This makes no progress. Cooper's article is typical pseudo-tolerant leftist bullshit. Let's review:

"someone who is personally against abortion, but does not ever give voice to that view, and does not support any restrictions on abortion access whatsoever [...] could easily fit into the liberal coalition. " In other words: "You're allowed to have opinions different from mine, as long as you shut up about them and never act on them."

"The goal should be to allow everyone to have whatever family they want regardless of their income. " No no no no no. You do not have a right to lay claim to other people's wealth. That includes the emotional blackmail of having children that you can't afford to raise, and then demanding that someone else pick up the tab so the children won't suffer. What's happening here is the author saying: "We'll support your view as long as you support the expansion of government and the welfare state that we wanted to do anyway."

"One could still be in favor of reducing the number of abortions, but draw the line at legal restrictions on access. " Again, the pseudo-tolerance: "You're allowed to have a different opinion, as long as you never act on it."

"For the sake of winning elections, there should thus be a general rule of thumb that says pro-life Democrats should be tolerated so long as they do not meaningfully impede access to abortion." Read: "We will crassly pretend to agree with conservative opinions in order to win elections, but once elected, we will blow that off and pursue the leftist agenda."

Abortion is the fundamental issue for much of the Left. They regard it as a sacrement, a rite of passage, to the point that you have people like Lena Dunham compelled to apologize for not having had an abortion. They are absolutely zero tolerance for anything less than free, taxpayer-subsidized abortion on demand for any woman, at any time, for any reason, at any point in the pregnancy up to and including labor. No compromise is possible. So if they offer you one, they are punking you.

"Abortion is killing a baby. But I'm not saying it's always wrong."

Actually, killing a baby is always wrong. No matter what.

However that does not mean that an abortion should be illegal.

The cleft stick here is that abortion should be, and currently is, both legal AND wrong.

Time again for Ampersand's classic chart:

"Do they really believe that abortion is murder?"

http://amptoons.com/blog/?p=2187

It has two columns, which ask:

"Is this policy consistent with the belief that abortion is exactly the same as child murder?"

"Is this policy consistent with wanting women who have sex to suffer consequences?"

There are 8 policies.

I'd love to ask anyone: Would you prevent your sister, daughter, or granddaughter from getting an abortion, even in the first month?

Quote:

"What if it's not your life that's at stake but 'just' your health? Or your diploma? Or your job? Or your marriage?"

(Keep in mind that there are perfectly good reasons women don't typically give up babies for adoption these days - and there aren't as many adoptive couples any more, due to fertility clinics. Especially if the woman isn't white.)

I don't think Mr. King's views are all that rare. Plenty of people have nuanced views of abortion. Having a medical abortion at 4 weeks is not the same as having a partial-birth abortion at 22 weeks, for many people. And there are plenty of people who are personally against abortion but think that your soul is your own business.
Now this idiocy Cooper is suggesting, regarding left-leaning family policy: That's not meant to discourage abortion. It's meant to encourage people who are irresponsible and have poor judgement to have more babies and become (more) dependent on the welfare state.
We don't need more fucking welfare to discourage abortions. We do need better access to birth control. (I think the battle to defund Planned Parenthood is misguided, personally.)

And, if anyone needs reminding, as comic Margaret Cho said of her abortion (can't find the source, I'm afraid) "IT WASN'T A F------ TEA PARTY!"

Or:

"Frederica Mathewes-Green of Feminists for Life of America, gives us this compelling word-picture: 'No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.' "

Bottom line: The vast majority of women would be much happier to have easy access to affordable contraceptives that actually WORK. (Half of all women seeking abortions WERE using contraception.)

Is it any surprise that the states that make it horribly difficult and time-consuming to get an abortion tend also to be pretty unfriendly to the idea of easy access to contraception? Especially for unmarried couples?

(I'd love to know just how often sex-ed teachers emphasize that if a woman is on the Pill, she needs a backup, since that has a real-life 5% - or 6% - failure rate. Also, during the Depression, birth rates went down. Since it was pretty difficult even for men to buy condoms without embarrassment, since condoms were kept behind the counter, and diaphragms were not easily available, I'd bet a lot of couples simply combined the rhythm method and withdrawal, which, IIRC, would work almost 94% of the time. Clearly, though, that's not to be relied upon.)

