I've heard that abortions have increased since Clinton left office. The theory is that poverty and being unable to care for a child is the key reason cited for a woman to have abortion.
The vast majority of women who carry a child in their womb will NOT give up the baby for adoption. And in the case of an older child, it is even harder to give up that child.
So, do you thiink that if programs are offered to help these women care for their children, maintain an education, and obtain a decent paying job, that we could help these women to choose life for their children?
If you oppose abortions, and a mother will not give up their child, how do you propose that preventing abortions will save that child? Sure they live, but should we not care about what happens to that child AFTER they are born??
2006-11-28 02:29:44 · 16 answers · asked by Searcher 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I totally agree with you! Pro-lifers seem to be more concerned about the unborn child than they are about the child (and its mother and/or father) after it is born! "Okay...I stopped you from having an abortion. See ya and good luck! Just don't ask me for money or assistance." That is one of my problems with the pro-life movement. It's about wanting to control women. It has nothing to do with caring about the welfare of the unborn child. If it did, they would be fighting more for the rights of born children and thier mothers and/or fathers. Better school, better childcare, etc.
I'm sure if more programs existed to help financially strapped mothers and mothers-to-be, there might be a few less abortions. I more honestly feel that if birth-control and/or morning after pills were made more readily and easily (ie: over the counter) available to women, there wouldn't be the need for abortions. An unplanned pregnancy is an unplanned pregnancy, regardless of the money you have in the bank. Of course, there are those who use abortion as a form of birth-control and, as far as I'm concerned, those women shouldn't breed anyway, but for most women, it's a tough decsion to have to make. She should be allowed to make that choice on her own, regardless of her situation. The government and religous groups need to butt out.
2006-11-28 02:51:42 · answer #1 · answered by Shelley L 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think poverty is the leading component in the number of abortions. Most of the women I know who are okay with abortion and have had several are upper-middle class or upper class. They want to wait until it's fassionable to have a child, when it's what all the "in" crowd is doing. The worse off are usually more aware of the fact that it's going to be expensive, and they deal with it.
But you've got a contradiction: they'll kill a baby, but they won't give it up for adoption? That's obsurd. Where are you getting that? If they won't "give it up" it can be taken from them if neccissary. It's done every day.
Of course I care what happens to a baby after it's born, but the baby needs to be born before that even matters. It's like asking "Don't you care what happens to people after a car wreck?" Of course, but that doesn't keep me from encouraging people to make laws that prevent car wrecks and safer cars so people survive through a car wreck.
2006-11-28 02:48:34 · answer #2 · answered by Sifu Shaun 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure where you are getting your facts. The CDC (Center for Disease Control) shows that there has been a decline in the number of abortions that has been taking place since something like 1990. The number of abortions in 2003 (latest data available) is almost 400,000 less than Clinton's highest year.
Many areas, including where I live, have private resources available to help a pregnant woman choose life for her child. Those programs help here through the pregnancy and with the child in its early years.
2006-11-28 02:51:12 · answer #3 · answered by k3s793 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I doubt it. The programs you suggest have been in place for at least 35 years, paid for by American taxpayers.
Many larger churches and other Baptist organizations (there are others) offer programs that pay for pre-natal care and pay for delivery just to save the child. Then the mother has the choice to keep it baby or give it up.
There is no excuse for anyone to get a "convenience" abortion today. There are just too many people who will take the baby.
2006-11-28 02:37:16 · answer #4 · answered by Desperado 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
While I do think we need better programs to help unwanted pregnancies, I don't think bush is to blame. The last report I saw, just a month ago, said that pregnancies are down in minors, though up in women over 20. If the lowered rates in minors has anything to do with Bush, then he must have done something right. Better education in schools and better programs will help ease the problem. Show that there are alternitives to abortion.
2006-11-28 02:36:57 · answer #5 · answered by sister steph 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think Clinton or Bush has anything to do with it. People are still having unprotected sex even though they know the risks. Too many people use abortion as a form of birth control.
2006-11-28 03:03:06 · answer #6 · answered by vanhammer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We get it, you don't like Bush. But you cannot blame him for the abortions that are taking place.This has been going on for centuries. It was going on long before Bush was ever born.
satan is responsible for those who choose to murder innocent babies, because anyone who chooses to do that is a child of the devil.
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
2006-11-28 02:34:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What I wonder about is the exteme relationship between legalizing abortion and the twenty year later dramatic drop in the crime rates.
This is from the economist David Levit
2006-11-28 02:33:53 · answer #8 · answered by Barabas 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Republics have had finished administration of Congress, the white homestead and the final courtroom for 6 years and the only difficulty the ever observed exchange into late term abortions. it appears that evidently that they choose to maintain it a controversy for the votes that they acquire from it being a controversy.
2016-10-04 11:27:49 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Get a education.the economy has never been better.Clinton is to blame for how low the economy was,for the 911 attacks ,as He
the sissy girl let bin Laden go.Did I mention He was impeached,
and He and Hillary should be in prison for the land deal thief and murder.
2006-11-28 02:37:44 · answer #10 · answered by gwhiz1052 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