Lower abortions with more gov't programs?

[_Abyssinia]

Their is evidence that as welfare programs decreased, the abortion rate decreased; welfare does not lower the abortion rate

hli.org/files/PLTP_wefare.pdf

 

[ChemicalBean]

The adoption laws are just fine, there’s just a dearth of babies because you can’t talk a girl out of abortion by saying, “have the baby and then give it up.” It just doesn’t work that way any more, thanks to abortion, which seems like a “clean” solution. There’s no shame in having out of wedlock children either, and help abounds, so almost no unwed mother homes any more.

Adoption is not a “solution” to abortion any more than is greater contraception access.

Adoption should be considered when a child has no living natural parents, or is perceivably unavailable to parent and self-relinquishes that right (cases of war/refugees, extreme natural disaster, unusual and permanent health change, capital crime conviction, etc.). Poverty and level of maturity are not good reasons to force an adoption. Those conditions can and do change, and just as they are not reasons to condemn a child to death, they are not reasons to condemn a child and mother (or father) to the loss of unnatural estrangement.

Your post smacks of a judgmental sentiment. Nobody has claim over another’s child just because they think they could give it a “better life, if only that woman could be shamed into giving it away.”

The anti-abortion movement cannot expect to convince an pregnant mother not to abort by showing her ultrasounds of this precious human life that is dependent on her and so intimately bound to her, praise her for her courageous choice to carry the child to term and give birth, and then try to convince her that after successfully caring for 9 mos. of its most rapid development, she should just “give it away”. How ridiculous! Especially after all the worry, enduring nosy impolite stares, morning sickness, and forced self-sacrifice.

 

[St_Francis]

Adoption is not a “solution” to abortion any more than is greater contraception access.

Adoption should be considered when a child has no living natural parents, or is perceivably unavailable to parent and self-relinquishes that right (cases of war/refugees, extreme natural disaster, unusual and permanent health change, capital crime conviction, etc.). Poverty and level of maturity are not good reasons to force an adoption. Those conditions can and do change, and just as they are not reasons to condemn a child to death, they are not reasons to condemn a child and mother (or father) to the loss of unnatural estrangement.

Your post smacks of a judgmental sentiment. Nobody has claim over another’s child just because they think they could give it a “better life, if only that woman could be shamed into giving it away.”

The anti-abortion movement cannot expect to convince an pregnant mother not to abort by showing her ultrasounds of this precious human life that is dependent on her and so intimately bound to her, praise her for her courageous choice to carry the child to term and give birth, and then try to convince her that after successfully caring for 9 mos. of its most rapid development, she should just “give it away”. How ridiculous! Especially after all the worry, enduring nosy impolite stares, morning sickness, and forced self-sacrifice.

Since the reason most women give for procuring an abortion is that they do not want or feel able to raise the child, a better solution than abortion is to put the baby up for adoption. The Church has never been against this, which is why She has (or had) so many adoption agencies.

Of *course *the best solution would be for the natural parents to put themselves in a position to raise the child themselves, but barring that solution, adoption is better than abortion.

 

[thesmiter1]

Actually I disgree. I think the analogy is flawed on many levels, but to use this analogy it’s like saying that slavery will be decreased by doing things that have decreased slavery in the past instead of voting for people that claim they are anti-slavery in order to get elected.

But I’m not fond of the analogy at all… It doesn’t translate well…

What is our actual goal where abortion is concerned? To end abortion or to overturn Roe v Wade? Will overturning Roe v Wade impact the number of abortions performed? Does it have any chance of actually “ending” abortion? All it would do is curtail legal abortions in a handful of states in the USA. I doubt it would have a profound impact on actual numbers.

So where does that leave us? How do we “end” abortion? I believe the only way is through scientific and medical advancements, coupled with social programs to support women that feel they have no other “choice” but to kill the unborn. You can make abortion illegal but that won’t stop the 15 year old rape victim of a brutal “father” from ending the child’s life. Perhaps nothing can. But to have social nets in place where that child could turn to someone for help “might” save the life of the unborn or prevent the next attack. Perhaps advancements in science and medicine will lead to a day when a woman that can not cope with a pregnacy can “end the pregnancy” without “ending the life” of her child. Perhaps we will see a day of “survivable abortions” where the fetus is transfered to an artifical womb and allowed to live. On that day, I pray that we all step up to give these innocent children homes.

None of this will happen with “cut taxes and programs to the bone” policies. Throw the poor under the bus and they will see little choice but to “terminate pregnancies”.

