although in principle i can agree with this article (legislative backing is always preferrable to judicial, as judges are required to make decisions based upon existing law, not create laws out of thin air - that's for the politicians), i have some wariness towards the idea; i am hesitant because women don't have full equal rights as it is and are still subject to gender discrimination in our country and i'm uncomfortable with the idea of potentially removing the few hard-won rights that we do have.
in addition, if we went the legislative route, i would be happier if it was a federal law, not state-by-state. the reason for this would be that not everyone can just travel to a different state - try doing that when you live in the heart of texas or you're a teenager without a drivers' license and no income to get a bus ticket/cab fare. as much as i like states' ability to set laws based upon local needs in terms of local taxes, economic decisions, etc, i think this is a lot bigger than that and needs to be a federal law, across the board.
no one forces anyone to have an abortion, and frankly i'd prefer a federal law allowing abortions, but perhaps allowing also for a checkbox option on your federal tax return where you can decide if you want your tax dollars paying for abortions - personally, i don't think it's right on this particular issue to force those who believe abortion is murder to have to pay for it (even though they might not use the services) because it's still forcing them to participate and support something that is massively abhorrent to them and frankly, which they think will send their very souls to hell. on the other hand, i don't want to see abortion made illegal anywhere, and so i think federalizing it and making a tax option to prevent pro-lifer tax revenue from going towards it (the money could be appropriated towards welfare or foster child programs - LOL) would be the fairest option of all.
ha. on that note, i think anyone who checked on their tax return to not have their money go towards abortion clinics should be prohibited from availing themselves of the services (i'm thinking on the last abortion article you posted). or they'd have to pay in full without subsidy from the government/DSHS.
of course, i wouldn't mind seeing places of worship be made to pay taxes (why should i pay more for religions i don't believe in?), but we know that isn't going to happen anytime soon. :)
well that's nice. so then the opt-out option is stil valid because there are plenty of pro-lifers who disagree with abortions in those two cases. in addition, this means that the money the state uses to fund the DSHS funded abortions can either be redirected towards the federal fund or just be re-appropriated somewhere else.
Okay. Can my anti-war friends opt out of having any of their personal tax money sent to the Department of Defense? Can my friends who smoke pot opt out of having their taxes go to the DEA? Can I opt out of mine going to the FCC? How do you identify my particular dollar once it has been transferred to the government? This would be either a nightmare to administer, or a pretty fiction with no actual substance to back it up, depending on how it was actually put into practice.
Also, whether they like it or not, pro-lifers are members of society too, and just like the rest of us, sometimes that means funding things you disagree with. Like abortion. Or war. Or capital punishment. Or corporate protectionism. Or pick your own issue. I would tell this theoretical pro-lifer: "This is the price you pay for the benefits you get by living in America; if you don't like the deal you're getting from the society you're in, feel free to move elsewhere, such as Ireland, or stay and fight to change your fellow citizens' minds. But don't expect the government to treat you differently because your moral outrage is somehow special."
My mother, who's of the opinion that the women who back pro-life are in for a nasty shock if their aims are met, thinks that the certain people support banning abortion is because they're too young to remember just how bad it was before abortion was an option (she spent the first 25 years of her life in Minnesota and South Dakota).
However, I agree with Carville and Begalia: First, they claim that people aren't motivated to be pro-abortion because they aren't "angry" about the issue. I also agree with them in that I think the Right Wing will be in for a nasty shock if Roe is overturned because the majority of Americans will be appalled if women's rights are rolled back to, say, 1955. Rescinding that kind of freedom is simply bad for America (unless of course you are in the religious right, which may very quickly become marginalized in the event.)
That, or liberals (or, so-called Puritans--I mean, Progressives) really are wusses.
| I don't think that my view is a popular one... - girl19 [01.02.06::09:44]|| |
I feel very strongly about the responsabilities of freedom. In my own personal experience I have seen that women tend not to take responsability for their sexual freedoms. Ive seen women use abortion as birthcontrol basically. I think it is an abuse of a great tool of society to protect its people. I know many women whove had abortions but I don't know one that got pregnant because of faulty protection, rape or incest. I don't judge them for their choices. I believe that each woman should have the right to choose. But I would hope that if Roe was reversed that women would take there ability to reproduce more seriously. Sex does feel good but it also has a biological purpose and nature should not be forgotten or taken for granted.
| Re: I don't think that my view is a popular one... - tyrven [01.02.06::10:49]|| |
Most people aren't responsible, period. This is not limited to sex or women. Men are arguably less responsible with sex (although that makes sense as it's arguable that biologically they are less accountable for it).
Like you, every woman I know who has had an abortion was having it due to a previous lack of responsibility in sex (normally, neglecting to use birth control). I don't think this means that they are using abortion irresponsibly, though. They are making a difficult choice in order to take responsibility for their past actions. And yes, while abortions are arguably easier than pregnancy, it's still a difficult choice and not one that most people want to repeat (although often they do).
