What government plans do you support to reduce abortions?

[coffee4u]

So you are saying even abortions to save the mother's life are always wrong? I will forever refuse to accept that opinion because only the mother is a person with any legal rights, including the right to life.

There are no abortions done to save the mother's life, that is a red herring, a bald face lie to play on your feelings.
Treating an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion; state law has recognized that, even Planned Parenthood recognizes that.
So with that aside there is no abortion performed to save a mothers life, both can be treated with the current state of medical technology.


We all know why 99% of abortions happen. People are irresponsible. It's a huge cash cow. If you haven't figured it out yet most things boil down to two things, money and power. They may dress them up in a way to play on your feelings but that is manipulation. They don't give a rats about your feelings apart from manipulating you to do what they want.

Facts not feelings.

Forced Abortions in America

by Susan Dammann RN LAS, Medical Specialist Did you know most abortions are unwanted, including as much as 64 percent of U.S. abortions involving coercion? Abortion-related coercion can lead to violence, including even homicide—the leading cause of death among pregnant women. Do you kn...

www.heartbeatinternational.org

• 64% of women reported feeling pressured to abort.
• Most felt rushed or uncertain, yet 67% weren’t counseled.
• 79% weren’t told of available resources.
• 84% weren’t sufficiently informed before abortion.
• Pressure to abort can escalate to violence.
• Homicide is the leading killer of pregnant women.
• Clinics fail to screen for coercion.
• Women nearly 4 times more likely to die after abortion.
• Suicide rates 6 times higher after abortion.
• 65% of women suffer trauma symptoms after abortion.

Does that really sound like abortions are what women need? The real questions is who profits from it?

Also did you know in the US the abortion rate is 5 times higher in black women?
Again who profits? Do you really think its the black community?

You will find the people who benefit from abortion are not women and certainly not black women, it is those making obscene amounts of money and gaining some form of power or control from it.

 

[Fantine]

I'm going back to the 1980's. We had neighbors who wanted to do private adoption. The happy day arrived and they flew to a southern state (Alabama? Mississippi?) to pick up their baby.

They came home teary-eyed and empty-handed because the baby was bi-racial. They didn't want a bi-racial baby and cancelled the contract. A year or so later they adopted a little blonde, blue-eyed boy who looked like them.

This really happens. Not all but many adoptive parents still want a healthy infant who looks like them. Many children who need to be adopted are older. Disabled. Of a different race than many prospective adoptive parents.

There are some people who believe that placing a child in a family of a different race does a disservice to the child. I'm not sure what the predominant studies show--or what the child's alternative would be.

Let's face it, some people even have a hard time dealing with rescue dogs and cats.

If you build it they will come doesn't always work.

Then there are the "parent problems." Lots of loving gay parents would like to adopt a child, but most churches would not consider their application to adopt.

 

[ecumeni]

Abstinence.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Abstinence.

You know for a fact that is not a government program. You know this thread is only a request for government program ideas. So why do you just type one totally unrelated word?

 

[GodLovesCats]

An indirect abortion can be performed in order to save the mother's life. This might mean inducing labor, despite
knowing the fetus will not survive birth.

This is not a direct abortion where the doctor directly kills the fetus in order to extract it in pieces.

There is no reason to force the mother to give birth knowing the fetus will not survive. That is nothing but taking away her right to bodily autonomy, which in the U.S. Constitution. If you know the baby will die soon, you are only doing a disservice to both of them.

 

[coffee4u]

There is no reason to force the mother to give birth knowing the fetus will not survive. That is nothing but taking away her right to bodily autonomy, which in the U.S. Constitution. If you know the baby will die soon, you are only doing a disservice to both of them.

As you ignored my post above because you would rather believe your feelings over the facts, here again you believe a lie.
Stop and think. You have cared a wanted baby for months, do you really think you will feel better if that baby is killed, its scull crushed and its limbs pulled off and brought out piece by piece?
Or do you give birth and hold your precious baby, dress them, get hand and foot prints and have a funeral?

I can tell you which will bring you the most peace and its not the first.

