Many people have cited abortion as a primary, if not the sole, reason for opposing Barack Obama. I have written several blogs and comments that have illustrated how a McCain/Palin administration would threaten not only the lives of the unborn, but also the lives of children, men, women, Americans, foreigners and anyone else with a pulse.
Let's get back to the topic of abortion. I am personally opposed to abortions - as far back as I can remember, I have believed that abortions are simply wrong in most cases. BUT... what about people like Osama Bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, Timothy McVeigh, Jeffrey Dahmer, or the rapists, murderers, and child molesters that occupy prisons - would the world be a better place had these people not been born? I suspect that the victims in these cases would say YES.
So, why would a mother choose to have an abortion?
Is that mother evil, a satan worshiper, a socialist, an atheist, OR someone who has been dealt a series of personal and economic setbacks that many of you reading this have not experienced, will not experience and cannot understand? I tend to believe the latter and research proves it.
Joseph Wright of Penn State University and Michael Bailey of Georgetown University wrote a report about this subject. "This study of all U.S. states from 1982-2000 finds that social and economic supports such as benefits for pregnant women and mothers and economic assistance to low-income families have contributed significantly to reducing the number of abortions."
The government programs that provide economic assistance are not funded by growing money on trees, they are funded by taxpayers. John McCain's "hatchet" will chop away at these programs - he will cut taxes for the rich and famous and eliminate programs to help the poor including pregnant women. So, based on two decades of irrefutable government data, if you want more abortions vote for John McCain.
What are your thoughts?
Best regards,
Jay
Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net
I have always said that the best way to eliminate abortions is to promote the following:
1) abstinence- sex should be more than recreation
2) birth control for those who don't want to practice abstinence
3) sex education in the schools- so kids know how NOT to get pregnant
4) really helpful social programs for pregnant women with no money and no one to help them
5) social programs to help families who feel they can't afford another child
Making aboretion illegal will NOT stop them. WE have to eliminate the reasons why women feel they need to have an abortion.
Making murder illegal has not stopped that either but I don't think murder should be legalized. And by the way abortion is murder
Leslie, it seems fairly simple, but the GOP loves to be stubborn and ignore the facts. The poor, pregnant women that are forced to make these decisions are not part of the GOP base - therefore, these women are irrelevant to the GOP. It's much easier for the GOP to condemn these women than to provide them the help they need.
Hugh, there is no comparison in terms of government resources. There are far more resources (taxpayer dollars) dedicated to preventing murder than there are to help prevent unwanted pregnancies and to help poor women who are pregnant.
Ok Jay I will semi agree with you here. First your point that people like Bin Laden and Hitler should not have born while true is not a valid argument for abortion.
However, I will state that although I am registered Independent my political beliefs are strongly Republican except for the fact that I believe a woman should have a right to choose. But I agree with you that the Republican pro-life stance that could one day force a woman suffering economic setbacks to have a child she cannot afford while at the same time opposing economic supports and assistance for low income families is hypocritical.
For a party that opposes government handouts and then takes away a woman's right to choose, perhaps forcing her to obtain government assistance doesn't make much sense to me.
Michelle
Michelle, that's a great point about the economic hypocrisy.
Jay and Michelle,
Do you think if it were easier to adopt children here in the states, more people would do so? I know a few different couples who adopted and they did it from outside of the US because of the costs.
So, just because someone has a baby, it does not mean they need to be the ones to try to AFFORD raising it.
John, My daughter is adopted from Peru, Even then the hurdles that this government put us through were ridiculous. Had it not been such a nightmare to navigate i am sure wi would have adopted more but you are at the mercy of 21 year old family sevices workers and government bureucracy not to mention the costs which are unreal.
@ John. Yes you are absolutely correct that just because someone has a baby does not mean they need to be the ones to be able to afford to raise it . Yes, it would be nice if more people could adopt in the US instead of aboard. But you overlooking the fact that carrying a baby for 9 months and giving it up for adoption is an extremely difficult decision for a woman to make. And then of course what about if the woman doesn't have medical insurance or cannot afford to miss work because of doctors appointments etc? This goes back to Jay's point about economic support.
I have to disagree with you Jay. You see once Obama raises taxes (the simple non renewal of the Bush tax cuts is a raise in itself), then people will have to cut back on what they spend. So considering they won't be spending money on going out and they will probably have to disconnect the cable, then sex will become even more popular - thus leading to more abortions!! I love my logic!! :)
Hugh, thank you for sharing you personal story. Something has to be done to accelerate the adoption process.
Without a doubt, education is the best way to reduce abortions.
One thing that I'm pretty certain about is that abortion will never be illegal in the US. The notion that it's murder is highly subjective and will continue to be. What matters is reducing the rate and I'm fine with tax money going toward education, social programs, etc.
