How to reduce abortions

Conservatives who want to reduce the occurrence of abortions in the United States should vote for a Democrat.

According to a recent story in the Deseret News, the single biggest consideration for women who choose abortions is finances. They feel that they simply cannot afford to support another child. Sixty percent of abortions are on women who already have one or more children. And 60% are on women 20 years old or older. This means it’s usually not a “Holy crap, my parents are going to kill me if I don’t finish high school” decision.

So how would a Democrat help? Universal healthcare. One of the largest financial concerns of all parents is healthcare, starting from “How are we going to pay for the prenatal care and the delivery?”. When a parent begins considering the necessary, and more so the potential (from broken bones to cystic fibrosis, autism, leukemia, etc.) healthcare costs of having children, it gets a little scary.

National Republicans are too far in the pockets of the healthcare and drug industries to make this leap. And they are therefore maintaining the number of abortions unnecessarily high.

If there is a national healthcare program in the United States, it will reduce by one the number of things that make having a child a financially scary situation, and will thereby reduce the number of abortions in this country.

12 Comments

Reluctant says:

First of all, your link to desnews.com is invalid. Should be: http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695245586,00.html

However, this solution only treats the symptoms, not the root cause. The real problem with abortion is that it’s murder. Until we realize that as a society, we are going to continue to have a skewed view of life.

The article (from the AP, BTW) doesn’t disclose any real statistics but just talks about them. The following link has more information (obtained from the same source: Guttmacher): http://www.mccl.org/abortion_statistics.htm. This article indicates that although 73% say they feel they can’t afford another child, 74% say “having a baby would interfere with work, school, or other responsibilities.”

The most staggering statistics from the article is that 1.2 million women had an abortion in 2005. HOLY COW! And the Left is complaining about 3806 (as of Feb 2, 2008) soldiers who volunteered to server their country in that capacity and lost their lives in Iraq?!?

The double standard is crazy.

Centrist says:

Dan, you’re right, but you can’t legislate that someone believe that abortion is murder. And getting a couple more Scalias on the bench to overturn Roe vs. Wade will not eliminate abortions, it will only make illegal those that happen.

The DesNews article (it had a great graphic accompanying it that I couldn’t find) also said that 80% of women who get abortions are unmarried. But this doesn’t lead to a legislative solution either, since we can’t force anyone to get married.

Nobody thinks abortions are GOOD, they just think it’s the better of two bad options. So I think giving women one more significant reason to decline them is a good thing.

I agree there is a double standard. The Right says it’s OK for soldiers to die for economic reasons, but not fetuses. I think we should stop the dying on both sides.

Reluctant says:

Nobody thinks abortions are GOOD, they just think it’s the better of two bad options.

I disagree. If you listen to the Left, it’s about the woman’s right to chose. As far as they are concerned, the fetus has no right to life/choice. They are placing the (all too often selfish) desires of the mother before the fetus.

If the Left changed their tone to be more inline with what you say, I’d be much less reluctant to support a Democrat.

Centrist says:

You’re exactly right; they feel it’s about the right to choose–between two bad options–rather than be forced to one bad option (as they see it). Just so we’re clear, I’m anti-abortion–I just think this is a great way to, among all the other benefits of national healthcare, reduce the number of abortions by making the right choice easier.

Reluctant says:

Since when should we have a choice to commit murder?!?!

I understand you are anti-abortion. But you support candidates that are pro-choice (which we all know is a spin word indicating pro-abortion). I can’t bring myself to do that.

Centrist says:

We shouldn’t have the choice to kill a fetus, but we do; it’s not only “settled law” but a cultural issue now. I don’t think there’s anyone in the ranks of the pro-choicers (save the odd psycho who has his counterpart on the other side) who would like to see the number of abortions increase. But that’s only my opinion.

I think that the view of the pro-choice group (again, not shared by myself) was adequately expressed by Hillary Clinton when she said, “I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.”

Don’t ascribe to the other side a label of irrationality that you would reject yourself. Just because you support the war in Iraq doesn’t mean you’re pro-dead soldiers, or even more apropos, pro-dead civilians, because civilians, like fetuses, are the innocent victims.

Reluctant says:

That thinking doesn’t work for me.

Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.

Like I said before… why is abortion acceptable? Just because it is legal and cultural doesn’t make it right. It shouldn’t be a choice. That is my point. It should be as much a choice as killing a newborn. If you make the choice to kill a newborn, you chose to go to jail for a very long time. Those choices are the same and should be met with the same consequences.

