Is It a Grave Sin to Vote Democrat?

[upant]

“Elective” is not a reason. It simply means that somebody is choosing the abortion.

it definitely isn’t financial or emotional when financial and emotional were options to select.

the bottom line is abortion has become another form of birth control.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

blackforest:

“Elective” is not a reason. It simply means that somebody is choosing the abortion.

it definitely isn’t financial or emotional when financial and emotional were options to select.

Not necessarily. When women are answering a survey they may not want to disclose the reason why they are “electing” to have an abortion. They may think that “financial” means they are destitute, and they are not destitute.

That does not mean the free pre-natal care and guaranteed free delivery services would not encourage a lot of women to “elect” not to have an abortion. This is an obvious win for decreasing abortions.

the bottom line is abortion has become another form of birth control.

Unfortunately that may now be true. Although I doubt that any woman would forego the less intrusive forms of birth control in favor of simply relying on abortion. Even still, the services I mentioned above would affect that decision too.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m pro-life, too. It’s just that women aren’t going to stop having abortions until these underlying motivations are addressed.

But first we must understand what the underlying motivations are. If we simply assume it’s all financial, and it isn’t, we wind up throwing money at the problem and not solving it.

 

[blackforest]

Not necessarily. When women are answering a survey they may not want to disclose the reason why they are “electing” to have an abortion.

This is correct. We’re not entitled to impose our own speculations on a word as broad as “elective,” such as:

the bottom line is abortion has become another form of birth control.

Unfortunately that may now be true.

But even birth control use has its reasons, too, including not having the financial and/or emotional resources to have a baby.

We pro-lifers shoot ourselves in the foot when we insist that women choose abortion for shallow reasons. If we miss or misrepresent their motivations, we miss a chance to decrease the number of abortions.

But first we must understand what the underlying motivations are. If we simply assume it’s all financial, and it isn’t, we wind up throwing money at the problem and not solving it.

I agree. I want the truth for the same reasons you do. If you read my previous posts, however, I never “insist[ed] that’s it’s all financial.” I’ve mentioned quite a few contributing factors.

That said, finances are a pretty big deal. A woman should be able to choose life without any looming threat of poverty.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That does not mean the free pre-natal care and guaranteed free delivery services would not encourage a lot of women to “elect” not to have an abortion. This is an obvious win for decreasing abortions.

But what if it doesn’t? We have no evidence it will.

In an earlier post I showed how abortion and the poverty rate are negatively coorelated – as poverty goes up, abortion goes down. I checked the period after the data in the study I cited was conducted. During the Obama administration, poverty was higher than it had been in many years – and abortion went down.

Support for pre-natal and obstetric care is a good thing, but we must not let ourselves be fooled into thinking it will lower the abortion rate.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

That does not mean the free pre-natal care and guaranteed free delivery services would not encourage a lot of women to “elect” not to have an abortion. This is an obvious win for decreasing abortions.

But what if it doesn’t? We have no evidence it will.

We also don’t have any evidence that repealing Roe v Wade will reduce abortions either, yet we rush headlong to that solution because it makes sense. So does providing delivery services make sense. And what if it doesn’t reduce abortions? Pursuing that solution does not preclude other solutions, like criminal sanctions. Why not do both? It’s worth a try, isn’t it?

In an earlier post I showed how abortion and the poverty rate are negatively coorelated – as poverty goes up, abortion goes down. I checked the period after the data in the study I cited was conducted. During the Obama administration, poverty was higher than it had been in many years – and abortion went down.

That correlation evaluation did not exclude other factors that might have been affecting the abortion rate, such as the availability of contraceptives that may have reduced the incidents of unintended pregnancy. It is perhaps just a coincidence that such availability was increasing at the same time the poverty rate was increasing.

Support for pre-natal and obstetric care is a good thing, but we must not let ourselves be fooled into thinking it will lower the abortion rate.

You have not yet established that we would be “fooled” by thinking so, and I don’t think you can establish that.

I can’t say for sure, but it seems to me that some conservatives are more interested in lower taxes and smaller government than they are in reducing abortions. This toxic reluctance to consider tax-supported prenatal care and delivery services is strongly suggestive of that interpretation.

