Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!

[Monika]

What I'm saying is that the people who want abortion banned don't want the coat hangers either. Whatever you might think of them, they have no malicious intent. They think there is a way to craft a society where neither of those two evils exist.

If that´s the case, then that´s incredibly naive. Look at the past and the situation in some other countries still.

They might not have no malicious intent, but their actions will lead to suffering and tradegy just the same.

But hey, if and when they come up with the perfect solution, they should let the rest of us know. Meanwhile...

[milomorris]

They might not have no malicious intent, but their actions will lead to suffering and tradegy just the same.

The current environment where abortion is allowed leads to suffering and tragedy too. And that's my own opinion, not just that of the anti-abortionists. I don't think the government should dictate whether a woman should have the choice to have an abortion or not, but I'm not going sit here and say that abortion is a reasonable solution to anything.

But hey, if and when they come up with the perfect solution, they should let the rest of us know. Meanwhile...

I agree that its the anti-abortionists that want change, so it is incumbent on them to come up with a viable, sustainable alternative.

[Front-Ranger]

What I'm saying is that the people who want abortion banned don't want the coat hangers either. Whatever you might think of them, they have no malicious intent. They think there is a way to craft a society where neither of those two evils exist.

I actually am one of the people who think there is a way to craft such a society. For many years we have been going towards preventive health care, in which all people stay in touch with their doctor and are regularly checked. Think what it could be like if all adolescent girls, no matter what their families' income, could consult with a health care professional a couple of times per year. There are new birth control methods that are far less punishing on health. Also, think about if sex and health education was mandatory for all young people. We would see far greater societal health across all income levels (and orientations too).

Think what it would be like if every child who entered this world was a wanted child. Quality of life would rise and crime would languish. The ultimate solution would be an end to poverty. The fact that millions in our society suffer and struggle just to get the basics of food, water and shelter drags us all down whether we admit it or not.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I actually am one of the people who think there is a way to craft such a society. For many years we have been going towards preventive health care, in which all people stay in touch with their doctor and are regularly checked. Think what it could be like if all adolescent girls, no matter what their families' income, could consult with a health care professional a couple of times per year. There are new birth control methods that are far less punishing on health. Also, think about if sex and health education was mandatory for all young people. We would see far greater societal health across all income levels (and orientations too).

While I agree with you in principle, FRiend Scare, this seems to overlook the fact that the people who don't want abortion and don't want the coat hangers also tend not to want birth control; all they want is abstention (like that did Bristol Palin any good). They also tend not to want sex education and are against government-mandated-just-about-everything. I would like to live in the kind of world you describe, too, but to think it's even remotely possible in the political climate of the U.S. today would be both utopian and naive in the extreme. Maybe it will be possible in the lifetime of your grandson's grandson (if humans haven't destroyed the planet by then), but we won't live to see it.

[milomorris]

I actually am one of the people who think there is a way to craft such a society. For many years we have been going towards preventive health care, in which all people stay in touch with their doctor and are regularly checked. Think what it could be like if all adolescent girls, no matter what their families' income, could consult with a health care professional a couple of times per year. There are new birth control methods that are far less punishing on health. Also, think about if sex and health education was mandatory for all young people. We would see far greater societal health across all income levels (and orientations too).

This actually could work. I can see how it would at least reduce the incidents of abortions. A few thoughts.

- Currently every state offers healthcare coverage to children of low-income families, AFAIK. The problem is that parents too often don't take advantage of that care, i.e., don't take their children on regular doctor visits. So even when they become teens and can go on their own, they are already "trained" not to bother. We could solve this by affixing mandatory doctor (and dentist) visits as a condition of receiving subsidized care.

- I agree with you about the new birth control methods. Not only are we developing oral contraceptives for men, but there are also drugs being made that would terminate pregnancies at the embryonic stage. To me, that's better than having to kill a fetus.

- Making sex education mandatory is a sticky subject. Perhaps it could be woven into biology curriculae.

[serious crayons]

While I agree with you in principle, FRiend Scare, this seems to overlook the fact that the people who don't want abortion and don't want the coat hangers also tend not to want birth control; all they want is abstention (like that did Bristol Palin any good). They also tend not to want sex education and are against government-mandated-just-about-everything.

Exactly. In fact, anti-choice groups aren't even particularly active with helping pregnant girls with adoptions.

