10.28.2004

and another thing

one issue voters, read this article. it seems abortions have increased statistically over the last four years.

6 Comments:

Blogger yomama said...

i must reiterate that it's a use of the word to call gwb "pro-life". i don't know that i'm getting through on this point.

as for this article...
it's written under three assumptions
~the bush admin. is to blame for the economy.
~the bush admin. is to balme for the decline in morality in our country.
~the bush admin. is to blame for health care cost.

i don't think that gwb's admin is soley responsible for any of these issues.

do i think that the bush admin could better these issues? yes.
do i think they have tried? yes.
do i think that they could do better? yes.

so i'm not sure what to make of this article.

thanks for posting it though.
maureen

10/28/2004 4:49 PM  
Blogger John McCollum said...

Maureen and E,

I think that this article is useful because it links the abortion and the poverty issues. If the article is correct, and if those claiming the president can't stop abortions through legislative or judicial means are also correct, then it might be defensible to argue that the candidate best suited to deal with poverty is, in pragmatic terms, the pro-life candidate.

Interesting thesis.

10/29/2004 6:46 AM  
Blogger Seth said...

How important is poverty re: abortion?

To me... it seems like it might be CRITICAL.

I don't know how much... but I think hopelessness related to poverty is a major factor in the decision to get an abortion.

10/29/2004 8:17 PM  
Blogger diane b said...

Not sure if this will mean anything to any of you, but on a daily basis I speak with women who are in a "Crisis" pregnancy, or who have had an abortion.
Most of the time it is not poverty that provokes them to consider ending the life of their unborn baby, it is lack of support, mostly emotional, from the baby's father or fear of rejection from their family.
On the other hand women who have had an abortion and are now seeking healing from their guilt and shame state that the reason for their abortion was they wanted to finish school, they really didin't think the baby's father would be a good dad, their family would be ashamed of them or would reject them. Most of them would have been covered by insurance, poverty wasn't an issue.
This is not based on any scientific statistics, but purely personal experience.

10/30/2004 1:10 PM  
Blogger lucas said...

fortunately, my mother does have a bit more experince in dealing with the abortion issue than well, most of the people reading this blog, and so i would have to say, she is right on that issue.

as for the poverty thing. just take a look at the u.s., even columbus for example. most of the lower income, poverty ridden neighborhoods, are the neighborhoods with the highest birthrates, they are the neighborhoods, where every mother has six children ranging in age from newborn up to five.

then look at the upper middle and upper class neighborhoods, where two children per family seem enough. abortion has become a form of birth control for children that are in, not lower income city public schools, but upper class private schools, that look down upon an unwed mother. while the lower income schools came up with childcare for their students the private schools have called on planned parenthood and other organizations to educate their children. it has even happened at upper middle class public schools.

when i was a sopomore in high school between 1996 and 1997 at johnstown-monroe, which is 97% upper middle class white students, planned parenthood spoke to our sex-education class.
throughout high school i watched numerous classmates become pregnant, and then mysteriously become "un-pregnant", unfotunately, upperclass family have more of a luxury, or misfortune, if you will, to chose abortion over life, than would a lower income single mother.

so just from experience and my point of view it seems that the poverty issue is fairly unreliable.

10/31/2004 11:00 PM  
Blogger e said...

diane and luke, thanks for the comments. you are likely correct--that many, if not most abortions are as a result of decisions for convenience sake rather than out of a real economic crisis.

my point in posting this article was more to show that if we actually break down statistics in the states listed that abortions have increased, not decreased, under a republican president, congress, and supreme court.

many people i know, mostly christians, are voting based on a "pro-life" stance. i am 100% in support of that, but i wonder where we draw the line with "life." is our desire to protect life primarily concerned with the unborn, the just-born, the been-born-awhile? if the unborn is the highest priority, then we should be concerned with climbing abortion rates. if the just-born is our primary concern, then we should be concerned with healthcare for infants and moms and support for new dads, as well as being really clear in churches that divorce is not an option for christians. if the been-born-awhile are near and dear to us, then we need to look at protecting social security, medicare, etc.

in my opinion, these are all important issues--all so important that i'm not going to base my vote on only one of them, especially when the guy in power hasn't done anything positive that i can tell in any of these three areas.

11/01/2004 8:24 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home