 

[upant]

Not necessarily.

why do you want to read into what they wrote?

We’re not entitled to impose our own speculations on a word as broad as “elective,”

yet we know it isn’t social or financial

I agree. I want the truth for the same reasons you do. If you read my previous posts, however, I never “insist[ed] that’s it’s all financial.” I’ve mentioned quite a few contributing factors.

That said, finances are a pretty big deal. A woman should be able to choose life without any looming threat of poverty.

you want to give them a financial excuse when it isn’t per the data.

We also don’t have any evidence that repealing Roe v Wade will reduce abortions either, yet we rush headlong to that solution because it makes sense. So does providing delivery services make sense. And what if it doesn’t reduce abortions? Pursuing that solution does not preclude other solutions, like criminal sanctions. Why not do both? It’s worth a try, isn’t it?

you are probably right repealing roe v wade won’t reduce abortion. providing free delivery services probably also won’t reduce abortions. because these are not the root causes of abortion. it is a moral issue. the people are having abortions because it is socially acceptable. they don’t see it as killing their babies. they see it as a form of birth control. having a baby would interfere with their life

 

[JimG]

Probably the root cause of abortion is having sex outside of marriage, and having sex while not being open to life.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Not necessarily.

why do you want to read into what they wrote?

I’m merely offering a possibility. I’m not reading anything into their survey responses.

We’re not entitled to impose our own speculations on a word as broad as “elective,”

yet we know it isn’t social or financial

No you don’t know that. Just because a women does not list that as her first choice does not mean they are not factors in her decision.

I agree. I want the truth for the same reasons you do. If you read my previous posts, however, I never “insist[ed] that’s it’s all financial.” I’ve mentioned quite a few contributing factors.

That said, finances are a pretty big deal. A woman should be able to choose life without any looming threat of poverty.

you want to give them a financial excuse when it isn’t per the data.

Still assuming what you don’t know, I see.

We also don’t have any evidence that repealing Roe v Wade will reduce abortions either, yet we rush headlong to that solution because it makes sense. So does providing delivery services make sense. And what if it doesn’t reduce abortions? Pursuing that solution does not preclude other solutions, like criminal sanctions. Why not do both? It’s worth a try, isn’t it?

you are probably right repealing roe v wade won’t reduce abortion. providing free delivery services probably also won’t reduce abortions.

No, I think both of them will reduce abortions. One of them slowly, the other (mine) right away.

because these are not the root causes of abortion.

They are contributing factors.

the people are having abortions because it is socially acceptable.

You would have a hard time finding a woman who chooses an abortion in the same way she chooses a bathing suit or a hair style. They all see it as a difficult decision.

they don’t see it as killing their babies. they see it as a form of birth control.

No women prefers abortion to standard contraceptives if she has standard contraceptives available. It is much harder on the body.

having a baby would interfere with their life

So, let’s make it possible for having a baby to interfere less in their lives. Give them free delivery services.

 

[upant]

I’m merely offering a possibility. I’m not reading anything into their survey responses.

I am reading what they wrote and what they choose not to select. she picked her first choice. most of us have a financial concern when we make a decision somewhere in our decision-making process unless we are exceedingly rich.

They all see it as a difficult decision.

what do they say about never and all? just look at those online telling their stories about their abortions.
an example:

He wanted me to keep it and was so upset by my choice, I told him no I’m sorry I’m not ready nor do I want children ever. He was upset…

if she has standard contraceptives available.

they are available everywhere and free in most places

So, let’s make it possible for having a baby to interfere less in their lives. Give them free delivery services.

free delivery is ok for those doing it for a financial reason

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

So, let’s make it possible for having a baby to interfere less in their lives. Give them free delivery services.

free delivery is ok for those doing it for a financial reason

That would be a good start. Free pre-natal care and delivery services regardless of complications for anyone who claims that childbirth would be a financial burden. I think just about everyone would apply.

 

[blackforest]

So apparently the Florida thing is a big conservative Talking Point. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/florida-abortion-statistics-debunk-common-pro-choice-argument/

Much of this article I agree with. It’s disingenuous of pro-choicers to pretend like abortions are routinely performed on hard cases - e.g. 11-year-old rape victims.

