Proposed solution to abortion issue: Improving social programs

[prolesunited]

As long as abortion seems to the the topic du jour, let's talk about it in terms of the social programs that Bush's budget is threatening to cut.

Why do women have abortions? A compilation of studies revealed the largest single factor (almost as much as 1/3) in a woman choosing to have an abortion is ECONOMIC!
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

And the other factors, lack of support from a partner, and difficulty in handling life change, are closely related to the social safety net that we provide for not only single mothers, but struggling families.

When you're barely feeding and clothing the children you have, abortion does become an viable alternative. Do you further impoverish your family by having another child and take food out of the mouths of your already born children.

Did you know 60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children? They've been there and know what it takes, both emotionally and financially to raise a child.
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

Once a woman decides to carry a pregnancy to term, where is the support for her and her child? Who pays for the medical care, prenatal and for the baby afterward? Where does a woman turn if she's one of the millions without health care?

We say that being a parent is the most important job, yet many look down on women who want to collect welfare so they can stay home and be with their children in their formative years?

And, if they opt to rejoin the workforce, what are their options for safe, affordable daycare? If you work low-paying jobs or shift work, there aren't many options at all that don't consume nearly your whole paycheck.

And how is she to improve the family's financial outlook if funding for education is cut? Where is a family to live with housing programs being cut? How are they to eat with reduced funding for food programs?

So many *working* families are struggling to make it in today's economy and this budget pulls the net right out from under them.

If you were living in an already overcrowded apartment, had no health insurance, no daycare available for a new infant and already having trouble feeding and clothing your family, what would you do if you became pregnant?

Many women are faced with making a choice for themselves that they might have otherwise considered unthinkable.

If you want to reduce the number of abortions, you have to have the programs in place necessary for a woman or a family to believe that welcoming a baby into their lives is a feasible choice, not one that will doom them to more poverty and suffering.

This budget is NOT pro-life!

[ClassWarrior]

1. We have an interesting ally in this effort...

...I discovered when someone here posted the following article by a conservative columnist last fall:

-snip-

"When parents hate their fetuses so much that they want to kill them, they are not fit parents for those children, if born. If unwanted children are required to be born - not because they have loving parents, but rather as a function of government policy - then the government must assume financial responsibility for their care.

"Parents who would kill their own children simply cannot be trusted. The cost of raising the estimated 45 million aborted children per generation would be astronomical. The very thought makes Republican elites tremble at the knees.

"Whenever I ask Republicans how much their taxes would be raised to support all the unwanted children if Roe were overturned, they always respond that they would not be willing to pay one extra penny. This is a moral bankruptcy in itself: They want the government to force children to be born to infanticidal parents, but then they do not want the government even to pay for milk for the babies to drink! The central problem is that no one wants to pay for the mistakes of others, not even when the lives of the innocent are at stake. If we abortion opponents were to mobilize to demand the expansion of the welfare system to care for the unwanted children after Roe, our position would be morally consistent and we might save millions of lives. But in my entire life I have never met a Republican who was willing to mushroom welfare spending, whether to benefit children or not."

-snip-

Find the whole thing here:

http://www.thedailycitizen.com/articles/2004/10/28/news/opinion/opiniontaylor.txt

Strange bedfellows and all that.

NGU.

[prolesunited]

3. I'm getting a log-in screen

The author is the first on the right that I've seen be honest about it. They already are screaming about providing any kind of meager help for children and families now.

What would they suggest be done for the millions who would not be aborted if they got their way?

[ClassWarrior]

5. I get the registration screen too. Okay, I'll PM you.

NGU.

[MissMarple]

2. The Calvinists aren't going to like that.

"No one knew who was among the saved. It was commonly accepted by many Calvinists that saintly behavior was a sign that a person was a member of the elect, but doctrine taught that good conduct could not “win” salvation for anyone. God had decided that matter long ago. On the other side of the coin, it was almost universally believed among Calvinists that a life of dissipation was a sure sign of damnation.
Such a system of beliefs exerted a mixed impact on society. Good conduct was encouraged because many people, perhaps unconsciously, wanted to convince themselves that they were among the elect. However, there were negative influences from Calvinism as well. Anxiety was high in these communities as anguished believers contemplated their fates. There also was a rather constant and unpleasant interest in one’s neighbors’ activities. Comfort was found by observing the moral failures of others and concluding that they were no doubt among the damned."


http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1137.html

And, yes, I agree with you. And one of the best ways to limit pregnancies in young women is to give them hope and positive goals for their future.

