FACT: Annual abortions, declining
since the 1970's, increased since the Bush Presidency.
Hipocrisy or Solutions on Abortion??
OUTLAWING ABORTIONS END THEM ??
"pro-Liberty", I believe the ONLY thing worse than abortion is to have
the State outlaw the service of abortion as a freely-contracted
arrangement for medical services between a woman and her physician. In
other words, I am strongly opposed to State
Intervention in abortion --- on the moral ground of
This is actually a Libertarian stance, immoral in one sense (the
innocent fetus), highly moral in the sense of "God-given free
will". Unpleasantness aside, I think that a woman's contract with
her physician cannot be
trumped by some "implied contract" a Fetus has with the State, for it's
protection from it's own mother. I think that any other position
is pro-Statism, and highly collectivist in the sense that it's the
State imposing criminal penalties "for the greater good".
The "greater good"
is a "communist" position that Libertarians and Conservatives typically abhor --- in most cases
--- with exceptions for
outlawing abortion, and exceptions for "communist" State protectionism for their favorite
multinational industry from the encroachment of legitimate small
business and from legitimate public demands for
accountability, social responsibility to humans [not harming it's neighbors and customers
for example], and the like.
believe, deeply, that people who feel so moved to oppose abortion
should provide both means (adoption, cash subsidies to the "career" of
motherhood) and moral persuasion to
the n'th degree, but NEVER
engaging Legislature, Courts, etc.
to try to smuggle in a so-called
"pro-Life" Statist agenda. I see no difference between the
"socialist" gun control anti-2nd Amendment agenda ---
for the good of the majority,
we will outlaw defensive weapons from the populace --- and a
"socialist" anti-abortion agenda where we will make it illegal for a
woman-citizen to obtain an abortion on her own choosing without legal
coercion, where we will place the "inherent" rights of the Fetus -- as
determined by "friendly government officials" -- above
the rights of a Citizen to mind their own affairs.
Reagan, Republicans,Conservatives strongly
The crude way of stating this is "government officials, keep your nose
and your grubby mitts out of my vagina".
(being male, I don't have one, but I support sisters who
for poor and black women.
Abortion as a means to
"weed out" the population of non-white
minorities who voted Democrat,
Someone got the cynical
scheme that Abortion Rights
could instead be used
moral issue to
"split" the middle
class Democratic vote along religious lines, and gain power. So
much for morality.
we wonder about the
sudden change of heart?
Worse, under the cloak of an
"obvious moral high ground",
they could otherwise carry out all sorts
of Evil, Murder, Robbery, Fraud, and still claim goodness and
degrades our Liberty as defined by the U.S. Constitution, and is one
more step towards the
Totalitarianism that Conservatives claim
The main point:
Babies are being used as a Weapon in Class Warfare.
Mandatory child-bearing strenghtens the power and
reach of the Nanny-State, to reach deeper into control over our personal decisions
get punishment if
you don't behave).
Educate! Lecture! Oppose it to your hearts content!
THE STATE TO ENFORCE MORALITY.
YOU WILL REGRET YOU EVER ASKED!
DON'T BE TRICKED:
from wealthy families can afford to send little
Muffy anywhere in the world (if they so choose) to
fix that "little
mistake" that could derail her future career and her marriage to
that rich frat boy.
Muffy can take herself, on the allowance that daddy gives her every
Less affluent women
must deal with their mistakes, make tough
economic choices and
face hardships related to child-rearing,
with little or no help from
or else take life risks
associated with young childbirth or
I once jokingly, ironically, recommended Capital
Punishment for women who seek or
but I'd be afraid to joke about that
today. People would take me serious.
the trends of the 1990s, 52000 more abortions
occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been
expected, according to a Christian doctor.
(read more below)
priests, ministers, lay
clergy PLEASE explain to Christians that
(Isn't this more "liberal social engineering",
cynically designed for
Conservative economic and social
someone, anyone, explain to Good True Blue Honest
mislabeled "family values"
legislation destroys more families?
If I labeled a
turd "cologne" and labeled
cologne "feces" would
Americans flush the
cologne and wipe feces
on their face.
Do labels really tell the
Have Americans become so attuned to a slave-drone mentality that
rather than stick up for themselves and
state their opinions boldly,
they demand that the "big, friendly government" outlaw everything
is a CONSERVATIVE statement on
tinkering with the Constitution.
on the Constitution, corrupting our legal guarantees to God-given
than any other moral issue, is rampant anti-Americanism,
immoral descent into serfdom.
Opposing John Kerry BECAUSE of
abortion -- or even
partial-birth abortion -- was a sad choice (regardless of
how bad Kerry sucked and deserved to be opposed or challenged on other
Kerry did not SUPPORT nor HAVE nor PERFORM abortions.