You have no life experience of this and NO IDEA.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

There is no reason to force the mother to give birth knowing the fetus will not survive. That is nothing but taking away her right to bodily autonomy, which in the U.S. Constitution. If you know the baby will die soon, you are only doing a disservice to both of them.

You are wrong. I know of two women who had induced labor to remove a deformed dead fetus under 18 weeks. I fact,
one of the woman was my daughter and I was present at the delivery. We had a funeral for my grandson. He was in such
distress when my daughter was carrying him, she wasn't sure if she'd miscarry before delivering him. FYI he was still born
at birth.

 

[coffee4u]

You are wrong. I know of two women who had induced labor to remove a deformed dead fetus under 18 weeks. I fact,
one of the woman was my daughter and I was present at the delivery. We had a funeral for my grandson. He was in such
distress when my daughter was carrying him, she wasn't sure if she'd miscarry before delivering him. FYI he was still born
at birth.

She is a youngster with no real life experience and hopefully she never will.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

She is a youngster with no real life experience and hopefully she never will.

You have no right making such an evil statement, you know nothing about my
daughter or the other woman in my post.

 

[Lost Witness]

I'm going back to the 1980's. We had neighbors who wanted to do private adoption. The happy day arrived and they flew to a southern state (Alabama? Mississippi?) to pick up their baby.

They came home teary-eyed and empty-handed because the baby was bi-racial. They didn't want a bi-racial baby and cancelled the contract. A year or so later they adopted a little blonde, blue-eyed boy who looked like them.

This really happens. Not all but many adoptive parents still want a healthy infant who looks like them. Many children who need to be adopted are older. Disabled. Of a different race than many prospective adoptive parents.

There are some people who believe that placing a child in a family of a different race does a disservice to the child. I'm not sure what the predominant studies show--or what the child's alternative would be.

Let's face it, some people even have a hard time dealing with rescue dogs and cats.

If you build it they will come doesn't always work.

Then there are the "parent problems." Lots of loving gay parents would like to adopt a child, but most churches would not consider their application to adopt.

Adoption is the way to go.
regardless as to what you may have seen or 'know'
abortion isn't Acceptable EVER

 

[dogs4thewin]

I support and advocate for people to follow Christ and walk the narrow path that he prescribed for us.

I disagree with the concept that a woman who chooses to have sex and then becomes pregnant is morally justified to KILL her offspring unless someone else pays all of her expenses.

Except that not everyone is a Christian, so you cannot just expect that everyone will follow God's will.

 

[9Rock9]

Why is it so hard for people to understand government assistance is the only possible way to prevent hundreds of thousands of abortions?

When they are finally offered a pro-life Democrat.

The issue is that we are presented with a false dichotomy: either you support legal abortion, but with social programs to reduce them, or outlawing abortion with no programs.

Then you have a third group scratching their heads wondering why we can't both regulate abortion and implement social programs to reduce them.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

The most frustrating part of discussing abortion with people who totally oppose it except to save the mother's life is when challenged, they never answer the title question. So I am putting it here hoping all abortion opponents will stop dancing around the extremely obvious and repeatedly proven fact that without a lot of help from the government, hundreds of thousands of pregnant girls and women need abortions for many justifiable reasons. It is literally impossible to oppose both abortion and all government programs that can prevent most of them unless you happen to be a misogynist whose real intention is to control women, which I am sure no Christians are because they believe in love.

One reason I am a Democrat is I want the number of abortions to drop. I want all of the reasons many girls and women suffer psychologically, physically, and socially during their unwanted pregnancies to nearly disappear. I also want the reasons women who wanted babies, but suddenly find themselves unable to care for them, to be gone. Only the federal and blue state governments can do that for them.

So, what do you want the federal government to do to help pregnant girls and women who lack the ability and resources to carry their unborn babies for nine months and take care of them for the next 20 years? What would be your plan if you were a politician? Would you prefer they get all their help from states or the federal government? Keep in mind we are not talking about crisis pregnancy centers here because they have very limited resources and, as Catholic Church-based organizations, will do nothing for non-Christians who need help. It truly is the government or nothing, no matter how she got pregnant or why she is considering abortion.

