talloulou said:
A real abortion compromise would be this:
Throw tons of money at sex ed and promotion of contraceptives. Use money to make birth control cheaper.
I support this. The problem is that many of the anti-abortion advocates are also against public support of birth control and sex education-- I'd have a lot more respect for them if they weren't.
talloulou said:
MAP?
talloulou said:
Limit abortions to a young gestational age for example under 10 wks, except in cases where the mothers health is a genuine concern.
I would prefer sixteen, but accept twelve. Of course, if you limit it to twelve, you'd still be allowing 88% of abortions. However, preventing the abortion of 24 and 25 week fetuses-- as currently allowed by
Roe v. Wade-- would go a long way to satisfy the people whose main objection is late-term abortion.
talloulou said:
Admit abortion kills a developing human being and make it as distasteful a choice as possible.
This will not happen as long as people use this as the basis for calling fertility doctors and everyone who's received their services "murderers".
We would need the other side to concede that there's a moral difference between a developing human being five months
before its birth and five months after.
talloulou said:
I don't advocate showing pregnant girls considering abortion fetal pics.....but girls in sex ed. Yeah show them all the pics you can find. Make them look long and hard.
I agree with this. Making a decision without being able to face the consequences of it is cowardly-- and too much irresponsibility in our society is based on our efforts to hide from the results of our actions.
talloulou said:
There is just no reason for the numbers of abortions taking place in the US today. It's horrid.
Million point four a year. It's been pretty steady, adjusted for the population, for as long as we've been keeping figures. That's also not bad compared to our birth rate; thank the gods that we're not like Europe or Japan, watching our native population die off and be replaced by aliens.
talloulou said:
If you think what you offered was in anyway some real compromise on how we can reduce the numbers of abortions I gotta say I missed it.
That's because, really, abortion laws have nothing to do with the number of abortions. The main benefit of getting the abortion laws settled-- finding some compromise that the vast majority will stick to and the fringes aren't powerful enough to move-- is that it would allow us to stop arguing over them and devote our energies to actually reducing abortions.
The biggest thing, I think, is to restore the extended family. Most abortions are sought by women afraid of becoming single mothers-- remove that fear, and abortions will be reduced.
We also need to promote a cultural attitude that embraces and values family and parenthood. There is a social stigma against women-- or girls-- who bear children too young, or who bear too many children, or who bear children by multiple fathers. While some of this connects to the irresponsibility of having children out of wedlock-- something I am opposed to-- it also connects to a fundamental distrust and disrespect for people who choose to raise large families.
I think it's more nuclear-family bias; people who have more than the expected two point four children are greedy or crazy or too stupid to read the back of the condom wrapper.
And while you're absolutely correct that the government is not running around putting babies into wombs-- well, maybe the Department of Corrections is-- government services are a vital component of promoting childbirth. Absence of social services to help young mothers is part of the fear that causes abortion.
Of course... the main contingent of anti-abortion advocates are also in favor of cutting programs to these so-called "welfare queens" and their large, irresponsible hordes of barely-related offspring. Sound familiar?