Kerry opposed new Legislation outlawing
but he failed to clearly address WHY. Republicans ran with that
of explanation, because it worked for them, politically.
occurs in less than 1% of
abortions, usually medical emergencies. This means that it is
usually a medical necessity.
Late Term PBA's of 'choice' are less than 0.5%
of total abortions.
level of hysterical controversy over a relatively rare situation is
vastly out of proportion to reality. What
percentage of women and girls who decide to not carry to term,
instead carry to near-term and then abort at the last
The anti-abortion platform is like structuring
society for 295 million Americans, based on the existence of one
Dahmer. Then the control freaks argue that anyone who opposes the
intrusions into the lives of every single American "supports
Jeffrey Dahmer". (Jeff Dahmer was the twisted, mentally ill
man who killed young men, chopped them up, and ate them.)
Therefore, the argument about PBA cannot truly be restricted to PBA, but a step towards outlawing ALL
knows this is the agenda.
BUT WILL OUTLAWING ABORTIONS END or CURB ABORTIONS?? Or just make
them unsafe and deadly?
Does not the act of
principles of our Constitutional Republic for a radical Social
great risk to the basic structure of our Constitutional Republic
A Conservative friend who attended
a top right-wing Republican conservative college on special private
grants from right-wing Foundations, testified to me that many many rich
Republican college girls were going away to college, getting pregnant
at 18, and having abortions.
is not restricted to a certain class, race, or
social problems has NEVER solved social problems.
Outlawing vice ALWAYS creates more vice, or bigger "side effects".
It is technically
possible to use more
and more draconian measures to try to stamp out every last
get creative. How far are people
willing to go to
eliminate abortions, and at what cost? Is
there NO limit?
about mandatory monthly pregnancy
for ALL pregnant women,
until they give birth.
That will solve the problem,
for all, won't it?
Given the millions of
people imprisoned for non-violent drug possession, I'm
afraid to ask that question.
Someone might take me up on the
challenge and propose that.
Outlawing abortion will
criminalize and punish people, and will cause more accidental death,
increase corruption, and horribly will invite the State into
women's uterus and privacy.
is it that so-called Conservatives support massive government
The meaning of
"Conservative" has been intentionally
"repression" and "control", using spurious emotional arguments that
This serves the
agenda of Big Government.
harsh Federal legislation
drugs, including long or even life sentences for possession of certain
substances and chemical deriviatives, has not put a dent in possession,
nor use, nor sales of illicit mood-altering substances, despite
putting millions of people in prison ... mostly people too poor and
ill-born to get the benefit of the doubt from a judge.
If anything, raw
within society has curbed drug use, but criminalization increases
profit margins and boosts the incentive to peddle
I'm drawing the analogy between State-sponsored prohibition of personal
choices with regards to mood-altering chemicals, and the question of
State Intervention against abortion.
Profit margins for
the CIA importing drugs from Afghanistan and Latin America (as
they have admitted), profits
made by Wall Street banks
and investment firms laundering drug money though stock market, and
better control of the drug market all
seem to be the unstated goals of drug
"Liberal" programs, such as
education , can lower drug use, as Richard
Nixon knew. But education
"namby-pamby liberalism", regardless if it works and
better serves the stated
(as opposed to genuine
Conservatives) obviously DO NOT
CARE if Abortion(or drug use) actually INCREASES,
so long as they
can perceive themselves as being "anti-permissive", so long as they can
punish more people, regardless of the actual
results. Amongst Conservative voters, this can arguably be
attributed to ignorance or misinformation, and force-fed
ideology. Amongst Conservative politicians, who have access to
public policy numbers and statistics, this can only be attributed to intentional ignorance and
obvious there is a big gap between the stated goal
-- and the actual policy goal -- increased
e) Kerry was arguably right to oppose Federal
rules that would kill a mother to save her baby. Astonishingly, some "christians"
allowing an ill
mother to die, just so long as "God's Will" occurs rather than
medical intervention. Then the mother will be dead, but sinless
in some sense.
Some "christians" astonishingly
as just punishment of
sexually irresponsible women. In the 21st Century, not the
16th Century of the Salem witch trials. Some of the same people
Schiavo to be pulled off artificial life support would gladly
allow mothers to die, rather than use medical intervention to
her life, if saving her life meant the fetus would die.
"christian politicians" (including
have avoided taking a public
--- preferring to stick to the narrow topic of the abortion
itself. This is because intelligently addressing these issues
would invite controversy about where to draw the
Asking questions would erode blind,
thoughtless, blanket ideology this
movement thrives on.
Kerry failed to clearly debate
Classic Conservative-Libertarian position that allowing the Federal Govt.
intercede in abortion violates a private contract between
and her doctor, in a vain attempt to eradicate
a medical procedure that
is thousands of years old. Ancient human societies even
practiced infanticide ... for survival and common sense when food
supplies ran too low.
