You might want to tell the anti-choice Mona Charen that the largest number of abortions are performed on women age 15 to 24. Her claim that many women get them because of financial reasons is narrow, simplistic and inaccurate. I wish people like her would stop putting up silly arguments for why we should be second-guessing a right that has been settled law since 1973. Really, handing money to a 15 year old to get her to have a baby?
Even granting Mona’s position, she claims those financial reasons “can be fixed”- by who, Mona? Her column only indicates that the old maxim about pro-lifers only caring about the pre-born are still 100% true.
If it was really about “saving babies”, “protecting mothers”, even just a little about helping ANYONE other than themselves, they’d propose financial assistance, childcare assistance, shelter assistance, something, anything provided by the state. Because these young mothers are often shunned by their communities and families, during and after pregnancy.
If you really think “finances” are an easily-solvable solution to reduce abortions, propose incentives for women to never have to consider finances when having a child. It’s that simple.
Otherwise, Mona, we can all tell it’s just posturing.
I've been bullied a bit by male commenters on various blogs because I keep asking why women can't simply have the right to terminate a pregnancy? This whole thing about justifying banning abortions because some sanctimonious people want to talk about "helping" pregnant women who don't have the financial means to be mothers is garbage. Why can't a woman have an abortion simply because it's her body and she doesn't want to be pregnant or give birth against her will?
Marycat2021, you've asked the essential question that is seldom addressed. There are more reasons that a woman could not want to be pregnant than apparently ever imagined by those who think just throwing money at her is sufficient. If "pro-lifers" were required to answer your question they would reveal their true patriarchial, authoritarian, misogynist religious reasons.
I'm retired and am doing research and reading about the history of misogyny, and I'm seeing how deep the anti-woman attitudes run, attitudes and thinking that have their roots in Herodotus and Aristotle. It's become almost hard-wired in the human brain. Last night, someone here commented that if women don't want to get pregnant, they shouldn't have sex. Another said that "the man" involved in the woman's pregnancy has just as much right to decide whether it should be terminated. We are still seeing that the loudest anti-choice voices are coming from men; they have always dominated the anti-choice movement.
I was pregnant on my 18th birthday, in 1975. I got a safe, affordable abortion in a clinic that was adjoined to a major hospital. I was treated with kindness and respect, and nobody called me a murderer. Not only was I going to college in the fall, but I just did not want that pregnancy or that baby. I was terrified of what would happen to me and my life, even though my boyfriend offered to marry me (oh please, that's not an answer or all purpose fix-it!). I have never regretted my decision. And perhaps if I had been able to obtain effective birth control in my tiny town back then, I would have a different story to tell. Abortion was the first major decision I ever had to make as an adult.
"Last night, someone here commented that if women don't want to get pregnant, they shouldn't have sex. Another said that "the man" involved in the woman's pregnancy has just as much right to decide whether it should be terminated" Who said either of those things?
I do not agree with abortion as a cavalier substitute for other birth control methods. Personally, I think that if THE MAN and the woman (it takes two after all) are not ready for the responsibility of a child, they should not engage in the activity that can potentially produce a child in spite of diligent use of birth control methods. The only 100% effective method of birth control is abstinence. But I also understand the reality of human nature. Furthermore, I am not willing to make my personal views a legal mandate.
If either of the potential parents is not ready to be a parent, then neither should engage in the activity that has the potential to make them a parent.
Even if these young mothers have their babies, they are still shunned by their communities and families. One of these young mothers with two preschool children and one infant, all different fathers, decided to turn her life around. She got herself sterilized. She started coming to my church. Except for some individuals like me, the church rejected her.
But she kept coming until the father of the infant got out of jail stole her car and stole her welfare money, and took off. As a result she couldn't pay her rent and utilities. Child protective services said without utilities her house was uninhabitable and took her children. Without children, she no longer qualified for the house, so now she is homeless. So she began living with some guy, and of course left the church. You get one guess how she paid rent. My church's reaction-- a lot of judgemental clucking but no help to prevent her perfectly rational decision given the circumstances. I tried to help, but I could not afford to support two households.