Think what it would be like if every child who entered this world was a wanted child.

Well, infertile couples who want to adopt would be left high and dry. But at least there are fewer of them nowadays, thanks to improved infertility treatments.

Quality of life would rise and crime would languish. The ultimate solution would be an end to poverty. The fact that millions in our society suffer and struggle just to get the basics of food, water and shelter drags us all down whether we admit it or not.

Totally agree with this, Scare-Ranger, but I'm not sure it's very connected to the abortion debate. I think most people who get abortions are middle-class or higher -- one because it's expensive, two because they have life plans that would conflict with young motherhood, three because in poorer communities there is less stigma against just having the baby.

Ant-poverty efforts WOULD, IMO, reduce the rate of teen motherhood, which is another big problem, and one that is connected with poverty as well as crime.

This actually could work. I can see how it would at least reduce the incidents of abortions. A few thoughts.

- Currently every state offers healthcare coverage to children of low-income families, AFAIK. The problem is that parents too often don't take advantage of that care, i.e., don't take their children on regular doctor visits. So even when they become teens and can go on their own, they are already "trained" not to bother. We could solve this by affixing mandatory doctor (and dentist) visits as a condition of receiving subsidized care.

Yes, that will go over well with typical anti-choice people: "Encourage the poor to take more advantage of their government-provided healthcare coverage!" (Not that all anti-choice people oppose national health care or vise versa, but there does seem to be a big overlap.)

- I agree with you about the new birth control methods. Not only are we developing oral contraceptives for men, but there are also drugs being made that would terminate pregnancies at the embryonic stage. To me, that's better than having to kill a fetus.

There already is such a drug, and while it might be OK with you, to a lot of anti-choice people it is anything but a satisfactory solution. Mifepristone, a pharmaceutical that can terminate a pregnancy in the first 49 days, was banned at first but is now legal and available in all 50 states. Anti-choice groups campaigned against it and continue to campaign for its withdrawal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifepristone#United_States

- Making sex education mandatory is a sticky subject. Perhaps it could be woven into biology curriculae.

Sex education is pretty routine these days. It's probably not usually mandatory (if a school didn't want to offer it or a parent didn't want his/her kid attending, AFAIK that would be OK), but the schools my kids went to offered it without much fanfare. What IS still controversial is sex education that offers information about birth control.

Many anti-choice people seem to think that if teenagers aren't given information about birth control they won't have sex. They tend to be the same people who think that if abortion is outlawed, girls and women won't resort to more dangerous methods of terminating pregnancies.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Totally agree with this, Scare-Ranger, but I'm not sure it's very connected to the abortion debate. I think most people who get abortions are middle-class or higher -- one because it's expensive, two because they have life plans that would conflict with young motherhood, three because in poorer communities there is less stigma against just having the baby.

Ant-poverty efforts WOULD, IMO, reduce the rate of teen motherhood, which is another big problem, and one that is connected with poverty as well as crime.

That will require a change in culture in certain communities--so that having a baby no longer confirms a certain "status" on a girl of 15 years--or even younger.

Sex education is pretty routine these days. It's probably not usually mandatory (if a school didn't want to offer it or a parent didn't want his/her kid attending, AFAIK that would be OK), but the schools my kids went to offered it without much fanfare. What IS still controversial is sex education that offers information about birth control.

Sorta OT, but maybe sorta not: Do public schools still have "health classes"? "In my day," we were required to take "Health," and that was where we were taught about the human reproductive system (though not, of course, about contraception). That was the class where the football players used to pass out during the films of babies being born.    (I just closed my eyes during the gross parts.  )

Many anti-choice people seem to think that if teenagers aren't given information about birth control they won't have sex. They tend to be the same people who think that if abortion is outlawed, girls and women won't resort to more dangerous methods of terminating pregnancies.

At best these people have their heads in the sand (or perhaps somewhere in their own anatomy  ). At worst, they're criminally stupid.

Oh, I forgot. Stupidity isn't a crime. ...

[serious crayons]

That will require a change in culture in certain communities--so that having a baby no longer confirms a certain "status" on a girl of 15 years--or even younger.

My impression has always been that, in low-income communities, having a baby isn't so much about "status" as it is just a normal thing lots of girls do.

