Sorry Kandahar To me your argument is a cul de sac, it goes nowhere since it isn’t about seeking understanding or helping people. It seems to be taking a complex issue and trying to reduce it to a simple yes or no answer, either it is human and abortion is wrong or it isn’t and abortion is right. To me that is just simplistic and stupid, it misses the point. As to invasive abortion being repulsive, it is and anyone that thinks differently should learn more about it. But that question also misses the point. The questions that both the pro’s and anti’s should be asking is why so many women are wanting to have an abortion and why the US seems to have a greater problem in this area that such countries as the Netherlands, Germany, France and even Britain? I fear that Americans have lost sight of these questions in a desire to score points over one another. What upsets me the most in dealing with this important and sensitive issue is that some people seem to be trying to hijack it to push a religiously based moralistic agenda that seems to have little or nothing to do with understanding or helping people and seems to me to be just about a grab for power. And that a number of cynically motivated mainly right wing politicians have jumped on that bandwagon in the hope of power and furthering their views that are more likely to worsen the situation rather than truly seeking real improvement.
It boggles my mind that you would morally equate the accidental killing of civilians in military campaigns against butchers like Hitler or Bin Laden with the deliberate killing of unborn babies for the sake of convenience. First, I don't concede the "necessity" of elective abortion. Second, as I've said repeatedly, I believe that public policy should seek to reduce both the demand for abortion and its availability. I've shared some practical ideas, while you've provided none. More importantly, you haven't even attempted to prove your nebulous theory about the "social, economic, and cultural problems that [allegedly] 'cause' the large [number] of abortions in the US." The "desire" might not go away, but the practice would be drastically reduced. In other words, many lives would be saved. I don't support a "right wing political movement." I support pro-life candidates, many of whom happen to be politically conservative. Once again, if the Democrats would nominate more pro-life candidates, I'd gladly support them. (See http://www.democratsforlife.org.) I don't apologize for believing that economic concerns are secondary to stopping the bloodbath of legalized abortion. If you can convince me that the right economic policies would accomplish this, then I'll reconsider my position. So far, though, you've only made very broad assertions about the comparatively low abortion rate in some Western European countries. I'd like to see the actual numbers, along with other pertinent abortion restrictions, and how they compare with countries like Ireland and Poland. I suspect that Balbus is avoiding this argument because it's simply untenable.
I could use nearly any of the issues mulled over again here but I will take just one example – In my last post I repeated from a pervious post something I still claim to be true. “When it comes to the social, economic and cultural problems that cause the large amount of abortions in the US they don’t seem to have many realistic ideas.” Huck’s reply to it was – “you haven't even attempted to prove your nebulous theory about the "social, economic, and cultural problems that [allegedly] 'cause' the large [number] of abortions in the US." By ‘nebulous theory’ I presume he means that this idea of social, economic and cultural cause for abortion is unfounded. If we go back we can see just how that one issue progressed the first time around –
(Please try and stick with this it is instructive on how the anti’s get out of actually engaging in the argument -) I said it first - Balbus page 28 post 277 "When it comes to the social, economic and cultural problems that cause the large amount of abortions in the US they don’t seem to have many realistic ideas." Huck said nothing until I repeated it Balbus page 31 post 309 "As I said, "When it comes to the social, economic and cultural problems that cause the large amount of abortions in the US they (the anti abortionists) don’t seem to have many realistic ideas." Huck page 31 post 310 However, there are certainly factors on the "demand" side that need to be addressed. Here's one laudable effort in that area:http://www.feministsforlife.org/cop/index.htm The factors he is talking about being social economic and cultural so they do exist? Balbus page 32 post 317 As to this I’m not quiet sure what it is you are saying? The college strategy is laudable but it is not exactly a penetrative inquiry into the social, cultural economic and political situation in the US that leads to abortion. Also their solutions for dealing with an unexpected pregnancy during college is to give assistance such as - Financial aid, preferential housing, and low cost child care. The thing is that most of the people that I’ve talked to that are ‘anti’s’ are also right wing and I think many of them would see such things as frankly ‘socialist’. I mean this is just for the duration of a college degree but in national terms are you saying that the ‘anti’s’ advocate the state sponsoring of child rearing? For how long and at what level? Well on the same site there is the booklet on the alternatives to abortion "Options Choices". It doesn’t talk about helping out women with more money or assistance it tells them to get what they can out of the present system that is money from social services and charities and such things as preferential housing and food stamps. Well the thing is that these things are already available as is stated and have not been attractive. Also many right wingers think some women have children just to get such hand outs and so want to cut the levels of support to such groups to try and discourage them from having children, are you saying that while this is going on another group of right wingers is advocating and encouraging women to go on support so that they do? This again is where you should be asking why? It is very possible that if cultural and social stigma was lessened and that material assistance was given more women might not have abortions. A really big help would be very low cost or even free childcare. However that doesn’t seem to be the way the right wing in US is going. Huck then seemed to claim that social/economic forces were not a factor? Huck page32 post319 The "abortion problem" is primarily driven by the hedonistic drive for sex without consequence. I realize that judgments about sexual immorality are anathema to enlightened lefties like you, but not every problem in the world can be blamed on outside social/economic forces. Get that it was down to hedonism and immorality Balbus page 33 post 322 Why do you believe that is true in this context? The very website