She cried bitterly about the church's treatment, "They see me as immoral." "That's true," I said, "But their sins, though less public, are far more serious. because their sins are deep in their heart and far more insidious."
It was revealing that Janet Yellen testified to Congress that making abortion illegal will hurt the economy. It’s not good for progress to disenfranchise women; there’s so much evidence in repressive countries. But, never mind! Punishment is its own reward for the Christian fascists.
Because it was a policy decision dressed up as a legal one, which decision has proven to be quite unpopular. Roe v. Wade mandates that states permit, unrestricted, second term abortions. Second term abortions are highly unpopular. Most countries do not allow them. FYI, your use of the "15 to 24" is highly misleading. Why stop at 15? Why not say "5 to 24." The fact is most women who get abortions are not minors.
This one might still upset you. What the hell is a "second term abortion"?
Amazing. Please get your terminology straight. I have corrected by statistical error by providing you with the above link. "Women are most likely to have an abortion at age 20, when the abortion rate peaks at 29.1 per 1000"
Most abortions are performed in the first trimester, up to 15 weeks. Second trimester abortions are much less common (up to 24 weeks) and are mostly done for medical reasons.
"Roe v. Wade mandates that states permit, unrestricted, second term abortions."
This is the second time you've said this, and the second time I've noted that 1) "second term abortions" aren't a thing (as there is only one "term" involved; they are trimesters) and, more importantly, 2) that it is a factually incorrect statement about Roe, which does in fact allow regulations in the second trimester. Why do you keep repeating this?
The decision is quite unpopular with a small group of people, but not unpopular with the majority of the people polled in the US. As for other countries, meaning European ones probably, there are social safety nets...health care that doesn't rest on employment, maternity leave that is longer than 6 weeks, and abortion is still allowed for medical reasons.
The line I've heard used to justify this stance is "I guess the father has to be a good guy for it not to be murder." They will say preventing "murder" is more important than forcing the woman to bring a pregnancy to term. Once you believe that abortion is murder, it's easy for them to justify anything because isn't murder the greatest of all evils? If your opponents are "baby murderers" you can justify just about anything. It's the philosophical equivalent of declaring a blueprint draft to be a fully-constructed house.
As another commenter asked you, do stop transmitting for long enough to actually register what others are saying?
From Mona's piece: "Pregnancy has no analogs and life is messy. In the cases of the life of the mother, rape, and incest, it is cruel to demand that a woman carry a pregnancy to term. Yes, ending the pregnancy is cruel too, but in rare cases it’s the lesser evil. There are a few other situations in which abortion seems the less grave offense—if the child is doomed to a short, painful life as in the case of Tay-Sachs disease, or if the mother is the sole support of other children and becomes so violently sick during pregnancy that it would prevent her from working."
You may still disagree with what Mona said. Fine. But try disagreeing with what people say, not jumping to conclusions as to why those other than yourself should not be listened to.
What Mona said: "In the cases of the life of the mother, rape, and incest, it is cruel to demand that a woman carry a pregnancy to term. Yes, ending the pregnancy is cruel too, but in rare cases it’s the lesser evil." She is saying that ABORTION IS PREFERABLE to making victims or rape and incest carry to full term, the opposite of what you claim she said.
This might be an issue with the way the sentence has been written. My reading of it was that even within the confines of rape and incest, it would rarely be be preferable to have an abortion.
She defined the antecedent of "rare cases" as rape and incest. Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Are you a woman with a rare medical condition worsened by pregnancy? I am. "Life is messy" does not strike me as disingenuous understatement, but a short description of how things are. My reading comprehension is fine, thank you.
Nice of you to lecture me on what you know nothing about.
I do not characterize people as "trolls" or "not trolls". "Troll" isn't just a noun but a verb. And you are trolling. Have a nice day.