Tchaka ~ I totally agree with you on that point. If abortionists would just show a video to potential patients before they make that decision concerning the actual effects of an abortion, then the issue would be closed.
Education is the difference, but National Organization for Women are totally against this, and also other abortion advocates.
Michelle,
While carrying a baby and giving it up must be tough on a mother, I can't imagine the feeling of knowing you had something killed that was living inside of you. I don't think anyone could say it would be any easier than carrying the baby and giving it up. Both have to be extremely emotional.
I notice that several of you are attacking my pro-choice position while ignoring Jay's original point and my comment regarding social and economic supports for pregnant women. If you expect a woman to bring a child into the world that she cannot afford to care for, then surely you support economic support programs such as welfare, medicaid, and programs which provide vouchers for nutritious food for pregnant women and children, etc. right??
Michelle
Nicholas - Potential patients need a well-rounded education which includes the effects as well as the options (such as adoption). Not sure why NOW is against it, then again NOW has it's own agenda.
In the book Freakonomics, they attribute increased abortions to decreased crime. They attribute a whole chapter to it, stating that the people with the most abortions are typically low end people in American society, so thus there end up being less thugs and criminals on the street because their parents chose to abort them.
Rob, Freakonomics was a very interesting book. It made several unusual comparisons including the one you referenced.
OK,
Jay said I couldn't comment about abortion on another blog and he led me back here. He said someone was probably the type who would drown kittens. I said, how is drowning kittens any different than letting a baby die after a botched abortion? Simple enough question, I thought. But, no answer.
Jay - it would be just as likely to abort an Einstein or a Mother Theresa as it would a Hitler or a Stalin. Freakonomics has some major errors on the part of Levitt and abortions impact on crime. Leavitt admits to at least one.
We can make a claim that more and quicker death penalties are more economically beneficial. Does that make it right? Using economics to influence moral issues is basically immoral.
Mike - Good point on economics.
Jay - While I do not support abortion I do see a need for them in some cases (i.e. life of the mother). This is however not a federal level issue; but, a state level issue as to what the citizens of each state want to provide women who are in need of help. The most effective help is always private and not governmental in nature.
Where The REAL problem lies is as a nation we no longer hold each other accountable for our actions. There is less and less personal responsibility for what we do. People can no longer or feel they can no longer turn to their families for help. If my daughters ( I have 3) were to have an unplanned pregnacy they know they can turn to mom and me, along with the rest of the family. And no we are not a perfect family by a long shot. But we all know at the end of the day what ever the problem the family will stand together. Now as a nation in general where did caring for your family go.
Personal responsibility is not taught in the home, in the schools, in college, at work, on radio or on TELEVISION. So if we are not personally responsible for anything anymore it must be the governments responsibility. Heaven help us.
Mike, Enstein vs. Stalin reinforces the abortion logic from Freakonomics. Einstein's family had much better means to raise him then did Stalin's family. Einstein's dad was an engineer and Stalin's dad was a shoemaker. Also, to suggest that using economics to influence moral issues is immoral is to suggest that socialized medicine (a/k/a universal health care) is moral and that our current system is immoral - because people suffer when they are economically disadvantaged.
Brian, I agree, personal responsibility should be taught at home. However, the American family has changed over the past few decades. In the 1950s, "dad" worked and "mom" maintained the house and raised the kids. Today, mom and dad both work (in many cases, multiple jobs) and neither are able to spend enough time to raise the kids. So, if we can't duplicate the wholesome '50s, what's the answer?
Jay - Your comment about the shoemaker and the engineer is well... have you looked at the profit margin of shoemakers lately.
Also Socialized medicine is more expensive in the long run than a free market system where no one is turned away from treatment due to economics.
My wife and I did it. Dad just has to pick the child over what is on TV. Make times like the house cleaning a family activity. Make dinner time a family activity. If one child is playing in a soccer game make it a family activity. Get the idea.
Jay, guess we no longer have to worry about the what if, of a McCain administration ;-) Woo hoo, sanity will is back in the White House.
Terry, sanity and logic in the White House will be a great change!
Jay - Wow, you are receiving some heavy responce to this subject on abortion and you know what I have to do about that..................................