I honestly don’t care what they’d do because the answer doesn’t justify telling somebody they don’t have bodily autonomy for a period of time.

 

[coffee4u]

You have no right making such an evil statement, you know nothing about my
daughter or the other woman in my post.

Evil? I said, I hope ChristianForCats never experiences the death of a baby. That is the she I was referring to.
As someone who has experienced the death of a baby (myself) I was being supportive towards your daughter.
Sorry if what I meant wasn't clear.

 

[Suggestion Box]

The most frustrating part of discussing abortion with people who totally oppose it except to save the mother's life is when challenged, they never answer the title question. So I am putting it here hoping all abortion opponents will stop dancing around the extremely obvious and repeatedly proven fact that without a lot of help from the government, hundreds of thousands of pregnant girls and women need abortions for many justifiable reasons. It is literally impossible to oppose both abortion and all government programs that can prevent most of them unless you happen to be a misogynist whose real intention is to control women, which I am sure no Christians are because they believe in love.

One reason I am a Democrat is I want the number of abortions to drop. I want all of the reasons many girls and women suffer psychologically, physically, and socially during their unwanted pregnancies to nearly disappear. I also want the reasons women who wanted babies, but suddenly find themselves unable to care for them, to be gone. Only the federal and blue state governments can do that for them.

So, what do you want the federal government to do to help pregnant girls and women who lack the ability and resources to carry their unborn babies for nine months and take care of them for the next 20 years? What would be your plan if you were a politician? Would you prefer they get all their help from states or the federal government? Keep in mind we are not talking about crisis pregnancy centers here because they have very limited resources and, as Catholic Church-based organizations, will do nothing for non-Christians who need help. It truly is the government or nothing, no matter how she got pregnant or why she is considering abortion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have been told that there are "safe haven" or "safe surrender" laws in every state, which mean that poor women never have to raise their child if they cannot afford to do so. Perhaps you could find more information about these from sources you trust, as there appears to be some controversy.

Furthermore, the federal government does incentivize adoption with tax incentives. It also greatly incentivizes having children - I think the child tax credit is currently $2k per child per year. I have 2 kids and I haven't paid federal taxes in years due to that fact alone.

Aside from government aid, it is likely that there are far more parents waiting to adopt than there are children who need to be adopted, according to US Adoption Statistics. They say there were about 115,000 adoptions in the year before COVID, but there are somewhere between 1 to 2 million couples waiting to adopt.

So there are plenty of reasons why poor women can receive help. But that is beside the point. Even if 100% of women could not afford to raise their kids, and were single, and had conceived against their will, it would be no more permissible to kill their unborn child than to kill a 3-year old child. Would hardship make killing a 3-year old right? Would any amount of hardship make it right for a nation to have laws that permitted people to kill 3-year-olds with parental consent? There would sooner be war. As for "reducing the number of abortions through safe, legal abortion", let me ask you this: if it were possible, would you advocate for "reducing the number of slaves through safe, legal slavery", or "reducing the number of rapes through safe, legal rape", or "reducing the number of murders through safe, legal murder"?

The better question is the humanity of the unborn, not the pragmatic question of whether to allow killing younger humans and not older ones for the sake of unburdening the poor.

 

[Eschatologist]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have been told that there are "safe haven" or "safe surrender" laws in every state, which mean that poor women never have to raise their child if they cannot afford to do so. Perhaps you could find more information about these from sources you trust, as there appears to be some controversy.

Furthermore, the federal government does incentivize adoption with tax incentives. It also greatly incentivizes having children - I think the child tax credit is currently $2k per child per year. I have 2 kids and I haven't paid federal taxes in years due to that fact alone.

Aside from government aid, it is likely that there are far more parents waiting to adopt than there are children who need to be adopted, according to US Adoption Statistics. They say there were about 115,000 adoptions in the year before COVID, but there are somewhere between 1 to 2 million couples waiting to adopt.