[Senior citizen]

4. Let mothers stay home with their kids.

We need to not just restore welfare as we knew it, but to make it much better than it was. If a pregnant woman knows that she won't have to leave her baby with a stranger, she is more apt to have the child. We need welfare that will be enough for a mother to stay home with a child, pay rent, energy, phone and cable, manage the car payments and auto insurance, buy diapers, and still have enough left for a few luxuries. Being a mother is hard work. The so-called "family values" people who insist that single mothers leave their infants in day care and work at minimum wage jobs are sick, sadistic fascists--not to mention hypocrites. If you want cannon fodder, why not pay for it? There's plenty of money to fund welfare if we just stop this unjust war for oil and get rid of the tax cuts for the rich who don't need them. If you want us to breed, get rid of the greed.

[Lars39]

9. Those parole anklets would be really handy in that way.

Other industrialized countries actually help parents with childcare, so that the mother has a CHOICE about whether to stay home with the children.

[MountainLaurel]

17. And let's not forget

The Social Security penalties for staying home with a child -- one of the main reason why many elderly women are living in poverty today.

[cags]

6. This is something everyone here can agree with no matter

what side of the issue your on. This is what should be talked about more so that we are united.

If anyone disagrees with this, Well ,Don't make me come over there
Great Post

[prolesunited]

8. I know we're on different sides

but I really am glad that we can agree on this. Thanks! :-)

[JohnnyCougar]

11. I agree here too!!!

Common ground on abortion should be one of our top priorities in the next two years.

That and getting Bush impeached after those 2 years.

[pmbryant]

7. With the GOP in charge for the time being

and budgets for helpful social programs such as this being slashed, it would probably be useful to publicize private organizations that help out in these situations.

The next few years are going to be a bumpy ride, and the government won't be there to help. We're going to have to do so ourselves.

Where should we send our money?

--Peter

[prolesunited]

10. I'm not sure

I don't know if there are national organizations, but I'm sure there are local ones in our own areas.

[The Magistrate]

12. You Are Quite Correct, Ma'am

But the key to the thing is that the phrase "pro-life" is quite incorect in discussing this matter as a political movement. Whatever may be the beliefs of some here regarding abortion, the fact is that the reactionary ideologues driving this movement, and a great proportion of their followers, are not concerned with life at all but rather with the punishing of women for sexual activity, and view being forced to raise a child in penury as a species of just deserts for the crime. Make no mistake about it, the suffering a mother feels at the straightened circumstances and prospects of her child is merely one more element of her punishment, to these vicious vermin: to them the child is nothing at all, less than nothing.

[T Town Jake]

13. Here's my proposed solution to the "abortion issue":

...LEAVE THE DECISION TO THOSE CAPABLE OF HAVING ONE.

I endorse your anti-poverty take, BTW, but on simple human decency grounds.

[dvaravati]

14. abortion doesn't need a "solution"

Who is to say the number of abortions is too high?
Based on what?

[prolesunited]

15. What I am saying

is that some women would rather have and raise a child than have an abortion. As stated above, the most commonly cited reason for having an abortion is economic.

If we remove those barriers through appropriate support, then we are truly "pro-choice." The decision to have a child would be based on medical or psychological reasons, not economic ones.

If the GOP were truly interested in eliminating or reducing abortion, not just controlling women and their sexuality, they would create a society in which ALL children have access to adequate medical care, housing, food and education.

It is no coincidence that the rate of abortion has risen under Bush. Many women and families are facing difficult economic circumstances and have less optimism for the future. In that climate, they are more likely to choose abortion rather than have a child they are unable to care for.

[Bridget Burke]

16. Improving social programs is a worthy goal in itself.

And the need for some abortions would decrease.

But the conflict would not be "solved". Some women would still seek abortion & abortion opponents believe it is murder--reducing the number would not satisfy them.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. Thw entire anti-choice movement is simply a money laundering front

for religions to funnel money into politics without losing their tax exempt status. Take ALL the money spent on anti-choice ads, Focus on Family billboards in communities across America and give it to poor families and you'd solve HALF the problems with funding these programs