you sent me to -as I have pointed out - makes the social and economic argument as to having an abortion or not very clear. Are you saying that you now repudiate that site because it doesn’t fit your viewpoint, which makes me wonder why you chose it in the first place? Huck page 33 post 323 What I've said is very simple. There are external social and economic factors that impact the abortion rate Balbus page33 post 324 You first sent me to a website that says there are social and economic dimensions to abortion then you strongly imply there are not and now you are emphatically admitting there are. Huck page 33 post 326 I've said from the start that the social and economic dimensions are real and need to be addressed So that is clear social and economic dimensions are real and need to be addressed so there involvement is not a nebulous theory Then in post 353 Huck called "societal causes" vacuous and then in post 377 said enphatically that "Of course, everyone is influenced by social, cultural, and economic factors" And then we get up to date Balbus Page 48 Post 474 When it comes to the social, economic and cultural problems that cause the large amount of abortions in the US they don’t seem to have many realistic ideas. Huck Page 48 Post 477 "you haven't even attempted to prove your nebulous theory about the "social, economic, and cultural problems that [allegedly] 'cause' the large [number] of abortions in the US." …It is once more nebulous So I hope everyone is now clear on what Huck thinks about the veracity of the social, economic and cultural causes of abortion. **
As I’ve said before the anti’s don’t seem to have a consistent or thought out argument they just want to score points. I’m sure in coming posts Huck will be telling us that social, economic and cultural factors are clearly important and then argue that they are both nebulous and clear at the same time and then later that they are completely nebulous again. This is just one way the anti’s seem to have to actually get out of engaging the issue in any rational and reasonable manner.
As I've said more than once, I believe these factors are real but secondary; the single most influential policy in determining the prevalence of abortion is its availability. To repeat: I support policies that address both the supply and demand. By contrast, you've suggested that abortion could be virtually eliminated by focusing solely on the demand. I've asked you numerous times to prove this assertion, a challenge that you've continuously dodged. Why don't you at least make an attempt to back up your presumptuously authoritative declarations?
"you've suggested that abortion could be virtually eliminated by focusing solely on the demand" I don’t think I’ve ever said that just as I don’t believe you’ve ever said that you think making abortion illegal will eliminate it either. I now your not stupid enough to think that the day after the law goes through all American women will stop wanting abortions, or seeking them if they feel the need. I’m also sure you know that a market to give them what they want will appear. The sale of those pills that cause chemical abortion will sky rocket and I’m sure some bright spark will publish the formula on the Internet. Those with money will be able to pay for what they need in the US others will like generations of Irish girls and women have done and go on ‘holiday’ to a country with less draconian laws. I would wish to try and deal with the problems and be able to monitor the results to see if my measures are working you would seem to want to take away the means of monitoring. Only then would you bring in those rather less important and very much secondary measures to cover the problem of people seeming to desire an abortion. My fear would be that then whatever measures came in however ineffectual they might be could be claimed to be a complete success especially since to say otherwise would encourage those wishing to bring back abortion. As to what you call the supply, what I prefer to see as a way of helping people, you have either been very vague or based your views on biased interpretations or on unsubstantiated assertions like you confidence in ‘abstinence’ or you say you support things you will keep voting against. ** Culturally. The George Will article you very much supported attacked US popular culture. Of television and film it said "watching movies and television programs not designed to suggest that sexuality has morally complex dimensions and serious consequences" and of music "coarsening lyrics of popular music" as adding to the problem of abortion. I pointed out that "the US is a very capitalist society and most popular culture is based on and financed by the market. Would anti’s want to limit the markets influence, bring in censorship? The way people think about people that have unplanned pregnancy is also cultural and you have described them as hedonists and immoral and I even heard a member of the Christian right describe such a girl as being a whore. In such a climate it is not surprising that families and individuals would seek to ‘get rid’ of the reason of their ‘shame’ legally or otherwise. Socially and economically Hike in minimum wage, Vast increase in education budgets, Drive to full employment, Extensive and expensive renovation of the environment, Wealth distribution, Changes in market led culture, Ending of corporate welfare, The introduction of a true health service Cheap childcare Cheap housing All of these things Huck has said at one time or other to support, the only catch is that you have to vote for right wing groups and keep voting for those groups, that have none of those things on their agenda and who are in most cases very much against them. To me that is trying to sell a lie. If a person says to you that they support such things then votes against them then they either realise the lie or they are blind to it, but it remains a lie no the less. ** I’m unsure who is using who and who is fooling who. People like Huck seem to be claiming that they are only supporting the right wingers until they get what they want, the forceful end to abortion, and then they will stop supporting such people in favour of those that truly wish to understand and help people. Well I think the only person he is fooling is himself. The sad thing is I think he along with others is being manipulated by those with a completely different agenda and once locked in to that right wing agenda is in the driving seat. I think that in the US this has become such an emotional issue that many people have forgotten to actually think about it rationally. What I also see is some religious and political groups fanning the flames of that emotional heat for there own ends and for the very reason that it blocks people thinking about the issues rationally. Because if people actually stopped to think about the issues they might just see that the very groups they are supporting have the very worsted policies in tackling those issues.
