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.

OP here. I had a busy day so I am just now reading this. Lots of great suggestions. thanks and keep 'em coming!

I'm not attempting to change the outcome of the election. At the most, I would like to convince some of the people closest to me that perhaps they can let go of abortion as a voter issue, and begin to educate themselves on other issues. It used to make me angry that they would be in complete denial of every other issue. Now it just saddens me because I now realize that they do this because they truly feel that it would be such a mortal sin to vote for a dem!

I just don't see how abortion could effectively be settled through law/government. This is another example of how republicans claim that gov't should stay out of everyone's business...until they want gov't to control other peoples' lives.

I think most pro-lifers I know feel that exceptions should be made for rape/incest/mother's health. In reality, how could this be done?

It's not that easy to prove rape, especially date rape. Wouldn't we end up with lots of men being falsely accused of rape? And what about statutory rape? Lots of teenage girls have boyfriends who are not minors. So these girls would be able to make the decision to abort, but a 30 year old woman could not?

At what point can a DNA test be done to prove incest? I feel that abortion after 6-8 weeks should be very uncommon unless it is a medical reason, and I doubt that a DNA test could confirm incest that early. But maybe I'm wrong. So abortions due to incest would need to be later, which certainly won't be acceptable to the pro-lifers.

we would also end up with lots of doctors getting creative with their diagnosis so that a woman can abort. Also creative language for abortion, such as "D&C due to irregular period." And of course the issue of back alley abortions and border jumping will become major concerns.

This is very simplistic, but as far as education, I would compare it to smoking. We knew we couldn't make it illegal to smoke, so the focus was on education. Once the public was inundated with the facts about the health risks, the number of smokers began to drop dramatically. I think this could happen with abortion if they could shift the focus to education. and I think both sides could come together on that. We pro-choicers certainly don't LIKE abortion. Nobody does. I would certainly like to see it become rare for a woman to need/want an abortion, and I don't know anyone who wouldn't agree with that!

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.

Anonymous wrote:16:09 -- Just wanted to echo what 14:20 said about single issue voting and being pro-life.

In their mind it is an issue so great it trumps all other issues.

I am Jewish. One of my pro-life friends asked me what I would do if one candidate believed in persecuting and killing Jews. Would it matter his/her position on education and healthcare? Of course not, his desire to exterminate the Jewish people would trump all else.

That is what abortion is to them -- the mass murder of innocent lives.

Pro choice here. I totally understand this. At the same time, people need to understand that there are other people like me (like many women) who are single issue voters on the pro choice side. To me, a desire to make women slaves/baby incubators and have a society with forced maternity trumps all us.

Op to answer your question, anti abortion folks should be fighting to eradicate the need for abortion. Birth control, sex ed, and economic policies that discourage abortion. Make unwanted pregnancies rare. Give those with unwanted pregnancies little incentive to abort.

Make it illegal to distribute sperm without a license.

A lot of the supremely fundamentalist Christians consider the pill, IUDs and other common forms of contraception to be pretty much the same as abortion. This is the slippery slope that assholes like Cuccinelli are leading us onto.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm pro-life, fairly liberal, not religious. But - if someone actually thinks that abortion is murder, I understand that they can't vote for a pro-choice party. That makes sense to me. I do expect these people to support helping their less fortunate brothers and sisters as well, and not just those in their church. There are basically no politicians who have this set of positions, and I don't understand that or why most religious pro-life people just want to shut down social programs, etc.

It's called intellectual hypocrisy, my friend. Or just simply not being smart enough to understand that your positions on reproductive choice and economics/fiscal policy are incompatible in reality.

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, but they never will.

Anonymous wrote:They should make sure birth control is easily accessible and covered by insurance. Oh that's right, they don't want that either.

+1

And they maybe should think about improving the education system with NATIONAL standards that include mandatory sex education from about age 10 on that teaches the full spectrum of choices and not just "abstinence," which any rational thinking adult knows is not going to happen uniformly. Kids will have sex. Your prudish conservative friends need to learn to live with that fact and teach kids reality, not fantasy.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

these men need to lose some weight

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless we find a way to make men as responsible for the baby as what the mother is going to be.
Like jail sentences for men who do not wish to have contact and do not help with the washing or feeding or babysitting


And we could make it illegal for someone to fire a pregnant nanny

That's interesting. So when the nanny has a newborn, which baby becomes the priority? Her own or her employers? I guess that's the employers problem because it doesn't matter if they signed up for that arrangement or not if your brilliant idea became law.

I can't stand when people repeatedly misuse the term fire. Firing someone is essentially when they've f?cked up, cost the company money or did something illegal. Letting someone go, or downsizing is when the economics or other circumstances require a shift in personell.

I don't have a dog in this fight, so th HR experts that'll attack me may as well save their fingers.

Well, I'm neither in HR nor law, but I'm pretty sure firing someone, or letting them go, if you prefer, for getting pregnant is discrimination. It's not entirely protected, but really, PP you think we should just be able to fire pregnant women.

I've been "downsized," and I can assure you no matter what the reason or how it's framed, you feel 100% rejected and shitty.

I have as well, and it does. But it isn't a firing. I have no opinion, what I support is the employer's right to manage his business reasonably. When its discovered that he may not be a lawbreaker, but a rotten employer, then the free market will treat him in kind with less talent and lost business.

The free market will punish the employer? And in the mean time, the pregnant woman or new mother can just go hang? What a horrible thing to think. Firing is downsizing is terminating is releasing is getting the pink slip.

Back to OP's original question, you've provided an answer, PP: OP's anti choice friends and relatives can work toward abolishing pregnancy discrimination.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless we find a way to make men as responsible for the baby as what the mother is going to be.
Like jail sentences for men who do not wish to have contact and do not help with the washing or feeding or babysitting


And we could make it illegal for someone to fire a pregnant nanny

That's interesting. So when the nanny has a newborn, which baby becomes the priority? Her own or her employers? I guess that's the employers problem because it doesn't matter if they signed up for that arrangement or not if your brilliant idea became law.

I can't stand when people repeatedly misuse the term fire. Firing someone is essentially when they've f?cked up, cost the company money or did something illegal. Letting someone go, or downsizing is when the economics or other circumstances require a shift in personell.

I don't have a dog in this fight, so th HR experts that'll attack me may as well save their fingers.

Well, I'm neither in HR nor law, but I'm pretty sure firing someone, or letting them go, if you prefer, for getting pregnant is discrimination. It's not entirely protected, but really, PP you think we should just be able to fire pregnant women.

I've been "downsized," and I can assure you no matter what the reason or how it's framed, you feel 100% rejected and shitty.

I have as well, and it does. But it isn't a firing. I have no opinion, what I support is the employer's right to manage his business reasonably. When its discovered that he may not be a lawbreaker, but a rotten employer, then the free market will treat him in kind with less talent and lost business.

The free market will punish the employer? And in the mean time, the pregnant woman or new mother can just go hang? What a horrible thing to think. Firing is downsizing is terminating is releasing is getting the pink slip.

Back to OP's original question, you've provided an answer, PP: OP's anti choice friends and relatives can work toward abolishing pregnancy discrimination.