Sanity Tip:

Ignore anyone who conflates an early-stage fetus with a baby.

I think people's beliefs about abortion get more "complex" when they're personally confronted with an unwanted pregnancy.

Suddenly people who are firmly black-and-white against it are asking for rides to Planned Parenthood (as was the case with my friend who was picketing clinics literally weeks before) or begging their 18-year-old daughter to get one, despite campaigning for a governor who included de-funding PP in his platform (as was the case with another family member).

The cleft stick here is that abortion should be, and currently is, both legal AND wrong.

This is a really great way to word it.

Agree, disagree with it, the real problem is forcing someone else to pay for it through insurance mandates and taxes.

I take an intermediate position, drawing the line at 15 weeks (shortly after the appearance of a cerebrum). Before that point the embryo does not have enough of a brain to have moral agency.

But I find it telling that the writer thinks "the goal should be to allow everyone to have whatever family they want regardless of their income." That's precisely the problem. People who can't afford to raise children should not be allowed to have them. To do so not only costs taxpayers MUCH more than an abortion, it also creates children who have no real hope of becoming anything but criminals or welfare parasites themselves.

I'd much rather the state place those kids in foster care, thus not only giving them a future, but more importantly ensuring that (since most of them were only conceived so that their mothers could collect bigger dole payments) most of them would stop being born.

"Frederica Mathewes-Green of Feminists for Life of America, gives us this compelling word-picture: 'No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.' " ~ lenona at April 26, 2017 8:38 AM

And yet, Lena Dunham is publicly saying she wishes she had had one, as if it's a rite of passage on which she regrets missing out.

I think Frederica is right, for some women. For them, it's a tough way out of a complex situation. But too many others publicly treat it as a trivial matter, a mere "procedure," to be done on a whim. And I think that's what gets the goat of most social conservatives, that something so serious could be trivialized to nothing more than a "procedure" as if one was having a cavity filled or a mole removed, and any distaste for it expressed by progressives is in terms of its inconvenience and not as a regret for the termination of something that could have ended up becoming a human life.

Abortion is much more complex than "it's my body" or "stills a beating heart." For one thing, the potential human life at stake was created with the genetic contribution of two people. Nonetheless, the woman carrying the fetus to term is going the be the one paying the physical, emotional, and mental price of that carriage. So whose wishes carry more weight? Who gets the final say?

My advice for the pro-abotion crowd: if you want to convince an anti-abotion activist, argue against the movement's own argument. It might not work, but at least it's you're taking the argument to them. Don't talk about "it's my body," talk about why it's not murder.

Likewise an anti-abortion arguer should address the "it's my body" argument, not shove "stills a beating heart" mantra down the throat of a person who has already mentally dismissed that argument.

Both sides are shouting at each other their own side's talking points, not in the points on which the other side is basing its arguments. As a result, neither side hears or cares about the other's argument.

Half of all women seeking abortions WERE using contraception.

Half?

Interesting statistic. And a difficult one to believe. Especially with a 5-6% failure rate of birth control pills (as you later stated), your stated 6% failure rate with the rhythm method, and a 1-in-99 chance of failure with a condom (check the box). It's possible, since the population of women getting an abortion is only a sub-set of the population of women having sex. Still.

Were these women using contraception correctly? Or did they just say they were using contraception so no one would think them irresponsible?

They are absolutely zero tolerance for anything less than free, taxpayer-subsidized abortion on demand for any woman, at any time, for any reason, at any point in the pregnancy up to and including labor. No compromise is possible. ~ Cousin Dave at April 26, 2017 6:49 AM

Agree, disagree with it, the real problem is forcing someone else to pay for it through insurance mandates and taxes. ~ mer at April 26, 2017 8:59 AM

The real controversial issue regarding abortion seems to be funding of it.

Pro-abotion advocates call it a women's health issue and insist on complete public funding as if abortion were morally equivalent to mammograms and flu shots. Anti-abotion advocates insist on no funding at all, as if women were trying to sneak in a little murder on the taxpayer dime.

We do differentiate between legal and publicly funded. There are plenty of things that are legal in this country but not government-funded. Try buying cigarettes, carbonated soft drinks, candy bars, or liquor with SNAP funds. Marijuana is legal in several states. Try getting your insurance company to pay for it.

