If not overturning RvW, how would you suggest pro-lifers fight to *end* abortion?

[Anonymous]

Ok, no more free clinics for anyone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am also very pro-choice.

That said, your misguided, single-issue voting friends are probably making the best strategic choice. The last time Roe was before the SCOTUS, it was saved only by Sandra Day O'Connor, who stated that even though Roe may have been incorrectly decided, it had put into place a societal expectation of a right that should not at this point (more than 3 decades later) be revoked. She is now gone. If the issue comes before SCOTUS again, and they can find one more vote, it will be overruled.

Yes, but that's exactly my point! If I'm correct, we have always maintained a majority of republican-appointed justices since RvW. I heard this but have not found a source to clearly verify. If they haven't found a way to overturn it, I really don't think they ever will. My guess is that republicans don't actually want it overturned. Once that's done, it's not on their platform anymore and their christian base starts to dwindle. Also, I think they forget the fact that overturning does not make abortion illegal. Just throws it back to the states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They could fight for free medical care for pregnant women, paid maternity leave, subsidised day care for lower income and middle income families, after school activities for children who have working parents.
And double benefits for those who have a child with a disability

+1

I'd add to this fight for excellent schools in all jurisdictions, free health care for children in all jurisdictions, and affordable childcare.

At that point it just wouldn't make any sense to have an abortion.

Add free or subsidized birth control to that. But as a PP said, they are against that too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing is, and I say this over and over, no one can end abortion. No one. Whether they like it or not, it is a fact of life. When legal abortion disappears, or is regulated to the point that it functionally disappears, women are killed or permanently scarred in the process of getting one. Or infanticide increases. I remember reading one book, and I apologize that it's been fifteen years and I can no longer remember the title or author, that suggested that some historic "accidental" infant deaths were suffocation.

There is no reducing abortion by legislation, there is making it more dangerous for the woman. Frankly, I wonder if anti-choice people understand and acknowledge that or if they kind of like that idea as a punishment.

Ugh. Hadn't really thought about infanticide. Very scary thought. I hate to say it, but I'm sure you are right - a lot of extremists probably feel that there should be an element of risk and pain for a woman having an abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tell your friends to worry about what goes on with their vagina's and wombs and let me worry about mine. These prolife zealot live in their little everything is black or white little biblical minds. The have no insight into anything that concerns the mother. You can't fight irrational committed type with rational thought.

Let one of these evangelical pro life advocates discover that at the age 47 they are pregnant. The fetus that you are carring with 100% assurity will not survive more that a month, most likely will not survive childbirth.
OK pro lifers chime in tell me I murdered my child, I'm evil and should be sentenced to watch partial birth abortions daily

If this is your personal story, I am very sorry that you went through this. It reminded me of someone I met several years ago. His wife almost had a miscarriage, but doctors took extreme measures to save the pregnancy even though it was clearly not a viable fetus. She gave birth and the baby was born with practically every complication imaginable. He was blind and deaf. He would never be able to walk or talk. At that time he was 10, and the dad told me that he wold not live to be 18. the parents were heavily in debt and they were in the process of divorcing because their marriage could not survive the stress. This has nothing to do with abortion, but just wanted to share in case you ever have "what if" moments. Even if your baby had survived a month, I'm sure that month would have been full of pain and suffering for the baby. You are a strong woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Cry me a river. The question you posed delt with a nanny, and what's ironic is my wife is preggers right now, so no, I'd not want her to be fired, but we both bear the burden that we don't expect our employers to bend over for our needs. In the real world, the individual that simply cannot meet the demands of a FT job have to make some difficult decisions.

I know, in your world I'm evil, but it's reality.

And because of reality you cannot stand in judgement and demand that women in dire circumstances have babies. You are married and have a job, every woman does not have a man like you. Some women have a man even better than what you are, but not with a stable job and for them a womans job is not something they canafford to lose when pregrnant.
Your baby is not in any way better than someone elses. We are all human
As long as the employer is not able to see that, every healthy pregnancy is not feasible.

Unless te society does provide a safety net for women and families, which it does not do and will not do for a very long time.

I'm a little unsure what you're arguing here, but I am enjoying this discussion (genuine, not snark). I think you're saying a couple of different things above, suggesting that I (or my party) would prefer to essentially force a woman to have her child, being born during uncertain times, or conversly prevent her from aborting since she may not be ready. I am pro-life, although not single issue. I don't know, OP's looking for solutions, and this may not be one, but I think a healthy dose of reminding prospective mothers that the social safety net can't (not won't) be there for them is a helpful reminder.