You've already cited a few Western European socialist "laboratories" as example success stories. Why don't you provide some specific results and compare them with the abortion rates in countries such as Ireland and Poland?
Balbus, I realize that you'd much rather ramble incessantly about the alleged economic "causes" of abortion, but you can't reasonably expect to forever avoid having to present some factual evidence to support your thesis.
Are you actually trying to say that social and economic issues has no affect on the rate of abortions? Have you no ability to put yourself into someone else's shoes? No concept of the fact that reality is different for every person walking this planet? Just because you have a moral issue with abortion doesn't mean another person doesn't have a moral issue with giving birth to a child that they cannot care for, or giving birth to a child that they walk away from in the hospital. So a person thinks "well they shouldn't be getting pregnant then, if they don't want a child." and I agree completely. So lets stop THAT from happening. Lets focus on that. Let's not be reactive about this issue, but proactive. Let's stop it from happening by making people in this country happy, comfortable, educated, safe, and responsible. Lets not do it by taking away someone's freedom of choice. Let's not do it by force.
It all can be summed up by this statement: You can take the girl out of the trailer but you can't take the trailer out of the girl.
Huck my friend Your post demonstrates exactly what I mean about point scoring and being unable (or unwilling) to engage in a reasoned argument. I mean people only need to look back to the last few posts to see that you agree with those of us that see that there are economic causes for abortion. It is a recorded fact that you have directed people to websites that claim that there can be economic reasons for people seeking abortions. You are quoted as saying such. But despite this you make snide remarks about me rambling incessantly on about these economic causes when you must know that the only reason that it keeps coming up in this way is the fact that you keep changing your mind on the subject. One moment you seem to imply there is no economic factors the next you say that ‘of course’ there are and the next you say there or not only then to claim there are again and to add the claim that your position has never changed on that subject! As a means of stalling an argument or getting out of engaging in one, it is fantastic the only problem is that it does nothing for your credibility or that of your position. You could restore your tarnished reputation by becoming involved, by engaging with us in a reasonable way. Why not go back over the last posts and actually read them through, think about them, and then without trying to score points or being snide give us your opinion.
No. I have repeatedly acknowledged that these factors affect the abortion rate, and I have given examples of pro-life efforts to address them. My point is that they do not account for all (or even most) abortions. Balbus has pointed to the (allegedly) lower abortion rates in Western Europe compared to the US, but he's provided no factual evidence to support this claim. I suspect that he's probably right, but I want to know how much lower their abortion rates are. I also think they should be compared with countries like Ireland and Poland that have very restrictive abortion laws. I contend that such policies are far more effective than economic policies in curbing abortion. Somehow he thinks that this is immaterial to the debate! Call me narrow-minded, but I can't see how giving life is morally comparable to killing. As with measures to prevent other violent crimes, I think such efforts are necessary but insufficient.
Ah, ok, I get what you were trying to say. Well not everyone looks at it like killing. Why do choose to be so narrow minded? Is it outside your capability to at least acknoweldge that someone else may have a different point of view than you? Well in this country abortion is not considered a crime. Referring to it as such is nothing more than propaganda. You cannot treat it as you would an actual crime. Also, there is no reason to turn it into a crime. Instead of focusing on making it a crime, and turning more americans into criminals, lets HELP these americans instead. You cannot help them by hurting them at the same time.