Time again for Ampersand's classic chart: ~ lenona at April 26, 2017 8:17 AM

That chart's a bit simplistic and inherently biased. It's a cutesy ploy meant to show the superiority of the creator's argument, yet demonstrates instead a lack of understanding of his opponent's argument.

Not all abortion opposition is about punishing women for having sex. Not all political positions staked out by social conservatives are about punishing women or pushing a medieval view of morality. Too many are, but not all of them and not all the time.

For instance, an abortion ban with exceptions for rape and incest is not inconsistent with the view that abortion is, in general, murder. We make exceptions for many things in even heinous situations. Shooting someone who is attempting to stab you is not considered murder, but self-defense.

The commandment says "Thou shalt not kill" and gives no exceptions. There is some speculation that it was erroneously translated from the original "Thou shalt not murder." However, the original tablet has not been found, so that can't be proven.

Also, to another point, a fair number of anti-abortion activists on the extreme right have cheered clinic bombers.

...up to and including labor. ~ Cousin Dave at April 26, 2017 6:49 AM

The unwillingness of pro-abortion activists to admit there is difference between having an abortion at 6 weeks and having one at 9 months is simplistic.

The bloodlust with which these activists pursue the legalized destruction of fetuses at any stage of development is almost barbaric.

Let's reach a reasonable compromise here (Roe v. Wade) and move on to the important issues. Like our $20 trillion debt.

"We do differentiate between legal and publicly funded. "

Actually, the Left does not. If you are of one of the politically correct tribes, and you want something, then if the government doesn't give it to you free, you are by definition being denied access to it.

The only option he sees for women who have an abortion because they can't afford a child is more left-wing public assistance.
How about these alternatives:
1) Encouraging marriage and abstinence before marriage. Married women have fewer abortions.
2) Reduce barriers to entrepreneurship, reduce minimum wage so unskilled can get a job, reduce licensing barriers (e.g., beauticians, hair braiders, horse massagers, interior decorators, nutritionists) so that people can get a job and move up. This will also help people get married by the way.

"all babies go to heaven"
Ah, science based thinking at its finest. No wonder his argument is such a winner.

"For the sake of winning elections, there should thus be a general rule of thumb that says pro-life Democrats should be tolerated so long as they do not meaningfully impede access to abortion."
I just wanted to point out that particular comment... that there is actually debate as to whether or not someone who is otherwise super-liberal but might some type of moral objection to abortion should be "tolerated." Do these people have an ideological purity test now for members of their club?
I wonder what would happen to the size of the party if someone were to deliver an anonymous gift of a guillotine. Especially to some of the college clubs.

I call myself "pro-mind-my-own-business." I can't have children, can't force myself to perform the necessary act to father children. So, I'll leave it to those who actually make kids decide what to do and live with their own decisions.

your stated 6% failure rate with the rhythm method

Conan
______________________________________

You don't read too well. I said that when you COMBINE that with withdrawal, that's the likely failure rate. IIRC, withdrawal OR rhythm works about 75% of the time. That's why, when you combine them, you should be almost 94% covered.

And given that adults, at least, may be a lot more likely to have sex when they have some kind of artificial contraceptive handy, it would make sense that so many women seeking abortions were using ONE contraceptive, at least. Again, many women may not be quite aware that a 5% failure rate for ANY method really calls for a backup, especially if the sex ed teacher didn't emphasize that. (The Pill works 99% of the time IF used perfectly.)

Reminds me of how Warren Farrell once said, more or less, that a man just doesn't worry about contraception (or campaign for better male BC) so long as he thinks his wife is USING something. After all, in his view, who's more likely to get pregnant against his will - some stranger he hooks up with or his trusted wife? So, condoms are what you use only during casual sex, pretty much. In the man's view.

Gog_Magog wrote:

Sanity Tip:

Ignore anyone who conflates an early-stage fetus with a baby.

Yup.

But the money's good.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/26/planned-parenthoods-organs-lamborghinis-exec-busted-trying-sell-baby-body-parts/

According to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals:

"only 0.1 percent of women get pregnant when using the pill properly"

https://www.arhp.org/Publications-and-Resources/Patient-Resources/fact-sheets/Successful-Contraception

Okay lenona, I reread your original comment and saw the "combined the rhythm method and withdrawal" that I missed before. Still, it seems a bit much that half of women getting an abortion were using some sort of birth control when they got pregnant.