Bear with me here, point being that we could probably agree that current strategies may be failing, i.e. sex ed., controception, etc., to stem the tide of chrildren born out of wedlock or by accident. Maybe the fear of losing the social safety net might cause them to be more responsible. I don't want to get into a dependency rant, but when the expectation is that the net will be there, and it typically is, then the disincentive to be more careful may be going away.

I think an interesting case study is the new CEO of Yahoo! as I understand it, she plans to work through her pregnancy, which is great, but I think even she would state that she's got a remendous amount of support beneath her, and she appears to be the exception, not the rule. I'm not suggesting moms stay at home, I'm married to a working (preggo mom). It just gets very dicey and challenging to put businesses into the position of making decisions based on rigid PC laws, no matter how heartening they are.

What happens if Yahoo! tanks and she's got a four month old. I'm not saying we should be worried about her finances, but is teh Yahoo! board now in the position of firing a poorly performing CEO who just gave birth? I don't think either would happen, largely b/c she probably has a good supporting team beneath her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A heart issue? What is this the Hallmark Channel?

Abortion has been around since women have been getting pregnant - forever!

You will never get rid of it, only push it into the black market.

I am personally pro-life and politically pro-choice, if that makes sense. My pro-life friends, and I have quite a few, are fighting to erode abortion laws.

They do so on a state-by-state basis -- the ultrasound law, the waiting period. They want to chip away slowly at what has become an entitlement in their minds.

One pro-life friend told me she would be very happy to see abortion limited to rape, incest and mother's life issues, even though she is staunchly pro-life in all those situations. She would consider that a start.

Most pro-lifers view abortion as sort of a litmus test for how depraved our society is. They truly believe it is akin to the Holocaust.

There will never be a meeting of the minds or the "hearts" on this matter, just compromise.

Oh, as for birth control -- forget it. While that makes total sense to secular pro-choicers as a way to end abortion, most staunch pro-lifers just see that as shifting the problem.

Shifting the problem to what, pray tell? Do these lovely friends of yours think that everyone should be forced to wear a chastity belt, too?

I don't understand this either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure this is what you're asking, but one tactic used lately is to make it too expensive to perform abortions. There have been articles about how in Mississippi they added new rules and regulations for the clinics and doctors, forcing them to close. I believe in Virginia (could be wrong about the state) they have also proposed new rules to force the clinics to function like hospitals, effectively forcing many to close.

So I guess I mean pass laws to limit supply or availability, instead of making the act itself illegal.

OP here

This is a good idea. It makes sense that if abortions were expensive - and it was well-known that they are expensive - many women and girls would be much more careful. Although, if it was TOO expensive, the number of back alley abortions would rise, so there would certainly be a fine line.

I've never actually had an abortion, but from what I remember of some research I did for a paper in college, abortions were running about five hundred dollars? That was ten years ago, and I believe was without insurance. So they're kind of a reach for a lot of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Cry me a river. The question you posed delt with a nanny, and what's ironic is my wife is preggers right now, so no, I'd not want her to be fired, but we both bear the burden that we don't expect our employers to bend over for our needs. In the real world, the individual that simply cannot meet the demands of a FT job have to make some difficult decisions.

I know, in your world I'm evil, but it's reality.

And because of reality you cannot stand in judgement and demand that women in dire circumstances have babies. You are married and have a job, every woman does not have a man like you. Some women have a man even better than what you are, but not with a stable job and for them a womans job is not something they canafford to lose when pregrnant.
Your baby is not in any way better than someone elses. We are all human
As long as the employer is not able to see that, every healthy pregnancy is not feasible.

Unless te society does provide a safety net for women and families, which it does not do and will not do for a very long time.

I'm a little unsure what you're arguing here, but I am enjoying this discussion (genuine, not snark). I think you're saying a couple of different things above, suggesting that I (or my party) would prefer to essentially force a woman to have her child, being born during uncertain times, or conversly prevent her from aborting since she may not be ready. I am pro-life, although not single issue. I don't know, OP's looking for solutions, and this may not be one, but I think a healthy dose of reminding prospective mothers that the social safety net can't (not won't) be there for them is a helpful reminder.

Bear with me here, point being that we could probably agree that current strategies may be failing, i.e. sex ed., controception, etc., to stem the tide of chrildren born out of wedlock or by accident. Maybe the fear of losing the social safety net might cause them to be more responsible. I don't want to get into a dependency rant, but when the expectation is that the net will be there, and it typically is, then the disincentive to be more careful may be going away.