My step sister was going to have an abortion back in 1982...., we talked her into having the baby, not for us, not for her but for the baby... we didnt know what was going to happen, she could not afford it and neither could my parents... BUT.. we figured that god would make a way for this to work out... because that is what he does... my sister had the baby (a girl) with intentions of giving her up for adoption and then she changed her mind...She decided to go ahead and raise her but when she was in 5th grade... she decided she could not take care of her anymore... at that point.. my parents took her and raised her. YOU WORK IT OUT.. somehow, take responsibility for what has happend and WORK IT OUT.... "the baby " is now a 26 year old beautiful woman who has had a wonderful life .... I have never been more proud of the family coming together and raising my neice... if we could not have done it.. I would much rather her have been givin up for adoption and had a life... if you ask her RIGHT now.. she says the same exact thing.. Wouldnt you? Abortion is murder.. period no matter who you swing the bat for....
Amen Tana
Tana, thank you for sharing a personal story. As I stated in my blog, I am personally opposed to abortion. It is good to hear that your step sister had a family to support her and to encourage her to give birth to her daughter. It is very sad that many women do not have this same kind of support.
Tana, I also want to reiterate that my post is about reducing abortions, not supporting them.
Jay - no, the Einstein v Stalin case does not reiforce the abortion issue from Freakonomics. Nor does the statement that using economics to influence moral issues is immoral imply anything about socialized medicine being moral. If anything, it implies the other. Socialized medicine becomes rationed medicine and that certainly is not moral.
I make no secret of the fact that I have had an abortion. My reasons were 10-fold. I would never "condemn" someone who had one or is contemplating having one. I will however try to talk them out of it because I know they will at some point in their life regret it. Had I cared about my body, cared about myself, not been depressed following my divorce, not let someone use me, had more self esteem, etc etc then I would not have put myself in the postion of needing it to begin with. I like to help women feel better about themselves and make better choices before they ever get to that low point in their lives.
Medical science being what it is, there is not a justifiable reason for allowing abortion anymore. We have many forms of birth control and I am ok with the state offering birth control for completely free to anyone who asks for it no questions asked rather than fund abortions. We have pills for women to take who have been raped. We can provide healthcare for at risk mothers. We have so many other viable options other than abortion. Abortion is the old school method. We are in the year 2008 and we should be better than this!
Wheither or not John McCain as president would have meant more abortions or not.....we'll never know.
What I do know is that the govmt has X amount of dollars to spend and they spend XXXX amount of dollars per year. How many of us are able to do that? We have to budget and they don't?
Someone needs a bookkeeper. A good one that knows what the hell they are doing and is honest.
My personal wish is that they would let us vote on where they money is spent. Something like....how much of your tax dollars do you want allocated to Nasa, to this to that. And you'd turn it in with your taxes every year. A bubble scan-tron sheet should work. Then the programs Americans want would survive and the rest would fade away.
Jay,
In the 1950s, "dad" worked and "mom" maintained the house and raised the kids. Today, mom and dad both work (in many cases, multiple jobs) and neither are able to spend enough time to raise the kids. So, if we can't duplicate the wholesome '50s, what's the answer?
Back up a little. I know a lot of Christian families that still have what you call a situation from the 50's, so it is possible. Maybe if people would be content sometimes and live within there means, they could do it. If it is important to people to raise there kids and not have a day care do it, they will find a way.
I still don't get how you linked abortions with tax cuts. Are you suggesting that if we pay for poor pregnant mothers than they will be more likely to have their kids rather than abort them. If that is the decision maker for them, then let them get abortions. I , for one, don't want more children born to broken families who rely on the state for their sustenance.
If you want a healthy state, you need healthy people. Taxing me to pay for an underage drug addicted woman to have her child does not achive that. Government handouts foster a weak people and therefor a weak society.
CF, this blog was more of an appeal to pro-life voters than to pro-choice voters.
I think that every person created by two humans having sex should have the chance to be born and not have someone else decide that they should die. You suggested that people like Hitler should never have been born and that the world would have been a better place if they had been aborted. Now this is an interesting dilemma: Hitler was a very abused child - no one wanted him. His mother was cruel to him. So is he the product of someone else's bad choices? He was still a human with the ability to utilize his free will. He chose very poorly. For this he will be judged by the creator of the universe. From these bad choices we can all learn how one person has the chance to completely change a world for good or for bad. We all think that we are just a tiny speck on the big picture - but perhaps not. I do believe that he was empowered by supernatural forces of extreme evil. But it was the choice of his free will that allowed this power to take him over. I don't think that abortion would have stopped it. Someone somewhere else would have been tempted with this extreme power of the delusion that they could rule the world. Perhaps Hitler's mother should have been aborted. But then we do not know her story. The truth is that the human condition is at times a very retched and lowly place to be. We do learn from these terrible choices of others. We learn to utilize our own free will for a better cause. If we did not have these diabolical examples we might all be making terrible choices and the world would have been destroyed a long time ago. It is only through God's grace that we are still here. Perhaps He has already stopped many other would-be Hitlers from springing up.