Like I said before, it's possible. However, I still wonder if some percentage of those women were using birth control incorrectly or not as consistently as required.

I remember a college roommate's Human Sex textbook that said "practitioners of the Rhythm Method are often called 'parents.'"

Lenona! Up until now my mental image of you was as someone astute enough to never point to Barry (LITERALLY PIMPED OUT HIS FEMINIST READERS FOR PORN BUCKS around March 2006) Deutsch as an example of anything but a dishonest feminist hack with terrible reasoning and terrible morals.

Okay, I looked on the chart for sex selection but didn't find it.

How do you feel about laws preventing women from aborting their female babies?

How do you feel about laws preventing women from aborting babies who can hear?

How do you feel about laws preventing women from their tenth abortion?

How do you feel about laws preventing women from asking doctors to not keep their very ill babies alive? In 2012, "After-birth abortion" was justified by two philosophers connected to Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

How would after-birth abortion fit on Barry's chart?

Me? I side with the original Clinton formulation: Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Sarah Kliff is too young or too partisan/feminist to realize that there is nothing at all unique about David King's views.

Of course, Bill Clinton was later excoriated by feminists for making a statement that abortions should be rare, and that's where today's difficulty is.

For whatever reason, today's feminists cannot abide any suggestion that abortions should be rare.

"life begins with a sentient being,"

This isn't a scientific answer but a philosophical one. The scientific answer is that a fetus just after conception is a separate organism and life begins there. When legal rights should be conferred is not a scientific issue but a philosophical one. A bacterium is alive but it does not get citizenship in the US. Same with a cow. And we don't have the same laws for killing them as we do citizens.

Conan, if the 10 commandments included 'Thou shalt not kill' then most of the Torah makes no sense. There are over 100 passages where God commanded someone else to kill someone. Also the historical actions of the Israelites would have been against Judaism. Ancient Israel was at war with someone almost all of the time. You also don't have to go back to the original tablets. Just go back to the Hebrew that was translated into English. Ratsah should be translated at murder not killing.

Conan, if the 10 commandments included 'Thou shalt not kill' then most of the Torah makes no sense. ~ Ben at April 26, 2017 4:55 PM

You're looking for sense in a religious scripture? Seriously?

The same God that told Moses "thou shalt not kill," told Abraham to kill his first-born son. Not to mention, not 2 months after telling Moses to avoid killing, helped his people win the land of Canaan; and the Israelites didn't win it in a slap fight.

Ben, my post about "Thou shalt not kill" was mostly to make the joke about the original tablet not having been found.

Jerry, I have NO idea what you mean about B.D. (aka Ampersand) being dishonest or having bad morals. Not that I've been following him for quite a while. I do, however, remember his being very eloquent - moral, dare I say - on the subject of support for out-of-wedlock children. (What he didn't mention - but could have - was that if fathers could legally abandon O.O.W. children, eventually they could legally abandon in-wedlock children as well, just because they didn't want them or got tired of them. How would that do society any good?)

From 2004:

http://amptoons.com/blog/?p=673

Excerpts:

"...Well, unless they’re independently wealthy, (men) have no choice but to work. But although the news doesn’t seem to have reached Sacks and Thompson, nearly everyone in the US has to work. It’s not as if unmarried fathers are forced to work while childless or married men (or women for that matter) spend their days drinking brandy by the fire...

"...Sacks and Thompson are right that occupational injuries are too frequent – and too sex-biased – but workplace injuries aren’t caused by paying child support. It’s not as if 100% of mine shaft workers are unmarried men with children; nor is a mine worker magically safer on the job if he has no children. No feminist objects to protecting workers – but Sacks and Thompson seem to believe that workplace deaths are caused by inadequate father’s rights. The real problem is inadequate workplace safety – and the real solutions have nothing to do with eliminating child support payments for unmarried fathers.

"Finally, although '16 deaths a day' sounds impressive, is this really a figure that tells us about the average working man’s life? Of the approximately 73 million American men who worked in 2000, 5,467 – which is to say, less than one-hundredth of one percent – died on the job. It’s tragic that they died, of course – but we can acknowledge that tragedy without pretending that men typically face such dangers in order to pay child support."