The fact that you accept Clinton’s “excuse” scares me. Even in her quote, she admits (although with spin) that abortion is a bad thing. The fact that nobody wants to be pro-abortion is a sign that everyone knows that it’s wrong, but is unwilling to do anything about it.

Centrist says:

OK, let’s separate the real from the ideal. Ideally, no one would want an abortion (except perhaps when a) pregnancy results from rape or incest, or, b) a competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or c) a competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth –www.lds.org). Ideally, it wouldn’t be a choice. However, here in reality, it is; and free healthcare would make it easier to make the RIGHT choice.

I don’t accept Clinton’s excuse–I simply cited it as an example of how the pro-choice camp thinks.

There are a lot of pro-choice/anti-choice arguments out there: whether we should have access to guns–they kill people too (you’re pro-choice); whether we should be conscripted to kill based on the judgement of our elected officials–this kills people too; whether we should be compelled to pay taxes to prevent the deaths of poor, disabled, and otherwise disadvantaged Americans by way of starvation, inadequate healthcare, exposure, etc. (I’m on the anti-choice here). Both sides of each argument think they’re right, and each side has an argument that they believe should be exclusively compelling.

In the last three examples, your conservative friends are on the side that allows more death.

So get involved in the process and try to get the laws changed. I think it would be easier to reduce the rate of abortions through national healthcare (among its many other benefits) than to get Roe v Wade overturned. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying, but we should also accept that there is a reality in which we have to work to bring to pass the ideal.

Reluctant says:

The huge difference between your examples and abortion is that abortion has no advantages. Guns can and usually are productive tools, serving in a war is pro-choice — the draft is no longer in place and and whether universal healthcare will actually help or hurt our healthcare system is very much contested although I very much agree that we need to do something to provide better for the poor who have difficulty getting healthcare.

By your own acknowledgment (or rather Hillary’s), nobody likes abortion. They all know it’s wrong. They can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that it’s murder, but they know it’s bad. There is no question whether it takes/ends a life. There is no other purpose for it (except where you cited lds.org above — which I am fine with and which can be easily legislated).

So your arguments are flawed in that regard. However, I’m not saying that providing better healthcare is’t a step in the right direction for reducing abortions. But I think the ideal (with regard to abortion) can much more easily be achieved than we all think. We just need a new Martin Luther King Jr.

I firmly believe (or rather hope) that abortion is the new slavery. That we will some day realize how immoral it is and we will look back at this time in our history and wonder what we were thinking.

PS. I’m not a huge fan of handguns either. But rifles are crucial for many in America that live off the land (like Janet). I would probably support legislation eliminating (or at least severely limiting the availability of) handguns.

Centrist says:

I agree with you (except that my argument is flawed – it’s not my argument). And who will be your Dr. King? You correctly pointed out that abortion is primarily done out of selfishness. And which of the presidential candidates are preaching “more for me” and which are preaching sacrifice and unity?

I think that, if we are going to change the selfish tendencies of this nation, it won’t be with a Republican in the White House. All their exclusive party planks are inherently selfish – tax cuts, cracking down on illegal immigration, etc.

If we want a leader who will get us to look outside ourselves, it should be the one who has done so for a living – a community organizer.

You can’t legislate a cultural change like an awareness of others; it has to grow from within, with people of ideas, people of words, and people of action. Generation X and the Millenial Generation are fishing for something like this and for someone like Obama to channel their good intentions. Let it happen.

Reluctant says:

I disagree that all Republican planks are inherently selfish. Tax cuts aren’t selfish… it’s a philosophy that big government is a bad thing and that putting that money into the hands of the local governments or the people themselves is better for the economy.

Cracking down on illegal immigration is “morality” gone wild. It’s a mentality of “wait, someone is breaking the law — we can’t let that happen — we must punish.” They aren’t willing to look at the reason people are breaking the law.

I really like Obama. He’s by far the least “politically corrupt” candidate in the field right now. I just have a hard time supporting some of his platform. Specifically, I think support for pro-choice is completely morally wrong and although I haven’t studied his healthcare plan extensively, from what I have read, it still feels like universal healthcare which I’m not convinced is the proper solution.

Centrist says:

I guess this is where we must agree to disagree. More to come on national healthcare, though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.