by the norm and don't take away parental rights except under extreme circumstances. I think those rights should include the right to decide on medical procedures for the children.

2. When my daughter is 13, 14 or even 16, she will not be a "woman". I will want to right to decide on things like that, because she still will not have attained the maturity to decide those things on her own. Yes, she will have to live with the consequences, therefore she should not be allowed to make a decision that would lead to bad ones.

This thread is interesting because I realize that many in the Democratic Party can agree on this subject as long as we dont bring moral judgement in it.

Most of the posts I disagree with here are posts who imply (directly or inderectly) that we must do something to dissuade somebody who does not want to keep the pregnancy going to have an abortion, either on the pretext she is too young to choose or by gratifying financially somebody who keeps the pregnancy going. I am not sure whether the people who propose that realize why I see that they are trying to push their moral values on somebody else (even if this is in a very benevolent view).

I would have to disagree. If my daughter were to come to me and tell me that she were pregnant, I would be supportive, discuss her options, see how she felt about it, but ultimately leave the decision up to her. I may say what I think is the best option, but I would NEVER force my solution on her. It wouldn't be right of me to tell her what to do because it would be her child, her life, and her responsibility. I couldn't live with myself if I ruined my daughters life by forcing her into a life altering decision she didn't want.

So am I against parents knowing, the same with birth control. I wish more parents were more understanding. It could happen to anyone. This was a sad case.

I really don't see that. I am pro-life but I would not want the government pushing whatever view on a woman. It's a matter of saying, you have options. To make it easier on a woman to decide against an abortion is not pushing a view on her.

I think that you may also alluding to the parental consent issue, which I think has such unique concerns that it should be discussed a distinct, if related issue.

What if she decided on a life altering decision that she later decided she didn't want?

Giving a tax incentive for women not to have an abortion but give the child for adoption in a implicit moral judgement that says our society should see abortion as bad. I dont want society to make that judgement for me. I want to make the judgement for myself and allow you or anybodyelse to make the judgement for themselves.

I like the ideas about providing health-care and other relief as ways of reducing abortions.

I also would, in theory, be willing to accept some things like parental notification and limitations on late-term abortions.

However, I have a nagging fear that if we easily compromise on these issues, we will move the abortion argument further to the right. Opponents will not be happy until abortion is banned. So if we yield ground, suddenly we are debating second-trimester abortions instead of late-term.

While compromising may help us win some votes short-term, I am concerned that long-term it might do grave damage to abortion rights.

I agree, and I think it promotes a culture of pregnancy as some kind of deal with the government.

We are already there in the foetus suffering Act (not sure this is the name). At this point, it is not supposed to forbid abortion, but the only real logical conclusion if it passes is to forbid abortion after the first term.

Would you therefore also oppose Medicaid or any other government funding of abortion?

Not the same thing. In one case, we are talking about a medical procedure. In the other case, about an incentive to do something. Medicaid covers pregnancy costs already, I imagine. If not, it should cover them for all women, not only those who give the baby to adoption.

How about giving incentives to those who would adopt (not those who would put children up for adoption) and helping out the low-income anyway, which would include single women, who might have children? Plus we always make sure that birth control is available and do what we can to make sure that women are educated about it.

I dont have any problem there. This seems a good solution and it is important that kids that are adoptable can find a loving environment.

Well, this is already coming true then. After passing the partial-birth ban, the anti-abortion folks are taking aim at all other abortions past the first trimester. The problem is that this is a never-ending debate. Compromise, and the ground will shift. The issue won't go away.

Yes, it is a medical procedure, but by funding it you are also giving people an incentive to do something. I think that you're trying to have it both ways.

I don't see the problem of government helping out in giving options to women on this. I wouldn't discriminate with poor women over what decision they made on abortion. I certainly wouldn't pay a woman to put up a baby for adoption. Giving incentives to adoptive parents is a different thing.

As I said earlier, I agree with you on that.

But I think that you falling into the same fallacy that I think Graham fell in, we aren't trying to appease the right-wing. That wouldn't work, they will attack anything we do as fraudulent anyway. We are trying to appeal to open-minded people with some pro-life attitudes. The debate won't go away, but that is not the aim. The aim is to shift the debate to ground more favorable to us.

Perhaps we don't have a real disagreement then.

I would disagree.

It doe snot say abortion is wrong, it says that the consequence of bringing a baby to term requires a certain amount of sacrifice on the part of the individual carrying the child - our society embraces a culture of life - and return for your engaging in that sacrifice and placing the child up for adoption we are willing to compensate you.

The abortion on the other hand does not involve the type of sacrifice incidential to bringing a child to term, though it has many other incidential issues.

But I think that the incentive to adopt should go to those who would adopt rather than the woman carrying the child. By all means make sure that the woman has adequate healthcare, but I think that we should ensure all have adequate healthcare anyway.

I disagree in the sense that those choices should be personal. This is the sense of the PROCHOICE movement. If somebody wants to give birth to a child and give him/her to adoption, it is a great thing but should not be rewarded by money (besides what should be given to all pregnant women as pregnancy healthcare). It is a different question for the family that is going to adopt the child.