Bottom line, IMO: Most men - not just Deutsch - are not about to let unwilling fathers AND taxpayers off the hook when it comes to keeping kids out of poverty, and they also tend to say that taxpayers' rights should come first. Another reason for men to campaign for better male BC. (That would help prevent abortions as well, of course.)

Conan, I'm sure you know that plenty of people rely on condoms alone (as in, without using foam) which is absolutely not recommended. But not everyone realizes that even condoms need backups. Especially teens. If the condoms are kept in wallets (also not recommended) or are not brand new, etc, etc, that makes things worse. (Some girls try to use nothing but foam because they don't have the nerve to insist that the boys use condoms. Foam only works 80% of the time. Reportedly, using foam and condoms together is 98% effective.)

I admit I don't know what the age percentages are when it comes to teens seeking abortions vs. women. But obviously, there are far more women between 20 and 50 then there are teens.

That's precisely the problem. People who can't afford to raise children should not be allowed to have them.

"Allowed?" Delightful suggestion, jdgalt. I can't wait to hear how you're going to get that idea passed into law.

Ben, as I understand it, "thou shalt not kill" really means "thou shalt not kill Jews."

Btw, abortion is not opposed in the Bible (even though the Romans, for one, used abortifacient herbs). However, there are some interesting Bible verses that may well shock anti-abortionists (I found this when I was searching on Margaret Cho, but I'd already heard of a few of the verses):

http://addictinginfo.com/2015/10/03/margaret-cho-destroys-biblical-arguments-against-abortion-with-one-glorious-tweet/

I have to say, I never heard of Numbers Chapter 5, however.

Well Conan if there never was a commandment thou shalt not kill then asking someone to kill another person doesn't bring up any conflicts. You find confusion in poor translation.

Lenona, some Jews certainly took it that way since in their view killing anyone who wasn't a Jew wasn't murder. But no it is quite clear in the Hebrew the word is murder. If the word was kill then animal sacrifice wouldn't be permitted and that was an integral part of Jewish worship. So much for PETA's hopes and dreams.

The words on their own aren't complicated. But what you define as murder is.

Also, you think the best way to cause an abortion is to drink holy water? You really think this as a solution to Planned Parenthood would bother the bible thumpers? So much for 'glorious tweets'.

As far as Jewish law and tradition on abortion it is fairly clear. Abortion is only permitted when the fetus is a threat to the mother. This is not murder but is instead considered an act of self defense. In the case of an accidental killing (two men fighting and one accidentally hits a pregnant woman situation) this is also not murder. There is punishment but not as severe as accidentally killing a born person. But abortions for most any other reason are not permitted and may be classified as murder.

Christian views are much more varied.

Actually, killing a baby is always wrong. No matter what - vanderleun

200K years ago, one tribe is hunting another and the cry of an infant will result in the deaths of hundreds

this year, a woman is dying of cancer, without treatment she will die and so will the baby, with treatment she will live but the baby will be killed

the problem with blanket statements is they are so easily refuted

. . . and there aren't as many adoptive couples any more, due to fertility clinics. Especially if the woman isn't white.) - lenona

You can thank all the black people who demanded white couple never be allowed to adopt black infants

Not to mention, not 2 months after telling Moses to avoid killing, helped his people win the land of Canaan; and the Israelites didn't win it in a slap fight. - Conan

You are forgetting the 40 years they had to wander the desert for partying whilst Moses got the rules

Personally I LOVE the abortion debate, its one of the few policy issues that expose peoples hypocrisy almost immediately

'Abortion is murder'? Why not charge the mother/doctor then?

'All life is sacred(origin)'? Why an exception for cases of rape?

'All life is sacred(health issues)'? Why an exception for cases of inbreeding/incest?

'My body, my choice'? Why cant guys give up their responsibilities?

You are forgetting the 40 years they had to wander the desert for partying whilst Moses got the rules ~ lujlp at April 26, 2017 11:26 PM

40 years. Ack! For some reason, I had it in my head as I typed that, that it was 40 days in the desert. Nope, that was Jesus.

The difference between harag and ratzah, killing and murder, got lost in translation.

If I recall correctly that mistranslation happened with the Kings James bible back in the 1600s. You take some ancient Hebrew, translate it to Greek, retranslate into Latin, and then mix them all together to get English. No wonder some of the details got lost.