Ideally, I'd like most people to act more responsibly. I don't think that's realisitic, though. I think ultimately government needs to act in the best interest of society regardless of (or perhaps because) people aren't responsible. Although I also think there needs to be a level of accountability so that there isn't a learned helplessness.
| Re: I don't think that my view is a popular one... - lormagins [01.02.06::11:15]|| |
actually everyone person i know who had an abortion (myself included), it was due to a birth control failure or rape situation, not due to carelessness, although i won't deny that there are plenty of women who do use it as a form of birth control.
for me it was because my birth control pills stopped being metabolized by my body (which actually happens in a lot of women when they hit their 20s, although my gynecologists prior never mentioned this to me so i could make an educated decision about my choice of birth control). my GI tract changed. afterwards i switched to the patch because it's metabolized differently as it's absorbed via the skin, not the digestive system. i saw no reason to use condoms as my boyfriend of 2.5 years and i had exchanged STD results not long after we first started dating (and well before i went back onto the pill) and we're not poly. frankly, had my doctors bothered to actually inform me properly about the risks i might have kept using condoms out of paranoia just to be safe. it was actually the DSHS nurse who told me about this fun statistic when i went in to apply for funding for an abortion.
| Re: I don't think that my view is a popular one... - joannemerriam [01.02.06::10:53]|| |
I agree that it would be preferable for the unintended pregnancies not to happen in the first place. Most of them did get pregnant because of a man, though - why should women be the only ones taking responsibility?
My experience has been the opposite of yours. Most of the people I know who have had an abortion (where I know the circumstances) was either raped (one person) or their birth control failed (one from antibiotics, one from a broken condom and two they don't know what happened but were on the pill, presumably not for long enough or they missed a day and didn't notice). I only know one woman who'd I'd characterize as having had irresponsible sex.
I think emergency contraception should be more widely available, and people should be better educated about it, because it could solve a lot of the broken condom scenarios. It drives me wild that people are taught that it's a form of abortion.
As an aside, I've always been puzzled by the "abortion as birth control = bad" thing. By definition, all abortions are birth control. I know it's intended to mean, the woman didn't take precautions to avoid pregnancy, but it's still a weird turn of phrase.
| Re: I don't think that my view is a popular one... - tyrven [01.02.06::11:11]|| |
I totally agree with your paragraph about emergency contraception. It's far less expensive, involved and emotionally taxing than abortions.
Similar to your aside: it really bothers me when people consider emergency contraception an abortion. It's no more of an "abortion" (as I understand it technically) than birth control and, like you said, regardless it all falls under the umbrella of birth control.
| Re: I don't think that my view is a popular one... - shinyobject [02.02.06::04:18]|| |
yeah, people confuse "birth control" with, I guess, "conception control." And one thing about emergency contraception-- you have to get it before you know you're pregnant. That turns into a "Well, maybe I'm not-- I don't want to go to all that hassle.... oh shit I'm pregnant and now my only option for not having it is abortion." It's a good option, if you're aware you messed up once and care enough to see to it right then, like you said with a broken condom.
| Re: I don't think that my view is a popular one... - shinyobject [02.02.06::04:12]|| |
Yes, women are abusing the availability of abortions. Having 5 of them just because "those pills make me fat" is ridiculous. But what's the alternative?
Women get pregnant. And if I get pregnant (again), the last thing I want is a doctor, politician, or anyone other than ME deciding what I do with the potential baby. Yes, it matters if it's the result of incest or carelessness, but would you deny abortions to people who admit it's carelessness? All that would do is make them lie more.
Women have 4 options: not getting pregnant (works sometimes), carrying the baby to term and raising it, giving it up for adoption, or aborting. What would you think they should do, given an unwanted pregnancy?
| Re: I don't think that my view is a popular one... - tyrven [02.02.06::10:23]|| |
First off, I agree with you in concept.
However, legally and culturally, the sentiment that "it's my body" is bullshit, and has been since the sixties when the federal government started making a number of laws targeted at what a person can and cannot do to themselves. It is illegal to commit suicide, for instance, or to put any variety of chemicals into it. 100 years ago the idea of the goverment having that right was considered absurd and, in fact, up until I believe the sixties or seventies was considered unconstitutional.
Also, historically, there have been people who have used similar arguments to contest laws talking ahout how people should raise their children. These laws include manditory education and anti-abuse laws. Given that a large number of people out there see the unborn child as another human entity, your logic doesn't hold up.
Again, my point isn't to spout off pro-life rhetoric but to suggest that until liberals as a whole put together a stronger argument, they're just going to be spinning wheels against what ultimately comes down to fundamentally opposed value conflicts which will never be resolved (as we can see in the Middle East).
hey, i didnt read all the comments, so i apologize if this is being answered elsewhere. but i had a few questions i thought you might be able to field for me:
"Although a plurality of Americans appear to favor abortion rights substantially more limited than what Roe guarantees, significantly more voters describe themselves as "pro-choice" than "pro-life."
1. Doesn't that put some of what women are currently entitled to at risk by limiting their choices to whatever their particular state has legally sanctioned?
"80 percent of respondents have consistently favored either legal abortion in all circumstances (21 to 34 percent) or legal abortion under some circumstances (48 to 61 percent)."
2. I'm just confused on the math, if you could explain it to me like you would a 1st grader, I'd appreciate it.
And in his whole response to the question "won't we go back to the bad old days...?" he discusses the pro-choice majority and "some of the time" abortions. I'm wondering then, with the various types of abortion-reasons, where do the lines get drawn for how the tags pro-life and pro-choice get utilized. It seems to me that these tags are seized on a personal level, and with the level of ambiguity that exists for these terms, it wouldn't be too hard to find disagreements between members of either side. That being said, if electoral push came to congressional shove, how could one be sure that a majority would support some of the abortion-causes that are currently protected with Roe?
If any or all of this sounds like complete malarkey, just let me know & I'll resume quiet observation.