You might want to tell the anti-choice Mona Charen that the largest number of abortions are performed on women age 15 to 24. Her claim that many women get them because of financial reasons is narrow, simplistic and inaccurate. I wish people like her would stop putting up silly arguments for why we should be second-guessing a right that has been settled law since 1973. Really, handing money to a 15 year old to get her to have a baby?
Even granting Mona’s position, she claims those financial reasons “can be fixed”- by who, Mona? Her column only indicates that the old maxim about pro-lifers only caring about the pre-born are still 100% true.
If it was really about “saving babies”, “protecting mothers”, even just a little about helping ANYONE other than themselves, they’d propose financial assistance, childcare assistance, shelter assistance, something, anything provided by the state. Because these young mothers are often shunned by their communities and families, during and after pregnancy.
If you really think “finances” are an easily-solvable solution to reduce abortions, propose incentives for women to never have to consider finances when having a child. It’s that simple.
Otherwise, Mona, we can all tell it’s just posturing.
I've been bullied a bit by male commenters on various blogs because I keep asking why women can't simply have the right to terminate a pregnancy? This whole thing about justifying banning abortions because some sanctimonious people want to talk about "helping" pregnant women who don't have the financial means to be mothers is garbage. Why can't a woman have an abortion simply because it's her body and she doesn't want to be pregnant or give birth against her will?
Marycat2021, you've asked the essential question that is seldom addressed. There are more reasons that a woman could not want to be pregnant than apparently ever imagined by those who think just throwing money at her is sufficient. If "pro-lifers" were required to answer your question they would reveal their true patriarchial, authoritarian, misogynist religious reasons.
I'm retired and am doing research and reading about the history of misogyny, and I'm seeing how deep the anti-woman attitudes run, attitudes and thinking that have their roots in Herodotus and Aristotle. It's become almost hard-wired in the human brain. Last night, someone here commented that if women don't want to get pregnant, they shouldn't have sex. Another said that "the man" involved in the woman's pregnancy has just as much right to decide whether it should be terminated. We are still seeing that the loudest anti-choice voices are coming from men; they have always dominated the anti-choice movement.
I was pregnant on my 18th birthday, in 1975. I got a safe, affordable abortion in a clinic that was adjoined to a major hospital. I was treated with kindness and respect, and nobody called me a murderer. Not only was I going to college in the fall, but I just did not want that pregnancy or that baby. I was terrified of what would happen to me and my life, even though my boyfriend offered to marry me (oh please, that's not an answer or all purpose fix-it!). I have never regretted my decision. And perhaps if I had been able to obtain effective birth control in my tiny town back then, I would have a different story to tell. Abortion was the first major decision I ever had to make as an adult.
"Last night, someone here commented that if women don't want to get pregnant, they shouldn't have sex. Another said that "the man" involved in the woman's pregnancy has just as much right to decide whether it should be terminated" Who said either of those things?
It was somewhere on the Bulwark. Why?
I do not agree with abortion as a cavalier substitute for other birth control methods. Personally, I think that if THE MAN and the woman (it takes two after all) are not ready for the responsibility of a child, they should not engage in the activity that can potentially produce a child in spite of diligent use of birth control methods. The only 100% effective method of birth control is abstinence. But I also understand the reality of human nature. Furthermore, I am not willing to make my personal views a legal mandate.
Lol the man? Is he pregnant?
If either of the potential parents is not ready to be a parent, then neither should engage in the activity that has the potential to make them a parent.
Even if these young mothers have their babies, they are still shunned by their communities and families. One of these young mothers with two preschool children and one infant, all different fathers, decided to turn her life around. She got herself sterilized. She started coming to my church. Except for some individuals like me, the church rejected her.
But she kept coming until the father of the infant got out of jail stole her car and stole her welfare money, and took off. As a result she couldn't pay her rent and utilities. Child protective services said without utilities her house was uninhabitable and took her children. Without children, she no longer qualified for the house, so now she is homeless. So she began living with some guy, and of course left the church. You get one guess how she paid rent. My church's reaction-- a lot of judgemental clucking but no help to prevent her perfectly rational decision given the circumstances. I tried to help, but I could not afford to support two households.