Patrick at April 26, 2017 12:57 PM

Patrick at April 26, 2017 5:37 PM

For Patrick is correct: And JDGalt is fucked in the head, no kinder than the most reprehensible Lefty spirits within our most pathetic post-Colonial wannabees, the Aussies and the Canucks.

> I'd much rather the state
> place those kids...

Never on this blog have I seen a more corrupt representative of libertarian principle.

Hey JD: Blow yourself.

> if the government doesn't give
> it to you free, you are by
> definition being denied access
> to it.

"His story checks out, Chief...."

It may not have been a calendar year.

For instance, an abortion ban with exceptions for rape and incest is not inconsistent with the view that abortion is, in general, murder. We make exceptions for many things in even heinous situations. Shooting someone who is attempting to stab you is not considered murder, but self-defense.
____________________________________________

Conan, you're comparing apples and oranges, and you know it. For starters, the embryo (it IS an embryo for the first two months) is not the rapist criminal. Obviously, an unwanted pregnancy that is the result of a rape is far more traumatic than one that is not the result of a rape, but the pregnancy is still no more of a threat to a woman's education or job than any other unwanted pregnancy.

Second, while a woman may (or may not) have the legal right to kill her next door neighbor when he tries to rape her (my guess is that the only time she's GUARANTEED not to be charged with manslaughter is when it's a stranger who breaks into her house at night when she's sleeping), that doesn't mean that people feel the same way about her having an abortion when the man was a rapist.

Finally, it's a safe bet that the anti-abortionists who oppose ALL abortions except in cases of rape or incest don't really feel that such abortions are justified; they'd just rather risk being called hypocrites than push for a bill that's bound to fail.

(Of course, we don't know for sure how many of those people would quickly provide themselves or their sisters and daughters with all the money and transportation and motel time they might need if THEY needed first-trimester abortions - or later abortions, for that matter.)

And, for those who don't remember, one main reason adults, never mind teens, have 4th-month abortions when they'd rather have had earlier abortions is that it can take that long to get together all the resources they will need to drive a hundred miles or so, stay in a motel for a night or two if there's a 24-hour waiting period - and take time off from work on top of everything else, something they often can't afford. Plus, if they live in a red state, it can be very risky to confide in anyone, which would mean not getting any help, financial or otherwise, from friends.

that doesn't mean that people feel the same way
__________________________________________

To clarify: People might say that a woman has the right to use lethal force to fight off a would-be rapist, but if she does get raped, the same outsiders wouldn't necessarily support her right to an abortion - or even Plan B, which is NOT the same as RU-486, for those who don't know.

Also, you think the best way to cause an abortion is to drink holy water? You really think this as a solution to Planned Parenthood would bother the bible thumpers? So much for 'glorious tweets'.

Ben at April 26, 2017 8:23 PM
__________________________________________

No, I didn't say any of that. I just said that I'd never heard of that chapter. At any rate, it DID seem to suggest that abortion is OK when the woman committed adultery. So if bible-thumpers don't interpret it that way, how do they interpret it?

(Not to mention that certain teas were known, even in Biblical times, to cause miscarriages. So maybe that's what they were really using instead of "holy water.")
________________________________________

200K years ago, one tribe is hunting another and the cry of an infant will result in the deaths of hundreds

lujlp at April 26, 2017 11:17 PM
________________________________________

Yes, sadly, I'm sure that's happened many times. However, the Lakotas, at least, had a good solution for that. As soon as their babies were born and started crying, they would gently cover their mouths and briefly pinch their noses - EVERY time they cried. Soon, they learned not to cry out loud. This was also very useful whenever the whole tribe needed to stalk game for food; they clearly needed to be very quiet.

If there was any serious downside to that practice, I've never heard of it. Wonder what doctors would say today - including doctors from other cultures?
__________________________________________

...and there aren't as many adoptive couples any more, due to fertility clinics. Especially if the woman isn't white.) - lenona

You can thank all the black people who demanded white couple never be allowed to adopt black infants

lujlp at April 26, 2017 11:19 PM
__________________________________________

Maybe you misunderstood. I was saying that white adoptive couples can afford to be pickier now than they could decades ago.