I think an interesting case study is the new CEO of Yahoo! as I understand it, she plans to work through her pregnancy, which is great, but I think even she would state that she's got a remendous amount of support beneath her, and she appears to be the exception, not the rule. I'm not suggesting moms stay at home, I'm married to a working (preggo mom). It just gets very dicey and challenging to put businesses into the position of making decisions based on rigid PC laws, no matter how heartening they are.

What happens if Yahoo! tanks and she's got a four month old. I'm not saying we should be worried about her finances, but is teh Yahoo! board now in the position of firing a poorly performing CEO who just gave birth? I don't think either would happen, largely b/c she probably has a good supporting team beneath her.

How many women do you personally know who would seek out government as a first step if their money situation got dire? Like, really, who among your friends would be signing up? Maybe you have a lot of female friends who you think would rather be on the dole? Among my friends? None. For none of them would "government assistance" be the first thing they'd think of, and I think that's true for a majority of Americans. Plus, bennies are just not that good from what I've read. When my husband was fired the first year of our marriage (ten years ago) and after not finding a job of any kind for three months, he did inquire to see what unemployment would be. Since he'd been part time (we were students) a grand total of 132.00 a month. That's just one example, but I don't think anyone makes decisions thinking about what the "welfare state" can provide. Because in this country, it's jack. Now Norway or France....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:these men need to lose some weight

Here's a thought: We are all Americans, or at least fellow human beings. The fact that we have different ideas on who would be the best choice to lead the country, or which ideas are the best way to achieve common goals, is no reason to dislike each other. Try to discuss the issues.

Stupid video stupid answer .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Cry me a river. The question you posed delt with a nanny, and what's ironic is my wife is preggers right now, so no, I'd not want her to be fired, but we both bear the burden that we don't expect our employers to bend over for our needs. In the real world, the individual that simply cannot meet the demands of a FT job have to make some difficult decisions.

I know, in your world I'm evil, but it's reality.

And because of reality you cannot stand in judgement and demand that women in dire circumstances have babies. You are married and have a job, every woman does not have a man like you. Some women have a man even better than what you are, but not with a stable job and for them a womans job is not something they canafford to lose when pregrnant.
Your baby is not in any way better than someone elses. We are all human
As long as the employer is not able to see that, every healthy pregnancy is not feasible.

Unless te society does provide a safety net for women and families, which it does not do and will not do for a very long time.

I'm a little unsure what you're arguing here, but I am enjoying this discussion (genuine, not snark). I think you're saying a couple of different things above, suggesting that I (or my party) would prefer to essentially force a woman to have her child, being born during uncertain times, or conversly prevent her from aborting since she may not be ready. I am pro-life, although not single issue. I don't know, OP's looking for solutions, and this may not be one, but I think a healthy dose of reminding prospective mothers that the social safety net can't (not won't) be there for them is a helpful reminder.

Bear with me here, point being that we could probably agree that current strategies may be failing, i.e. sex ed., controception, etc., to stem the tide of chrildren born out of wedlock or by accident. Maybe the fear of losing the social safety net might cause them to be more responsible. I don't want to get into a dependency rant, but when the expectation is that the net will be there, and it typically is, then the disincentive to be more careful may be going away.

I think an interesting case study is the new CEO of Yahoo! as I understand it, she plans to work through her pregnancy, which is great, but I think even she would state that she's got a remendous amount of support beneath her, and she appears to be the exception, not the rule. I'm not suggesting moms stay at home, I'm married to a working (preggo mom). It just gets very dicey and challenging to put businesses into the position of making decisions based on rigid PC laws, no matter how heartening they are.

What happens if Yahoo! tanks and she's got a four month old. I'm not saying we should be worried about her finances, but is teh Yahoo! board now in the position of firing a poorly performing CEO who just gave birth? I don't think either would happen, largely b/c she probably has a good supporting team beneath her.

How many women do you personally know who would seek out government as a first step if their money situation got dire? Like, really, who among your friends would be signing up? Maybe you have a lot of female friends who you think would rather be on the dole? Among my friends? None. For none of them would "government assistance" be the first thing they'd think of, and I think that's true for a majority of Americans. Plus, bennies are just not that good from what I've read. When my husband was fired the first year of our marriage (ten years ago) and after not finding a job of any kind for three months, he did inquire to see what unemployment would be. Since he'd been part time (we were students) a grand total of 132.00 a month. That's just one example, but I don't think anyone makes decisions thinking about what the "welfare state" can provide. Because in this country, it's jack. Now Norway or France....

I don't think either of us is referring to college educated, middle class women here. And to go one step further, many of these women I'm thinkining about are aready ON some form of assistance. Point being, if YOU are on assistance, you probaby ought to not add to that, that's basically my point here.