Conservatives deplore Federal
intervention in private contracts, as a high Principle.
"conservative" has been perverted to mean whatever they say
means on any given day.
have complained for decades about social
engineering Liberals trying to legislate behavior --- but that
conservatives. New conservatives only invoke that argument when
legislation involves more freedom and opportunity. So long as the
government action is towards more and harsher
repression, they are all in favor of
social engineering, which they otherwise claim does not
work. This does not even correlate to economic
conservativism. We waste far more money punishing than
fixing. This is so pernicious it MUST be intentional, not
understanding on social issues is it is possible to use government to encourage or
discourage certain behavioral trends, but there must be rationality
about what works and what fails and what creates the opposite effect.
For example, frank sex education reduces (but cannot eliminate)
"illicit" and "irresponsible" sex, yet
this. Frank, non-hysterical discussions about the likely
perils of drug use reduces
drug use, but far more money is spent on cruel and unusually
proven by experience to FAIL.
But in other, more covert ways, it succeeds.
considerations, perhaps? Who gets paid? Private Prisons or
Social workers? More repression or more freedom? Hmm?
What does our
Lockheed-Martin supplies our Military, runs our Prisons, and manages Welfare for states.
It is well-known that
in leadership do not give a goddam rat's ass about children, only
about fetuses. Some
christians openly admit that, and complain that their religious
movement has not addressed that. Actually the conservative
government has addressed
that, and has voted to punish innocent
by cutting funds for education and food support, by
giving contracts to prison industry
like Sodexo for school lunches, and
strapping parents with more work and more debt. Grandiose "Conservative" politicians
punish "bad parents" but are loathe
anything sensible that would resolve problems, because
is not the point. Instead,
and centralized repression is
John Kerry failed to state
simple fact told to me by two conservative Christian Democrat
women who personally oppose abortion:
abortions, declining since the
1970's, increased since the Bush
Certainly a number of variations and different reasons. Everyone
But the main reason is poverty
serves up more abortions.
Especially intentional policies
which create more mass poverty.
It's not exactly a
How could it be otherwise?
the govt acts with extreme selfishness, rewarding a rich minority of
6000 families, at
the expense of the poor majority of 80% of Americans, it displays an
attitude that people
mirror, as they also become MORE selfish and
- In times of grinding
poverty and unemployment, there is LESS of a sense of Personal Security
and LESS generosity of Love.
- There is LESS room for
being Loving, and MORE tendency to exhibit selfish behavior.
- There is
MORE tendency to "just not give
a fuck" about what happens to others in times of harshness.
There is LESS
caring. There is more frustration, more hopelessness, when
are up against the wall, leading to more dysfunctional behaviors,
including "illicit" sex.
- This is just how
people react in times of desperation ... unless they are organized to
bond together for greater economic security ... and we all know how the
anti-Communists of the FBI, CIA, and COINTELPRO felt about that as they
intervened, infiltrated, and undermined such programs in the past.
- When the a population
is impoverished, there is LESS incentive for pregnant women to carry to
- When the a population
is impoverished, there is LESS
willingness for men to act as responsible fathers.
- When the a population
is impoverished, there is LESS overall
willingness to "start a family".
- When health care is
scarce, more women do not want to be pregnant or raise
women don't want to raise children in poverty and be dependent
on State funding.
- Yet, people do not stop having sex
until the economy magically improves.
- When a population is
intentionally harmed economically, there is LESS tendency to purchase
- They say the War on Poverty didn't
work (but it did until it was
- The War Against the Poor seems
- People make less
humane, ethical, and
responsible choices , in an
economic stranglehold, because -- obviously
-- practical options are more limited.
Obviously, some women will never
have an abortion regardless of poverty, but this is a personal
decision, not a government choice.
Some will choose abortions despite having means to motherhood,
otherwise inconvenient. Even if this means severe risk.
I'm referring to large trends, not
individual unique cases.
But even for good, moral people, with the best
intentions, intentional impoverishment and unemployment
sets up an unnecessary battle between moral and practical
personally would NEVER choose abortion, but isn't there still
the fear of "how am I going to support and care for this child?"
people ask, even
Christians, is how ethical it is to subject a child to abject
This is not a question to justify
abortion, it's a question about how to best structure incentives and
best serve society, if incentives are called for.
It's an old saying that it's easier
to be against stealing
you are well-fed and have
plenty of means, than when you or your family
Of course this does NOT imply that unethical
behavior is related to poverty, or that all poor people
commit crimes, or that all poor people steal.
On the contrary, more
Billionaires steal more money than your neighborhood petty
thief, but they can often afford the expense of making their brand of
The truth is, more powerful rich elites kill more than powerless