The high-profile and polarizing debate between "Pro-choicers" and "Pro-lifers" masks what I believe is a very accesible common ground: NO ONE WANTS MORE ABORTIONS.
As a proponent of reproductive rights, I believe that no woman should be forced to bear children against her will. But the main issue should be preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Think about it: fewer unwanted pregnancies, fewer abortions. All it takes is wide availability of contraception and accurate information and suddenly, fewer and fewer women find themselves having to make the choice to have an abortion at all.
Voila! Everyone is happy. No babies are dying, no one is forced to have babies they aren't prepared to care for.
Unless of course, you happen to be the sort of person who wants to increase the number of abortions. Or maybe you are don't believe that women should be able to prevent pregnancy...
2007-12-05 18:01:31 · 10 answers · asked by sqwish1984 3 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
i agree. in my experience, the people on either side of this debate that are actually capable of logical thought all agree on what we are all aiming for, to make abortion safe, legal and most of all RARE. This means comprehensive sex-ed, and an honest acknowledgement that abortions are not going to stop just because they are illegal.
and in case some of the above answerers are unaware, the only federally funded sex ed programs in the US are abstinence only programs which teach inaccurate information about sex, anatomy and contraception, if they discuss contraception at all. So its not "ignorant masses" its faulty or completely absent education. the included links are from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, it includes a governmental investigation into the content of federally-funded abstinence programs.
Thank you for pointing this out, it is something that gets subsumed in the ideology and mudslinging at times. If you are on Livejournal, there is an awesome abortion debate community there where we discuss this kind of thing on a regular basis.
2007-12-05 19:40:19 · answer #1 · answered by bluestareyed 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Yes, you have a very strong point and it seem that you put a lot of thought into this. I also think it is unfair that men get no say in the baby's fate...After all, it is his baby as much as it is the mother's and while the child will develop in her, I don't think that gives her all the rights to the baby. However, I am unsure of whether or not the father should have to pay child support if he wants to terminate and she doesn't...I can see both sides of the fence on this one...Yes, he is as responsible as the mother regarding conception, so he should have to pay, but no, since he wanted a termination he shouldn't have to. I can't decide! Also, regarding adoption...The man does have a choice there. However, some of the agencies are twisted and have ways of working around the father if the mother wants an adoption. She can claim she doesn't know who the father is or she can have someone from the agency write their name as the father, so they can sign away his rights. I think it is very wrong and all agencies should be forced to have the father's name on the birth certificate and a paternity test as to whoever's name is on there. (Oh, and the man CAN sign off his rights.) So, really in any case, the man is pretty much screwed. He has a chance in the case of adoption, but the woman gets to make the choice to abort/not abort. I'd really like to her some men's opinions in here, too...
2016-03-15 07:42:07 · answer #2 · answered by Patricia 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I suspect the real motives for those who oppose both contraception and abortion is not only to control women and punish them for having sex but also to have those children grow up in poverty and become cannon fodder or slave wage earners. Thats because these restrictions on abortion and contraception specifically are targeted against those who can least afford to have lots of children. Those who are wealthier can travel elsewhere or as they did in the past, bribe doctors into performing abortions and then pass them off as other medical procedures. Let's face it. The rich don't want their children going off to war or working at these kinds of jobs. They need others to do it for them and what better way to get that cheap labor than to have poor people doing it? If there are more contraceptives available, then there would be fewer poor people for those jobs.
2007-12-05 21:03:29 · answer #3 · answered by RoVale 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Yeah it sounds good but it will never happen. Nothing is foolproof but abstinence. Point blank. Some people choose not to have protected sex. But it is still the woman's body and I feel like if she can't feed it and take care of the baby that Abortion is best. There are so many children already here that are starving. Don't bring another child into the world to suffer. Yeah, be more responsible, but to me abortion is responsibility. At least the person knows that they are unwilling and/or unable to take care of the child. To me it is irresponsible to get knocked up and have a child that you know you can't take care of.
2007-12-05 18:23:00 · answer #4 · answered by rashida_16 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Nope. Not at all.
"Free" auto insurance (especially in conjunction with the ability to deny any responsibility for a crash) would do nothing to reduce the number of accidents in the same way that free contraception would do nothing to reduce abortions.
"Free" education still produces many drop-outs and illiterates, even with mandatory attendance.
You can lead a horse to water...
2007-12-06 05:38:09 · answer #5 · answered by Phil #3 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I'm as pro-choice as the next person, but if I had it my way, birth control would be so available and effective that abortion would become obsolete.
2007-12-06 04:25:47 · answer #6 · answered by Rio Madeira 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
with teenage pregnancy rampant it is hard to believe that sex education is effective. i think in most states birth control is available to anyone who wants it. the question is why aren't they using it? there is something inherently wrong with the way sex and parenthood are viewed by americans, can't speak for other nationalities.
2007-12-05 18:54:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Good luck with that.. I agree with you about less unprotected sex but with how many irresponsible people there are out there in the world, it would be nearly impossible for that to ever come true.
2007-12-05 18:10:07 · answer #8 · answered by Holly Jo 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
That's a good point. Most of the major "pro-life" leaders are also anti-contraception. That has NEVER made sense to me. Wouldn't increased contraception result in fewer abortions??
Plus, I doubt that the general population of Average Joe/Jane "pro-lifers" would support them if they knew that they also wanted to ban hormonal birth control.
It seems that the main goal of pro-lifers is simply to control womens' bodies and punish them for having sex.
2007-12-05 19:57:25 · answer #9 · answered by stormsinger1 5 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Birth control is widely available, but feminists do love abortion.
2007-12-05 20:52:39 · answer #10 · answered by Jay 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