If your mother had you when she was a single teenager, and so did your neighbor's mother and your best friend's mother and lots of other people you know, it's not something you question much, one way or the other. Plus, your brother is in prison, which seems like a bigger problem than a pregnancy. Plus, you're not planning to go to college or "have a career," because nobody you know does those things, so it's not like teenage motherhood interferes with any big life plans.

Though I suppose that if having babies is equated with being a "grown up" older teenager, there could be a certain amount of "status" involved. Talking to a teacher at a low-income school in New Orleans, I heard about an 11-year-old who was going around pretending to be pregnant, with a pillow under her shirt. The school wrote a note to her mother, but later found out she was unable to read it. The mother was 22.

Sorta OT, but maybe sorta not: Do public schools still have "health classes"?

Yes.

[Jeff Wrangler]

My impression has always been that, in low-income communities, having a baby isn't so much about "status" as it is just a normal thing lots of girls do.

If your mother had you when she was a single teenager, and so did your neighbor's mother and your best friend's mother and lots of other people you know, it's not something you question much, one way or the other. Plus, your brother is in prison, which seems like a bigger problem than a pregnancy. Plus, you're not planning to go to college or "have a career," because nobody you know does those things, so it's not like teenage motherhood interferes with any big life plans.

Though I suppose that if having babies is equated with being a "grown up" older teenager, there could be a certain amount of "status" involved. Talking to a teacher at a low-income school in New Orleans, I heard about an 11-year-old who was going around pretending to be pregnant, with a pillow under her shirt. The school wrote a note to her mother, but later found out she was unable to read it. The mother was 22.

Just as a point of information, I picked up the notion that having a baby confers "status" from something I read in the Philadelphia Inquirer some time ago.

[milomorris]

I think most people who get abortions are middle-class or higher -- one because it's expensive, two because they have life plans that would conflict with young motherhood, three because in poorer communities there is less stigma against just having the baby.

I have to disagree with that. While there is a "trophy baby" phenomenon at work in poor communities, a disproportionate number of abortions are babies of poor, minority mothers.

According to Guttmacher, “The proportion of abortion patients who were poor increased by almost 60%—from 27% in 2000 to 42% in 2008.” As you might expect, the profile of the abortion patient is disproportionately poor, as well as disproportionately Black or Latina.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelle-chen/demographics-of-abortion_b_567915.html

Yes, that will go over well with typical anti-choice people: "Encourage the poor to take more advantage of their government-provided healthcare coverage!" (Not that all anti-choice people oppose national health care or vise versa, but there does seem to be a big overlap.)

I didn't say "encourage," I said "mandatory." As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to make yourself a ward of the state, you have to follow the state's rules. And we're not talking about anything more than we already have in terms of Medicaid. We don't need Obamacare in order to get this done.

There already is such a drug, and while it might be OK with you, to a lot of anti-choice people it is anything but a satisfactory solution. Mifepristone, a pharmaceutical that can terminate a pregnancy in the first 49 days, was banned at first but is now legal and available in all 50 states. Anti-choice groups campaigned against it and continue to campaign for its withdrawal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifepristone#United_States

I'm sure that there is a wide enough range among the anti-abortion set that there would be some support for embryonic termination on that side, even if that support was luke-warm. Dead embryos are a lot less ugly than dead fetuses...especially dead late-term fetuses. I think an effective print, web, and TV campaign containing side-by-side photos of each could drive that distinction home   
 

Sex education is pretty routine these days. It's probably not usually mandatory (if a school didn't want to offer it or a parent didn't want his/her kid attending, AFAIK that would be OK), but the schools my kids went to offered it without much fanfare. What IS still controversial is sex education that offers information about birth control.

There could be incentives for kids who's parents agree to allowing them to attend. There could be an extra .5 point uplift to the kid's GPA, or maybe free admission to an SAT prep class. Only the most fire-breathing fundamentalists are going to pass that up.

Many anti-choice people seem to think that if teenagers aren't given information about birth control they won't have sex. They tend to be the same people who think that if abortion is outlawed, girls and women won't resort to more dangerous methods of terminating pregnancies.

Again, I have to disagree. The anti-abortionists that I come in contact with are well aware of the coat hanger days. They just think that their alternatives will make a return to those days unnecessary. They're not stupid, they're just hopeful...maybe foolishly hopeful, but hopeful nonetheless.