It sounds like the key is finding a unified, yet simple to understand position. Neither pro-life or pro-choice are simple to understand. But if you look at the word "life" vs "choice", most people question the meaning of choice without life more than the reverse.

Are we looking for consensus, or a moral high ground?

That's her consequence, her decision, her life. I speak as a young adult. I've had many friends who have been in this unfortunate position and each chose the course that was best for them. As a daughter, I would want my parents to be supportive and understanding. As an individual, I want my choice, my decision.

I think, the best thing a parent can do is say simply this, "You are my daughter, and I love you. I understand you are facing a very difficult choice, and I will be here to counsel and support you. Whatever decision you make, I will support and stand by you 100%. I trust and have faith that you will make the right decision for you."

There was a poll not to long ago on this subject and the interesting thing was that most people in the forum believed that abortion should either be left as is or not a political issue at all. I voted for the latter because I don't think we should be having this discussion, it should be between a woman and her doctor.
However since it is a political issue I see nothing wrong with being pro-life, the opposite would be pro-death and I don't know anyone who is for that. it's all in the perception. We have allowed the GOP to frame us as pro-death and imprinted that on peoples minds.
I am pro-life, specially my own. Having said that however I cannot answer for a woman who, when facing the problem of an unwanted pregnacy, decides to abort the fetus. It's between her and her maker, Jesus said "let those of you who are without sin cast the first stone" it is not for us to judge or demand the woman have the baby. we're not the ones responsible for it's upbringing and in some cases, as hard as it may sound, we may be doing the baby a favor by allow the abortion.
Our main goal should be to define pro-choice as also pro-life, but with some common sense. we should also put them on the defensive for not allowing anything but abstenence to be taught as an alternative. President Clinton said it so well, safe, available, and few. With proper education and prevention we can reduce the number of unwanted pregnacies, and the number of abortions. Our best defense is a good offense. Lets put the ball in their court.

I don't see them compromising on anything.

I had that very discussion with my daughter several years ago. I'm thankful for my beautiful Grand Daughter however if she had decided on an abortion it would have been her choice and I would have loved her no less for it.

As it should be (IMO). Good for you!

I don't question your sincerity and respect what you are saying, and I feel that you are paying me the same respect. I think that we just disagree on this. I would give your speech (or something very similar) to my daughter when she is 18 or older, but before then I would probably give her a different speech (not without the love, support and counsel part).

I agree to disagree! :D What do you expect? We are different people, with different lives, different influences, and different perspectives. So, we see things differently. There's nothing wrong with that!

Well said... and right on target IMHO.

Abortion should be entirely an individual matter... two lives are directly affected... the unborn and the mother, and the government has no business in trying to make the decisions that affect those two lives. The mother is the only one that is in a position to make the judgement of what is best for herself AND her unborn child.


As to the monetary incentives for mothers for carrying children to term to put them up for adoption...

If there is any REAL incentive (any significant amount of money or other benefit conferred) we would in essence be encouraging women to have children for profit, and not the reasons that they should be doing so. Such circumstances would encourage some women to have children solely for that purpose and may lead to another welfare-like situation which would be counter to the true intention of such a program. Not to mention... this raises a lot of morality issues.

On the surface it may sound good... but I think such a plan would be bad for everyone. Should we take steps to discourage abortion... yes, but this is not the right way to do it.

Just my $ .02.

I agree. Thank you for having the guts to bring it up this way! I do support incentives to adopt, but for prospective adoptive parents.

Three things:

1. The opposite of pro-life is not pro-death, its pro-choice. There is no "pro- death"

2.You can not reasonably be pro-life and pro-choice.

3. We don't get to define pro-life or pro-choice anymore than we get to
define our own arithemetic.

What you say will merely obfuscate the issue.

What would happen if we all came out calling ourselves pro-life?

Would it take the issue off of the table?

This is not a rhetorical question.

1.No the opposite of pro-life is pro-death or anti-death(the opposite of life is death). The opposite of pro-choice is anti-choice (in that one supports choice and the other does not)

2. You can most certainly be pro-life personally, but pro-choice politically. Lots of people are. It simply means that if you were in the position, you would have the child, but you don't want your morals to play a role in other people's lives. You believe the choice needs to be made available, not necessarily that you would choose abortion for yourself.

3. We can define whatever we want to. We are social beings that actively define the reality around us. We define them by coming up with mutually exclusive meanings for this reality. These meanings and definitions vary from culture to culture and change over time. (In fact, our math is subject to criticism and interpretation).

No, it would instantly make abortion illegal, and wipe any hope of CHOICE off the table.

You could not possibly be more out of context or more wrong!





You could not be more right.

I think the posture should be...
abortion as a last resort.

To that end we should support...

Family planning,

education on birth control,

widespread availability of birth control,

Programs to help expectant mothers be able to carry a child to birth when they don't have the support mechanisms (financial and otherwise) available to do it on their own,

Programs to promote adoption over abortion.

These are just a few ideas. I'm sure that some would draw criticism from the right... who would rather deny reality than take some of these steps. However, they can't live with their heads in the sand and can't have both sides of the abortion issue. If they don't want abortions then they have to accept sex education and widespread availability of birth control as some of the means to prevent the pregnancy.

Maybe this is one way to force their hand... and show that they can't play this both ways.