On the other hand, this is really poorly gathered data if most of the women aren’t providing a specific reason. Because “elective” can only be left to speculation, we’re better off with the Guttmacher data, cited above for two different years. These numbers do indeed indicate that most women seek abortion due to financial or psycho-social concerns.

 

[upant]

On the other hand, this is really poorly gathered data if most of the women aren’t providing a specific reason. Because “elective” can only be left to speculation, we’re better off with the Guttmacher data, cited above for two different years. These numbers do indeed indicate that most women seek abortion due to financial or psycho-social concerns.

ok, using your data
23% of the cases said they could not afford a baby right now.
63% would be what I term birth control:

|Percentage|Reason|
|4%|Would interfere with education or career|
|7%|Not mature enough to raise a child|
|8%|Don’t want to be a single mother|
|19%|Done having children|
|25%|Not ready for a child|

|23%|Can’t afford a baby|

financial is still not the big issue

 

[LeafByNiggle]

blackforest:

On the other hand, this is really poorly gathered data if most of the women aren’t providing a specific reason. Because “elective” can only be left to speculation, we’re better off with the Guttmacher data, cited above for two different years. These numbers do indeed indicate that most women seek abortion due to financial or psycho-social concerns.

ok, using your data
23% of the cases said they could not afford a baby right now.
63% would be what I term birth control:

|Percentage|Reason|
|4%|Would interfere with education or career|
|7%|Not mature enough to raise a child|
|8%|Don’t want to be a single mother|
|19%|Done having children|
|25%|Not ready for a child|

|23%|Can’t afford a baby|

financial is still not the big issue

23% is already big enough.

Plus the 25% saying they are not ready for a child could very be saying that because they don’t think they can afford it yet. That’s financial.

Plus don’t want to be a single mother could be because as a single mother they don’t have the support system for health insurance.

Add them up and you already have potentially 23 + 25 + 8 = 56% that might reconsider if they did not have to worry about the costs of delivery, especially if there are complications.

The fact is all the surveys in the world are not going to prove that babies won’t be saved if we pay for their delivery. But apparently you don’t think it is worth it to save 23% of the babies. If you honestly believe that abortion is the single most serious issue facing our nation, then you would not be making arguments about whether or not this many would be saved or that many would be saved from abortion. You would do all you could to save as many as you could. Why are you reluctant to save 23% ? Or even 10% ?

 

[upant]

Plus the 25% saying they are not ready for a child could very be saying that because they don’t think they can afford it yet. That’s financial.

you can think what you want

100% could be financial with your way of thinking

i am glad the Holy Spirit does the real work!

 

[blackforest]

“Birth control” isn’t a reason for something. It’s simply a method of pregnancy prevention through artificial or natural means.

I cited both financial and psycho-social reasons, which aptly fit what you’re calling “birth control.”

Interference with education or career is a psycho-social/emotional reason. Men don’t have to put their careers or education on hold when a baby is on the way. Women shouldn’t have to, either.

Not wanting to be a single mother? That’s psychosocial, too. Women don’t want to be single mothers because it can be costly, isolating, and emotionally overwhelming. I would classify this as a lack of social and emotional resources.

My sister because a single mother while in college. Because her family supported her with free childcare and loads of emotional support, she HAD the social and emotional resources to get through it. Not every woman is blessed enough to have such a support system in place.

Again, pro-lifers need to disabuse themselves of the image of women seeking abortions for shallow reasons.

 

[JimG]

There’s a simple solution for these types of problems. Don’t have sex if you are not married and/or don’t want or can’t afford a baby. This aplies to women and men.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Plus the 25% saying they are not ready for a child could very be saying that because they don’t think they can afford it yet. That’s financial.

you can think what you want

100% could be financial with your way of thinking

i am glad the Holy Spirit does the real work!

If you are content to rely on the Holy Spirit to prevent abortions then why object when someone votes for a Democrat? The Holy Spirit is going to do the work. We don’t need to make it illegal or do anything to discourage abortion. Is that what you think?

 

[upant]

Again, pro-lifers need to disabuse themselves of the image of women seeking abortions for shallow reasons.

we obviously have different life experiences.

go with your high% financial, i’m from a different part of the city.

i’ll stick with what i wrote.