Hipocrisy or Solutions on Abortion??

Being "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 Liberty. 

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.

I 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.

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 do)

FACT Ronald Reagan, Republicans,Conservatives strongly supported Abortion.
Especially for poor and black women

Conservatives saw Abortion as a means to "weed out" the population of non-white minorities who voted Democrat,
a self-directed eugenics program.
Someone got the cynical scheme that Abortion Rights could instead be
used as a moral issue to
"split" the middle class Democratic vote along religious lines, and gain power.  So much for morality.

Need 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 God-liness.

Mandatory child-bearing degrades our Liberty as defined by the U.S. Constitution, and is one more step towards the Totalitarianism that Conservatives claim to hate.
Mandatory child-bearing strenghtens the power and reach of the Nanny-State, to reach deeper into control over our personal decisions as Big Parent (you get punishment if you don't behave).
The main point: Dead Babies are being used as a Weapon in Class Warfare.
If you oppose Abortion, Educate!  Lecture!  Oppose it to your hearts content!


Republicans and Democrats 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 month.
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 anywhere,
or else take life risks associated with young childbirth or dangerous illegal abortions.
I once jokingly, ironically, recommended Capital Punishment for women who seek or have abortions,
but I'd be afraid to joke about that today.  People would take me serious.

FACT Annual abortions, declining since the 1970's, increased since the Bush Presidency.
 Given 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
Can someone, anyone, priests, ministers, lay clergy PLEASE explain to Christians that
Conservative economic and social policies INCREASE abortion rates?
Can someone, anyone, explain to Good True Blue Honest Christians that
mislabeled "family values" legislation destroys more families? 
(Isn't this more "liberal social engineering", cynically designed for right-wing domination?)
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 whole story?

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 they oppose?
This is a CONSERVATIVE statement on tinkering with the Constitution.
Attacks on the Constitution, corrupting our legal guarantees to God-given Liberty, more than any other moral issue, is rampant anti-Americanism, an 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 grounds), because

a)  Kerry did not SUPPORT nor HAVE nor PERFORM abortions. 
b)  Kerry opposed new Legislation outlawing PBA, but he failed to clearly address WHY.  Republicans ran with that lack of explanation, because it worked for them, politically.
c)  PBA 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. 

The level of hysterical controversy over a relatively rare situation is vastly out of proportion to realityWhat percentage of women and girls who decide to not carry to term, instead carry to near-term and then abort at the last minute?  Duh!

The anti-abortion platform is like structuring society for 295 million Americans, based on the existence of one Jeffrey Dahmer.  Then the control freaks argue that anyone who opposes the harshest 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.)
d)  Therefore, the argument about PBA cannot truly be restricted to PBA, but a step towards outlawing ALL abortion.  FINE.  Everyone 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 subverting the principles of our Constitutional Republic for a radical Social Experiment bring great risk to the basic structure of our Constitutional Republic itself???

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 white Republican college girls were going away to college, getting pregnant at 18, and having abortions. 
Abortion is not restricted to a certain class, race, or political persuasion.

Outlawing 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 abortion. 
Let's get creativeHow far are people willing to go to eliminate abortions, and at what cost?  Is there NO limit?  
How about mandatory monthly pregnancy testing and
mandatory preventive imprisonment
for ALL pregnant women,
until they give birth.

That will solve the problem, once and 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. 
How is it that so-called Conservatives support massive government intrusion?
The meaning of "Conservative" has been intentionally undermined to mean "repression" and "control", using spurious emotional arguments that contradict facts. 
This serves the agenda of Big Government.  

Exceedingly harsh Federal legislation against drugs, including long or even life sentences for possession of certain plant 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 negative personal experience within society has curbed drug use, but criminalization increases profit margins and boosts the
incentive to peddle drugs. 
So 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 enforcement.
"Liberal" programs, such as education , can lower drug use, as Richard Nixon knew.  But education is "namby-pamby liberalism", regardless if it works and
serves the stated goal. 

Phony opportunistic Conservatives (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 pandering, intentionally wrong priorities. 
It is obvious there is a big gap between the stated goal -- minimizing abortion -- and the actual policy goal -- increased repression.
e)  Kerry was arguably right to oppose Federal rules that would kill a mother to save her baby.  Astonishingly, some "christians" unabashedly support 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 see death 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 who opposed allowing Terry Schiavo to be pulled off artificial life support would gladly allow mothers to die, rather than use medical intervention to save her life, if saving her life meant the fetus would die.

Of course, "christian politicians" (including Kerry) have avoided taking a public stance addressing these tricky questions --- 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 line and what is sensible .  Asking questions would erode blind, thoughtless, blanket ideology this movement thrives on.
f)  Kerry failed to clearly debate the Classic Conservative-Libertarian position that allowing the Federal Govt. intercede in abortion violates a private contract between a patient 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.
Old-school Conservatives deplore Federal intervention in private contracts, as a high Principle.  
But the term "conservative" has been perverted to mean whatever they say it means on any given day.
Conservatives have complained for decades about social engineering Liberals trying to legislate behavior --- but that was old-school 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 ignorance.
My own 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 conservatives oppose 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 harsh punishment that is proven by experience to FAIL
But in other, more covert ways, it succeeds.
Political considerations, perhaps?  Who gets paid?  Private Prisons or Social workers?  More repression or more freedom?  Hmm?  What does our government really support?
Hint: Lockheed-Martin supplies our Military, runs our Prisons, and manages Welfare for states.

It is well-known that most "christian conservatives" in leadership do not give a goddam rat's ass about children, only about fetuses.  Some honest 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 children more harshly, by cutting funds for education and food support, by giving contracts to prison industry like Sodexo for school lunches, and by strapping parents with more work and more debt.  Grandiose "Conservative" politicians love to punish "bad parents" but are loathe to actually do anything sensible that would resolve problems, because problem-solving is not the point. Instead, self-aggrandizing appearances and centralized repression is the purpose. 
John Kerry failed to state one simple fact told to me by two conservative Christian Democrat women who personally oppose abortion: 
Annual abortions, declining since the 1970's, increased since the Bush Presidency.

Pro-life? Look at the fruits  by Dr. Glen Harold Stassen - a Christian ethicist, and trained in statistical analysis.

WHY?  Certainly a number of variations and different reasons.  Everyone is different. 
But the main reason is poverty serves up more abortions
Especially intentional policies which create more mass poverty.
It's not exactly a mystery:
How could it be otherwise? 

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, if it's 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 choices. 
Maybe you personally would NEVER choose abortion, but isn't there still the fear of "how am I going to support and care for this child?" 
One question people ask, even Christians, is how ethical it is to subject a child to abject poverty?
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 when you are well-fed and have plenty of means, than when you or your family is hungry. 
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 thievery legal.
The truth is, more powerful rich elites kill more than powerless people. 
Does anyone care about Telling the Truth anymore?
Home:  Take Over World
Moral values and our issues

Home:  Take Over WorldHome (start) Page 1
Home Page 1-A
Home Page 1-B
AudioLinks - poli
Amazing 9-11 audio-vid
Site Map
Video-Aud List
KEY issues covered up by DISINFO
INDEX2 9-11 & Fourth Reich, Nazi history
INDEX3 blackbox voting, peak oil, other issues