Pipe dream? Possibly… But assuming that if you elect one political party over the other is going to have any impact on abortion is just as big a pipe dream. Since Roe v Wade, we have had more Republican administrations then Democratic and nothing has changed. Doing the same thing and expecting different results is not the sign of a healthy mind.

God bless

My friend, no matter how many programs exist, the fact is that abortion will always be encouraged by a large, secular humanist government. There is no god, there is no support of the individual person as a child of God. Take a look at this link:

fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/abortion-rates-for-101-countries/

A socialist country, Greenland, is at the top of the list for abortions. They have many, MANY programs to support their people, but they do so absent of a god. Their god is the secular humanist government, and there is no purpose to protect the child in the womb. It is merely a choice, even more so than here in the US. Sweden, another socialist country, is also higher on the list. Even Denmark, with all its ‘social programs’, is still at 18.8 percent of pregnancies ending in abortion.

You are looking for a cure, where only God can heal. A socialist secular humanist government will NOT make the situation better.

 

[SuperLuigi]

What is our actual goal where abortion is concerned? To end abortion or to overturn Roe v Wade?

With failures in South Dakota and Mississippi, we need to tread more lighter on the legality to start off with.

Will overturning Roe v Wade impact the number of abortions performed?

Yes, it will. All that did (besides murder tens of millions of innocents) was make it illegal for states to make abortion illegal.

Does it have any chance of actually “ending” abortion? All it would do is curtail legal abortions in a handful of states in the USA. I doubt it would have a profound impact on actual numbers.

It would because those who wish to have an abortion would need to go to another state or another country. It would at least get them to think twice about it.

So where does that leave us? How do we “end” abortion? I believe the only way is through scientific and medical advancements, coupled with social programs to support women that feel they have no other “choice” but to kill the unborn.

I think that is just a cop-out in many cases to avoid responsibility. A lot of the poor in this country can afford it and we have more government programs for them now more than ever.

You can make abortion illegal but that won’t stop the 15 year old rape victim of a brutal “father” from ending the child’s life. Perhaps nothing can. But to have social nets in place where that child could turn to someone for help “might” save the life of the unborn or prevent the next attack

You can’t stop those kinds of things 100% anymore than you could stop theft or murder. Bringing the state in to solve every single problem because one is worried about one person being marginalized is the reason why the nation is in its current state. People need to handle situations like these through private charities and churches and proper education.

If you want to prevent rape, teach women self-defense and common sense (ie maybe the loud-mouthed bar fly isn’t such a great choice of a partner, even though he’s more confident than the shy quiet coworker who busts his chops), and that there are resources there for her if she does get assaulted.

And help us preserve marriage! NOM is right when they say traditional marriage civilizes men and protects women!

Also, recognize where most rapes come from: a person they know. In this country, it’s a lot about relationship management and understanding.

.

Perhaps advancements in science and medicine will lead to a day when a woman that can not cope with a pregnacy can “end the pregnancy” without “ending the life” of her child. Perhaps we will see a day of “survivable abortions” where the fetus is transfered to an artifical womb and allowed to live. On that day, I pray that we all step up to give these innocent children homes.

That’s a long way off, especially if the AHA stands. It will kill the incentives for medical advancements.

None of this will happen with “cut taxes and programs to the bone” policies. Throw the poor under the bus and they will see little choice but to “terminate pregnancies”.

That is not throwing the poor under the bus. If you subsidize something, you always get more of it.

Reagen lowered taxes and increased the tax base (this is also Romney’s plan) and charitable giving increased as did revenue to the government.

Reagen increased spending on family programs by 18%.

[Pipe dream? Possibly… But assuming that if you elect one political party over the other is going to have any impact on abortion is just as big a pipe dream. Since Roe v Wade, we have had more Republican administrations then Democratic and nothing has changed.

It is a pipe dream, and in the nasty world of politics, you can sit around and dream like the progressives do or understand reality:

-Tax cuts increase government revenue

-Taxing the rich cuts investment. Ever gotten a job from a poor person?

-Subsidizing poverty means more poverty.

The change, Constitutionally, has to be made at the Supreme Court.

Doing the same thing and expecting different results is not the sign of a healthy mind.

That’s why we need to look at treading lighter on personhood amendments, because they aren’t working.
[/quote]

 

[SuperLuigi]

their is evidence that as welfare programs decreased, the abortion rate decreased; welfare does not lower the abortion rate

hli.org/files/pltp_wefare.pdf

thank you!