Houston Chronicle "Why Abortion Rates are up in Bush Years.

If you are pro-life, and that is the only issue you vote on, then it would be stupid not to vote for Bush. Bush will put pro-life justices in the SCOTUS and the will overturn Roe v Wade. Kerry will not. It really is just that simple. The economy fluctuates, and there is little that any president can do to change it. Justices are changed very infrrequently. There is no pro-life reason to vote for Kerry.

 

An interesting hypothesis linking economy and abortions; but I think the case made here is pretty weak. I don't think it's fair to lay the blame for increased abortions at the feet of this administration.

 

In earlier times Americans ate very little chocolate per capita, and the abortion index was very low. As our consumption of chocolate increased so too did the abortion rate. Ergo, it follows that increased consumption of chocolate, while sweet-tasting, has had the insidious effect of boosting the abortion rate. It's time to ban chocolate!

 

I don't disagree with the hypothesis, but he clearly hasn't proven it is specifically GW's fault. It might be useful to bring the subject up at a later date once the election has passed, but I hardly think that at this point that this will have any effect except to make the choir stand up and shout "Amen!"

I do think that there is a clear mandate in the New Testament to care for the poor, which is often overlooked by many of the most vocal religious voters.

 

Understandable, but probably only adds flame capacity to the anti-Bush crowd; don't really see it changing minds since someone who puts abortion as their top issue will still vote for Bush. As a really conservative classmate of mine would say, (1) if they can't afford to have kids, they shouldn't be having them anyway and (2) why should we care about poor people if we are the richest country in the world?
I doubt this would impact a conservative very much.

 

Harsh. Way harsh.

 

Abortions are up because clinton has more time on his hands.

Next question?

 

http://www.midatlantic.net/8x10/gomer-usmc.jpg

Gomer, I salute you. Now get back to peeling those spuds!

 

It's amazing that so many people think abortions will suddenly stop just because the government makes them illegal.

 

Abortion rates will continue to go up regardless of who is president. The cost of living is increasing daily, and the # of uninsured in this country is rising as well. Meanwhile, abortions are readily available, and are much safer now than they were in years past.

 

"For anyone familiar with why most women have abortions, this is no surprise:

Two-thirds of women who have abortions cite "inability to afford a child" as their primary reason (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). In the Bush presidency, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Herbert Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.

Half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate. And men who are jobless usually do not marry. In the 16 states, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises. "

Here`s a thought, if you cannot afford to have a baby or your mate is unreliable, how about using a condom, the pill or some other form of protection so you dont get pregnant. I blame the whole thing on Brittney Spears

 

If they could afford condoms, the pill (which is a doctor's visit every 6 months in addition to the prescription), or other forms of contraception, you might have a point. Unfortunately, this administration has killed federal funding for all but "abstinance education" regarding sex and as such, fewer people than ever will use contraception, adding to the number of women who will have an abortion because they can't afford a child.

 

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot be anti abortion and be pro death penalty. QED. It goes completely against the teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Only a panderer, a hypocrite and a stupid person would do that. Kerry and Bush are politians - let them do what they do. Only a naive person will buy the distorted pro life stance junk.

 

If you can't afford to have a child, how about not having sex?

BTW, are condoms that expensive? Hell, I usually just.....

Nevermind.

 

The biggest problem, IMO, our country faces is the nearly 50 million citizens who go each day without healthcare. This is a growing national tragedy and it effects everything. It effects productivity in the workplace, education, crime, you name it. Because if you cannot afford healthcare, the fear of becoming ill and not being able to seek treatment or, worse yet, the fear that your illness or the illness of your child may effect what your child can become as an adult is paralyzing.

The argument in this article is tenuous at best. Blaming a sitting for economic woes (although the lack of increase in the minimum wage could be argued) is really a tough thing to do because it often just isn't his responsibility.

But, not doing anything about the fact that nearly a quarter of the population is sans healthcare is a travesty and that is on the head of the president, every member of congress and every elected state official in America.

 

andy - I respect your posts and your opinion, but please dont try and blame the goverment for people having sex and not using protection. Condoms are not that expensive and many services give them away for free. There are some things in life that we are personally responsible for and sex is one of them IMO

If you would like "abstinance education" then go talk to your parents or your priest but leave the goverment out of it.

 

You know as well as I do that "abstinance education" is a fallacy. We need to face the reality that shows us that people will have sex. If the pro-lifers want to reduce abortion rates, they should pour their money and energy into educating our young people and providing contraception. That will go MUCH further in reducing abortion rates than overturning Roe v Wade.

Condoms are pretty expensive for someone in high school who can't find a job. Or for the single mother working two jobs to scrape by. There are a LOT of people that can't afford contraception and, given the choice between no sex and no protection, will go with no protection.

Reality.

 

If the government wants to but it's nose into the private choices of it's people (like the choice of whether to have an abortion or not), then it needs to take some responsibility. Providing education and contraception is one way that we could reduce abortion rates dramatically without ever changing a single law.

BTW, see my post above regarding the affordability of contraception.

I agree, the government should not provide "abstinance education" the way it has under Bush (to the exclusion of other forms of education). If the government is to provide any education at all, it needs to include information about and access to contraception as part of it's strategy.

I don't have any problem with reducing rates of abortion. I agree that abortion should not be used as birth control and that we should do what we can to reduce rates of abortion. I just differ with the pro-lifers on the methods they want to use to try and accomplish that goal.

 

I didn't say anything about abstinance education, pro-lifers, or overturning R v W. All I'm saying is that it's not Bush's fault that people are making stupid choices with their lives as this thread seems to suggest.