Maybe what you said USED to be a problem for white adoptive couples. However, keep in mind that fertility clinics (which improve every year) aren't cheap, so white couples are the ones most likely to use them. This greatly lessens the competition between adoptive white couples from what it was, say, 30 or 40 years ago. So they don't necessarily NEED to adopt infants of color if they don't want to. Not to mention that it's often the poorest (and, often, black) single women who refuse to give up babies for adoption, since a baby is the only thing they might have in their lives. Religious white college-bound girls might well be more likely than poor black girls to give birth AND choose adoption.

Ryan Cooper said:

"...Something like a quarter of women who have an abortion report an inability to afford a child as among their reasons -- suggesting that left-wing family policy, like paid leave, a child allowance, and a maternity grant would substantially cut abortions.

"Indeed, this fact dovetails quite nicely with left-wing ideas generally. People having abortions because they are economically coerced into it is no victory for the left. The goal should be to allow everyone to have whatever family they want regardless of their income. To have full reproductive freedom, people need access to contraception, abortion, and a quality welfare state so they can have kids without falling into poverty..."

(snip)

So:

"If Women Were Less Poor, Would There Really Be Fewer Abortions?
Reducing poverty and lowering the abortion rate are two different things—for a reason."

https://www.thenation.com/article/if-women-were-less-poor-would-there-really-be-fewer-abortions/

(Europe has some interesting information on this, as you'll see.)

Bible thumpers don't quote Numbers because it's part of the old law and it's not relevant to the instructions in the New Testament. It reads like a historical document that outlined the law, which was called the curse of the law because it was impossible to adhere to all of them. When Jesus came his sacrifice did away with the law, so we're not avoiding bacon and being banned from everything while on our periods and being stoned for adultery or forced to abort. Scriptures used in Psalms and Jeremiah refer to God knowing who we are before we were born, and in Galatians in the New Testament, "He set me apart before I was born, and called me by His grace."

There's a sanctity to life in Christianity. Because an account of abortion is in the Old Testament truly means -- an account of abortion is in the Old Testament. There's also accounts of rape and incest and adultery and sodomy. Doesn't mean it was endorsed.

Conan, you're comparing apples and oranges, and you know it. For starters, the embryo (it IS an embryo for the first two months) is not the rapist criminal. ~ lenona at April 27, 2017 4:53 PM

lenona, I think you're misreading me. I was talking about making exceptions in cases of rape or incest. And that the religious traditions cited by anti-abortion activist allow exceptions to even the most absolute rules.

> I'd much rather the state
> place those kids...

What does it mean when putative libertarians dream of having the State take babies from their mothers?

Do people really believe It Can't Happen Here?

When Jesus came his sacrifice did away with the law, - goosegg

Then why is jebus quoted as saying none of the old law would pass away until after the heavens and earth did.

As far as I can tell the earth is still here

lenona, I think you're misreading me. I was talking about making exceptions in cases of rape or incest.
________________________________________

I realize that. And, as Ampersand pointed out, they are hypocritical exceptions.

"No one would say that it is acceptable to murder a four-year-old because of the circumstances of the child’s conception."

(Ted Cruz, for one, does not believe in making those exceptions.)

From an interview of Cruz by Fox's Megyn Kelly:

"And when it comes to rape, rape is a horrific crime against the humanity of a person and needs to be punished and punished severely but at the same time, as horrible as that crime is, I don’t believe it’s the child’s fault. And we weep at the crime. We want to do everything we can to prevent the crime on the front end and to punish the criminal, but I don’t believe it makes sense to blame the child."

Of course, again, if it's true that "83% of Americans believe women impregnated by a rapist should be legally allowed to terminate that pregnancy," then hardly anyone would have the guts to take Cruz's stance.

...then hardly anyone would have the guts to take Cruz's stance. ~ lenona at April 29, 2017 9:55 AM

Agreed. Like our other thread on Bernie Sanders, while I don't agree with his position on the subject, I can respect him for at least staking out a consistent position and sticking to it, even when doing so will cost him votes.

Although, back to the Bernie Sanders thread, a man with three houses ought not be telling me, at government gunpoint, that the money I earned is not mine, but should be taken by the government and spent on issues of his choosing. Likewise, Cruz would tell me the fetus is a human being (a "child") because his belief system says it is. If mine does not, he would insist, at government gunpoint, that I obey his belief system.