I feel that the partial birth abortion is horrible, but like others here have said, it will still go on, legal or not. Abortion in general, no I don't really agree with it, but I also believe that a woman has the right to make the choice that is right for HER. Unless someone has walked in their shoes, they should not judge. There may be a lot more to the story than one is aware of. But what I don't understand is, if Bush is so against abortion, the killing innocent of life, then why the hell are we over there in Iraq murdering thousands of innocent civilians?! Innocent little babies? Moms? Dads? How is that right?! Seems kind of like a hypocrit if you ask me.
Dear Huck still trying to score points. So you now argue that although social, economic and cultural reasons exist, these in your opinion do not cover the reasons for “all (or even most) abortions”. So what are these ‘other’ reasons for most women wanting abortions? (And I hope you’re not going to go on about sinners, immorality and hedonism, are you?) ** There is an official amount of prescription opiates sold in the US each year and so the US government can tell you how much of this type of drug is sold in a certain year. However it cannot give the exact figures for the amount of illegal opiates sold in the US? The point is that once something becomes illegal it becomes had to regulate or monitor. Also when an issue becomes completely politicised like drug enforcement it can often lose touch with reality. Some right wing elements became associated with the US ‘war on drugs’ and continued to support policies and claim their success a long time after most people had realised they had failed. What if a right wing politician claimed that the official figure of opiates sold showed how little was being used and that the estimates of the illegal sales were irrelevant, would you accept it? ** The official number of abortions in a country like Poland where abortion is illegal is low and ‘anti’s’ wish for you to accept that as a reason for doing it in the US. ** Full range of services Supporters of an amendment to the anti-abortion law argue that the old act's rulings are either partly applied or altogether ignored, while some are simply broken. They claim that restrictions on the right to abortion, rather than reducing the number of abortions, has bred an "abortion underground." Some doctors in state-run hospitals refuse to perform abortions, even in cases legalized by the act, while offering to perform the procedure within the framework of a private practice. Daily newspapers run many offers which involve "pain-free induction of menstruation" and "gynecologist, full range of services"- code for illegal abortion services. According to Wanda Nowicka, chair of the Federation for Women and Family Planning, the number of illegal abortions may be as many as 200,000 a year. The value of "underground abortion" is difficult to estimate. According to Senyszyn, that figure is several hundred million zlotys per year. The problem itself, regardless of opinions concerning the admissibility of abortion, has been noted by representatives of almost all parliamentary caucuses. Only Christian-national rightist politicians claim ignorance of the phenomenon. Anna Sobecka of the League of Polish Families (LPR) says that "what feminists say about the number of underground abortions is downright false." According to deputy Marek Jurek of Law and Justice (PiS), "one cannot rule out the existence of this kind of underground, just as one cannot rule out the existence of organized criminal groups that steal cars or organized corruption. But one shouldn't exaggerate the numbers." http://www.warsawvoice.pl/view/6726
My shock only deepens. I was always lead to believe that this subject was a big issue in the US and was strongly debated. I have been told that for many Americans this is the ONLY reason they vote for the Republicans?? So I thought that the ‘anti’s’ case must be very good. But when given the chance to put forth their views they end up bringing very little of worth to the table. Oh they wish to stop abortion I get that and as I said at the beginning I’d like a world where it wasn’t wanted, but for them stopping it seems to be the be all and end all of their idea. They seem unclear as to why abortions are wanted, one of them says he accepts social, economic and cultural reasons only then to dismiss them as very unimportant and the only other reasons I’ve heard from besides those is some belief that people wanting abortions must be hedonistic immoral sinners. Asked why they think this and they seem not to know, asked how they can be helped and they again don’t seem to have any positive or realistic ideas. I said earlier that I would have more respect for the ‘anti’s’ if they seemed to be actually wanted to deal with the problem, actually seemed to be seeking some understanding. But this is not the impression I get here these people are not fighting for a better future or to help people, it seems more like a craving for power, the power to control, that kind of power is not about understanding or helping it is about dictating. It is the kind of attitude that is most commonly associated with dogmatic religious and political ideologies. Those kinds of people hate debate or questions. They thrive in ignorance and the simplistic. So it is not surprising they don’t wish to become engaged in a discuss of their views. What is surprising, and shocking, is that so many Americans seem to allow them to get away with it. **
Mui, you are a genius! Let's go ahead and make murder, theft, and rape legal while we're at it. I mean, it's still going to go on, illegal or not, so why not just give people permission to be immoral?? Yeah, sounds good to me.