She cried bitterly about the church's treatment, "They see me as immoral." "That's true," I said, "But their sins, though less public, are far more serious. because their sins are deep in their heart and far more insidious."
It was revealing that Janet Yellen testified to Congress that making abortion illegal will hurt the economy. It’s not good for progress to disenfranchise women; there’s so much evidence in repressive countries. But, never mind! Punishment is its own reward for the Christian fascists.
Because it was a policy decision dressed up as a legal one, which decision has proven to be quite unpopular. Roe v. Wade mandates that states permit, unrestricted, second term abortions. Second term abortions are highly unpopular. Most countries do not allow them. FYI, your use of the "15 to 24" is highly misleading. Why stop at 15? Why not say "5 to 24." The fact is most women who get abortions are not minors.
https://www.132healthwise.com/abortion-and-age-when-do-women-have-abortions.php
This one might still upset you. What the hell is a "second term abortion"?
Amazing. Please get your terminology straight. I have corrected by statistical error by providing you with the above link. "Women are most likely to have an abortion at age 20, when the abortion rate peaks at 29.1 per 1000"
Most abortions are performed in the first trimester, up to 15 weeks. Second trimester abortions are much less common (up to 24 weeks) and are mostly done for medical reasons.
"Roe v. Wade mandates that states permit, unrestricted, second term abortions."
This is the second time you've said this, and the second time I've noted that 1) "second term abortions" aren't a thing (as there is only one "term" involved; they are trimesters) and, more importantly, 2) that it is a factually incorrect statement about Roe, which does in fact allow regulations in the second trimester. Why do you keep repeating this?
Of course he meant second trimester. Let that part go and concentrate on the salient part of the misstatement.
The decision is quite unpopular with a small group of people, but not unpopular with the majority of the people polled in the US. As for other countries, meaning European ones probably, there are social safety nets...health care that doesn't rest on employment, maternity leave that is longer than 6 weeks, and abortion is still allowed for medical reasons.
They also want men to have the right to make decisions about what women do with their bodies and their lives.
The line I've heard used to justify this stance is "I guess the father has to be a good guy for it not to be murder." They will say preventing "murder" is more important than forcing the woman to bring a pregnancy to term. Once you believe that abortion is murder, it's easy for them to justify anything because isn't murder the greatest of all evils? If your opponents are "baby murderers" you can justify just about anything. It's the philosophical equivalent of declaring a blueprint draft to be a fully-constructed house.
As another commenter asked you, do stop transmitting for long enough to actually register what others are saying?
From Mona's piece: "Pregnancy has no analogs and life is messy. In the cases of the life of the mother, rape, and incest, it is cruel to demand that a woman carry a pregnancy to term. Yes, ending the pregnancy is cruel too, but in rare cases it’s the lesser evil. There are a few other situations in which abortion seems the less grave offense—if the child is doomed to a short, painful life as in the case of Tay-Sachs disease, or if the mother is the sole support of other children and becomes so violently sick during pregnancy that it would prevent her from working."
You may still disagree with what Mona said. Fine. But try disagreeing with what people say, not jumping to conclusions as to why those other than yourself should not be listened to.
What Mona said: "In the cases of the life of the mother, rape, and incest, it is cruel to demand that a woman carry a pregnancy to term. Yes, ending the pregnancy is cruel too, but in rare cases it’s the lesser evil." She is saying that ABORTION IS PREFERABLE to making victims or rape and incest carry to full term, the opposite of what you claim she said.
This might be an issue with the way the sentence has been written. My reading of it was that even within the confines of rape and incest, it would rarely be be preferable to have an abortion.
She defined the antecedent of "rare cases" as rape and incest. Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Are you a woman with a rare medical condition worsened by pregnancy? I am. "Life is messy" does not strike me as disingenuous understatement, but a short description of how things are. My reading comprehension is fine, thank you.
Nice of you to lecture me on what you know nothing about.
I do not characterize people as "trolls" or "not trolls". "Troll" isn't just a noun but a verb. And you are trolling. Have a nice day.