So there are plenty of reasons why poor women can receive help. But that is beside the point. Even if 100% of women could not afford to raise their kids, and were single, and had conceived against their will, it would be no more permissible to kill their unborn child than to kill a 3-year old child. Would hardship make killing a 3-year old right? Would any amount of hardship make it right for a nation to have laws that permitted people to kill 3-year-olds with parental consent? There would sooner be war. As for "reducing the number of abortions through safe, legal abortion", let me ask you this: if it were possible, would you advocate for "reducing the number of slaves through safe, legal slavery", or "reducing the number of rapes through safe, legal rape", or "reducing the number of murders through safe, legal murder"?

The better question is the humanity of the unborn, not the pragmatic question of whether to allow killing younger humans and not older ones for the sake of unburdening the poor.

I have a friend who's pretty well off that still found it difficult to adopt due to the expenses involved. The problem seems to be that a combination of adoption agencies and lawyers have turned adoption into a cash cow. It's very profitable for both of these groups.

While I'm usually against government intervention, I think adoption is an industry that probably needs more intervention to reduce profiteering, and with the right legislative changes, it could have far less legal red tape.

Another thing that needs to change is that many jurisdictions give the birth mother way too much power in terms of custody. There have been numerous cases where a woman gives up a child to adoption only to return 5 to 10 years later to sue for getting custody back for the child. That shouldn't be possible. Once you give the child up, it isn't yours anymore. It doesn't benefit the child to strip him/her away from the only parents he/she actually knows as such.

Between the ridiculous costs of adoption and the legal hazards, fewer people seek out adoptions than would otherwise do so.

 

[Eschatologist]

The most frustrating part of discussing abortion with people who totally oppose it except to save the mother's life is when challenged, they never answer the title question. So I am putting it here hoping all abortion opponents will stop dancing around the extremely obvious and repeatedly proven fact that without a lot of help from the government, hundreds of thousands of pregnant girls and women need abortions for many justifiable reasons. It is literally impossible to oppose both abortion and all government programs that can prevent most of them unless you happen to be a misogynist whose real intention is to control women, which I am sure no Christians are because they believe in love.

One reason I am a Democrat is I want the number of abortions to drop. I want all of the reasons many girls and women suffer psychologically, physically, and socially during their unwanted pregnancies to nearly disappear. I also want the reasons women who wanted babies, but suddenly find themselves unable to care for them, to be gone. Only the federal and blue state governments can do that for them.

So, what do you want the federal government to do to help pregnant girls and women who lack the ability and resources to carry their unborn babies for nine months and take care of them for the next 20 years? What would be your plan if you were a politician? Would you prefer they get all their help from states or the federal government? Keep in mind we are not talking about crisis pregnancy centers here because they have very limited resources and, as Catholic Church-based organizations, will do nothing for non-Christians who need help. It truly is the government or nothing, no matter how she got pregnant or why she is considering abortion.

I'm generally a conservative with libertarian leanings on most issues, but abortion is where I'm more of a populist. I believe abortion should only be allowed for extreme situations, like medical emergencies for the mother or certain medical conditions that render the child with a short life of great suffering. However, to address the issues you allude to, I also support expanding funding and infrastructure for orphanages while streamlining the adoption process to make it cheaper and less bureaucratic.

I also support making birth itself much cheaper. The cost of giving birth in a hospital in the US is absurd when you compare it with the cost in basically every other First World country. This is true even when you account for the government spending used to subsidize the cost in a socialized system. So, we could implement several legal reforms to reduce the cost of giving birth (like tort reform) while also subsidizing the cost somewhat with social programs.

 

[Diamond72]

There have been numerous cases where a woman gives up a child to adoption only to return 5 to 10 years later to sue for getting custody back for the child. That shouldn't be possible.

It is not possible in this state. They do not play ping pong with a child. They do not take a child away from the caregiver unless social services determine they are unfit.

 

[RileyG]

Abortion is wrong because it kills the most innocent.

This sexual culture/free love from the 1960s has nothing but harmed us. Keeping sexual love between marriage between one man and one woman will save our culture.

Do NO harm to anyone.