As you suggest, you don't know anyone, nor do I, we're talking about those much less fortunate. Giving them a leg up is important, an important component of that is they do their part and avoid adding to the system if they can prevent it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:increase the standard of living for those who do not have the means to have or rear a child


Umm, they tried this and it was called welfare and all it did was incentivize poor women to get pregnant and have babies out of wedlock.

So because a small number women have babies to get a check, you're willing to make sure that hundreds of thousands of other children live in poverty?

How very Christian of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Cry me a river. The question you posed delt with a nanny, and what's ironic is my wife is preggers right now, so no, I'd not want her to be fired, but we both bear the burden that we don't expect our employers to bend over for our needs. In the real world, the individual that simply cannot meet the demands of a FT job have to make some difficult decisions.

I know, in your world I'm evil, but it's reality.

And because of reality you cannot stand in judgement and demand that women in dire circumstances have babies. You are married and have a job, every woman does not have a man like you. Some women have a man even better than what you are, but not with a stable job and for them a womans job is not something they canafford to lose when pregrnant.
Your baby is not in any way better than someone elses. We are all human
As long as the employer is not able to see that, every healthy pregnancy is not feasible.

Unless te society does provide a safety net for women and families, which it does not do and will not do for a very long time.

I'm a little unsure what you're arguing here, but I am enjoying this discussion (genuine, not snark). I think you're saying a couple of different things above, suggesting that I (or my party) would prefer to essentially force a woman to have her child, being born during uncertain times, or conversly prevent her from aborting since she may not be ready. I am pro-life, although not single issue. I don't know, OP's looking for solutions, and this may not be one, but I think a healthy dose of reminding prospective mothers that the social safety net can't (not won't) be there for them is a helpful reminder.

Bear with me here, point being that we could probably agree that current strategies may be failing, i.e. sex ed., controception, etc., to stem the tide of chrildren born out of wedlock or by accident. Maybe the fear of losing the social safety net might cause them to be more responsible. I don't want to get into a dependency rant, but when the expectation is that the net will be there, and it typically is, then the disincentive to be more careful may be going away.

I think an interesting case study is the new CEO of Yahoo! as I understand it, she plans to work through her pregnancy, which is great, but I think even she would state that she's got a remendous amount of support beneath her, and she appears to be the exception, not the rule. I'm not suggesting moms stay at home, I'm married to a working (preggo mom). It just gets very dicey and challenging to put businesses into the position of making decisions based on rigid PC laws, no matter how heartening they are.

What happens if Yahoo! tanks and she's got a four month old. I'm not saying we should be worried about her finances, but is teh Yahoo! board now in the position of firing a poorly performing CEO who just gave birth? I don't think either would happen, largely b/c she probably has a good supporting team beneath her.

How many women do you personally know who would seek out government as a first step if their money situation got dire? Like, really, who among your friends would be signing up? Maybe you have a lot of female friends who you think would rather be on the dole? Among my friends? None. For none of them would "government assistance" be the first thing they'd think of, and I think that's true for a majority of Americans. Plus, bennies are just not that good from what I've read. When my husband was fired the first year of our marriage (ten years ago) and after not finding a job of any kind for three months, he did inquire to see what unemployment would be. Since he'd been part time (we were students) a grand total of 132.00 a month. That's just one example, but I don't think anyone makes decisions thinking about what the "welfare state" can provide. Because in this country, it's jack. Now Norway or France....

I don't think either of us is referring to college educated, middle class women here. And to go one step further, many of these women I'm thinkining about are aready ON some form of assistance. Point being, if YOU are on assistance, you probaby ought to not add to that, that's basically my point here.

As you suggest, you don't know anyone, nor do I, we're talking about those much less fortunate. Giving them a leg up is important, an important component of that is they do their part and avoid adding to the system if they can prevent it.

I don't think I get your point. Poster prior to me made it sound like the existence of safety net social programs could be bad as they might not provide a disincentive. I think that public assistance is generally a good thing, that parts of it should be overhauled and expanded. I've used the middle class safety net - mortgage deduction, federal student loans - but have never needed food stamps, section 8, welfare, etc.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand this either.

Please refer to my post at 9:34.

[Anonymous]

Overturn Roe v. Wade. Give the power back to the states.

You want an abortion? Go to a state that supports that, if yours doesn't. Where there's a will, there's a way.

And please don't give me the "Don't want an abortion? Don't have one" bit. There's no reason some of us should be forced to sit back and act as though stopping a beating heart is as simple as that.