financeguy said:
The only answer - according to some people on the left - to the 'problem' of 'unwanted pregnancies' is more abortions.
It strikes me as a particularly unimaginative answer.
First, I am not a bleeding heart liberal who takes the view that society has no place discussing restrictions on abortion and bringing up the life or potential life of the fetus, etc. I am a moderate, realist liberal who is opposed to abortion and looking for a realistic way to get the number of abortions down. I am as non ideological as possible in doing this, and my view leads me to support, with a few modifications for the earlier viability you discussed, the current framework on abortion laws. If that means I am pro choice, then ok, thats the label people want to use. Please read all of this, sorry for the length in advance, but hear me out.
With all due respect, as I enjoy your posts and know you are not a radical right tool (you like Biden, if I can recall) I can think of no one on the left, at least in our politics, that thinks more abortions are a good idea. There is a very real problem of unwanted pregnanices, and subsequent absence of fathers, lack of care, poverty, etc once the baby is born. However, take a close look at the Democratic party and what they say on abortion. They emphasize reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies through contraception. Most abortions come from unwanted pregnancies, and the left has the more realistic approach re:contraception and sex ed. People will always have sex, always have, this is not a new thing, its as old as humanity. It is the right with their heads up their asses on this. Also, pro life Democrats have teamed up with pro choice Democrats to launch the 95-10 initiative, aimed at reducing the number of abortions by 95% over the next 10 yrs. This includes bills providing access to pre-natal care, making the adoption tax credit permanent, providing child health care, raising the minimum wage, all things that make the mother more likely to keep a baby as opposed to abort. Remember, 98% of abortions are done for socioeconomic reasons. Long story short, everyone agrees there are way too many abortions in this country and all want to reduce the number of abortions dramatically. This commitment within the Democratic Party goes back a long way.
Almost no abortion provider will do an abortion at the 24 week mark so its irrelevant anyways.(in fact, very few will do it after 4 months) I dont have the statistics now, but almost all women who abort that late do so for health reasons, not on demand so to speak. The vast majority of elective abortions take place in the first 8 weeks. However, I agree with your overall observation on viability, people born earlier, etc and I feel that the 24 week viability posited in Roe v Wade may have to be revisited given the changing technology and medical advancements that have allowed us to know better now. I would say 16 weeks is a feasible viability point next time the issue comes up legislatively. Politically speaking, electing Republicans and getting a Republican Supreme court has done/will do nothing to restrict abortion. It was Nixon appointees who decided Roe, Reagan had his way, Bush Sr had his way, Bush jr has had more than his way w/ the court and Roe is still there. Why? Because the Republicans know the minute they overturn roe v wade, they lose one of their most reliable, get out the base political issues that has done them very well. In addition, they piss off the 60% of the country who believes abortion should be legal in some form, they are the moderate majority who do not vote on the issue, but other issues. A good 20% of this group are swing voters. If roe goes, they show their dissatisfaction w/ Republcians, not something they will take a chance on. Republicans do not care about unborn babies, it is just an issue they know will get them a reliable, voting base. Both Bushes, Ronald Reagan (legalized abortion in CA) Mitt Romney were all pro choice until the rise of the religious right as a force to be reckoned with in the Republican party. Hell, even Bob Barr paid for his girlfriend to have an abortion back in the day. Anyone who thinks Bush is truly pro life should see me about buying the Brooklyn Bridge and half Manhattan for $1.
I have a very nuanced view not fit to a soundbite, please let me explain it, though: Personally, I oppose abortion. I would advise any woman considering one who consulted my opinion against getting one. Why? Because I personally believe life begins at conception and enjoy my life and would not rather my mother in the same position aborting me. I cant prove my belief, however, so that is why I think that ultimately the woman should decide. Does that mean that, in the public arena, we can not do everything possible to prevent and discourage abortion? Of course not, we just say that, regardless of religious/humanist belief about the origins of life, we can all agree that abortion at least eliminates a POTENTIAL life and therefore, should be discouraged. Viability, at whatever stage it can medically occur, is where I draw the line as that is something we can objectively prove. The final part of my view relates to how I view women who choose abortion: None of them wanted to be in the situation they were in, it was a series of bad decisions by both themselves and the guy that led them to get pregnant in the first place. They see abortion as the less of 2 evil ways out of a desperate situation. They dont want to get abortions, and no one, liberal, conservative, religious, atheist, whatever, is happy they get abortions either. They would all say that it would be better if the whole mess had not occured in the first place. Pro choice people do not deny that better decisions should have been made in the first place, nor do they hold a romanticized view of abortion itself, they just feel that the moral weight of this decision is such that only the woman could ultimately decide. Let us all remember that a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy choosing to have the baby is also a choice and the pro choice person would rather that outcome than abortion. No woman takes the decision lightly, it is an agonizing process. The right would have everyone think that women just have sex and get pregnant, then have abortions for the fun of it. To equate it with murder, malice afterthought, is to completely deny reality. Life begins at conception is a view I hold on faith alone, law requires facts that can be submitted and proven. An autonomous human being has to be killed with malice intent to qualify as murder. Pre viability babies are not autonomous, independent human beings legally, despite my own beliefs. I may, you may and society may discourage abortion and respect potential life wholeheartedly while still realizing that it far from constitutes murder. As for the death penalty, it does not do a damn thing to deter crime, costs more money and has so much appeals and media coverage that people forget the victim and focus on the killer. Besides, you would rather die than sit in jail for the rest of your life. No liberal is suggesting we coddle these people, jail is not a fun place to be, I have heard.
The whole premise of this thread is that liberals are cold hearted baby killers- creatures utterly different than real compassionate and humane people. Liberals have children, nurture them, love them and care for them in just as high a number as conservatives. Example: I am 20, My girlfriend, like myself, considers herself a moderate rather than a bleeding, heart hippie liberal. She is pro choice and recently attended a baby shower for another young woman who is taking an unintended pregnancy to term. She did not come home to me after the baby shower and say "that bitch should just abort and save herself and everyone else the time and aggravation." Quite the contrary, she was happy her friend had made her decision differently than had a couple other friends.