For decades now we have heard that abortion must be legal because it is a woman's right to choose. I agree. We have also heard that abortion is murder. I understand that sentiment but I cannot say that I fully agree. Murder is too strong, as that entails a crime against a person and abortion is an exercise of the woman's right to her body.
The loudest voices in this argument have been the voices of men, particularly among the elected officials and women have often felt that this was unfair. Women claim that if men got pregnant abortion would have been legal centuries ago. Perhaps this is true but we will never know for certain.
One thing I do know, however, is that men can end this once and for all. I am suggesting that we do just that, beginning on January 1, 2015. That gives us nearly six months to prepare. Once we implement the program, we should expect to carry it through to its full term of five years for completion.
Many states have passed legislation to curtail abortions and many of those laws have been overturned by the courts. Even if the states win, they still lose because they must pay to defend the lawsuits brought against them. This is not a step forward.
Several states have recently passed legislation that would close the majority of the abortion clinics within their borders, which does nothing to stop the abortions; it merely moves them across the state line. That does not solve the problem, but enacting this program will cause these clinics to close simply because they won't have the necessary patients to keep them open.
This program is simple because it does not require legislation, it does not cost any money to implement and it does not involve women. It is the men taking the initiative and handling this problem once and for all.
Beginning on January 1, 2015, all across America, men must abstain from sex with women. Now, I know this might be difficult but there are alternatives. For example, you can take matters into your own hands, so to speak. This is not the ideal situation but it has its benefits. Not needing a partner means not caring if you're showered and shaved. Small talk is avoided and no promises need to be made; or broken.
Sex with a woman is allowed so long as it is either oral or anal. The difficulty with this is that, while the man is often more than willing to make this sacrifice the woman is usually not on board with the idea. Suggesting that her sister might be willing to help out just might get her to re-think her position.
Lastly, having sex with another man is fine. Actually, it is encouraged. Since most states are either allowing gay marriage or at least considering it, the taboo on man-to-man sex is no longer what it once was and in reality, a lot of men have been looking for an excuse to try anyway, so why not just give in?
Implementing this program is simple, and once done, pregnancies in this country will drop to zero. When no women get pregnant no women have abortions. As time goes on, the abortion clinics will close, due to the fact that they will be under-used to the point that they cannot afford to stay open. Legislators can get back to working on actual problems that need their attention, not on regulating women's bodies, and this whole argument of whether or not abortion should be legal can finally be put to rest.
The program will conclude on December 31, 2019. Men, the ball is in your court. Can you rise to the occasion? Are you willing to stand firm and show exactly what you're made of? Join me and together we will end abortion in this country.
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Friday, July 4, 2014
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Abortion in the 21st Century
With the Democratic National Convention currently being held in Denver, the topic of abortion is once again being thrust into the spotlight, albeit in a much less brightness thanks to Bush's efforts in Iraq. Be that as it may, this topic should have been put to rest a long time ago, and by people on both sides of the issue. It certainly should not be a tool used by the Republicans to garner votes, and yet that is exactly what it has become.
Republicans have successfully convinced Democrats that if they vote for anyone in their party they are voting for abortion. These politicians have used religious innuendo to sway voters away from their own party, and have shown a great amount of success in this endeavor. One must applaud their efforts.
Republicans are not interested in changing our abortion laws, and their actions have proven this. They need this issue to stay alive to be able to use it as a wedge issue come election time, and anyone who wishes to outlaw abortion in this country needs to realize this. Consider the facts: since the passage of Roe vs. Wade in 1973 there have been six presidents of the United States. In that time, four of them (Ford, Reagan and both Bushes) have been Republican. Only two (Carter and Clinton) have been Democrats, yet the laws have not been changed.
Further, when Clinton took office in 1993, the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, but two years later, the Republicans won both houses. For the remainder of Clinton's terms in office, the Republicans were in control of the congress. The laws remained unchanged.
Finally, in 2001, George W. Bush, a Republican, took office. For the next two years the Republicans were fully in control, holding the White House, the Senate and the Congress, and yet the laws remained unchanged. This would have been the opportune time to enact legislation to outlaw abortion HAD THEY TRULY MEANT TO DO SO. No such legislation was ever passed.
The Republicans need this issue to win elections. As long as good-hearted Democrats believe that Republicans want to outlaw abortion (which they don't), those Democrats will vote the Republicans in and the Democrats out. So, what's to be done?
First, we need to look at abortion logically rather than emotionally. In the days before the passage of Roe vs. Wade abortions were being performed in this country, but not legally. The following statistics come largely from the Centers for Disease Control, as this group has been recording such information since 1969.
In 1972, the year before the legalization of abortion by the U.S. Supreme Court, there were 586,760 abortions performed in this country. It is necessary to interject here that this number is lower than the actual number of abortions, as the practice was illegal at the time. This number reflects the women who were known to have had an abortion, either because of an examination by their doctor, or by being brought to an emergency room because of the results of that abortion.
Using this number as our base, and looking at the total number of births in this country in 1972 (3,258,411) we have 18% of pregnancies that were ended in abortion. In 2003, 30 years later, when abortion had been legal for three decades, the total number of births has risen to 4,089,950 and the total number of abortions has increased to 854,122. Again, it's important to note that the number from 1972 is lower than the actual number of abortions, so the increase is not as significant as that. Taking the total number of abortions in 2003 as a percentage of the number of pregnancies brings us to 21%. From 18% to 21% is not a huge increase, so anyone who thinks that legalizing abortion has caused more abortions is not accurate.
So what does cause abortion? Women who do not want to be pregnant. According to the CDC, 91.8% of women who have had abortions did not want to be pregnant in the first place. Only 8.2% of pregnancies are aborted because the woman's health is at risk, or the baby's health is at risk, or for some other reason.
What this tells me is that the pro-life groups need to shift their focus if they truly wish to lower the abortion rate in this country. If the goal is to achieve zero abortions, the goal is not reasonable. Abortions are not new and will not end with legislation against them. The goal needs to be something reasonable, and that can be achieved. Taking the figures for 2003, if only those abortions were conducted where someone's health was in danger, then rather than 854,122 abortions there would have been 70,038. This lowers the percentage of abortions per pregnancies from 20% to less than two percent.
This is a goal that can be achieved, and all it takes is for the pro-life groups to work with groups like Planned Parenthood to educate women on birth control. Women who do not get pregnant do not have abortions 100% of the time. This simple act would reduce the number of abortions in this country by a larger number than any legislation possibly can. This action would also allow good-hearted Democrats to vote their conscience, and keep our government in the hands of the party that runs it best.
Monday, November 13, 2006
-- Abortion - A Wedge Issue
Abortion has been a wedge issue used by the Republicans ever since Roe v. Wade back in the 70s. This issue is not new, but it is something that should have been settled long before now. It's long past time for us as a nation to put this issue to rest and get on with the more important items that need to be addressed.
In order to properly address this issue, it is first necessary to understand that for too many years there has been too much spin put on it. The issue stopped being intelligently discussed a long time ago, and in order to put it to rest, it is first necessary to reduce it to what it is, and remove everything else. The first thing that needs to be removed is the emotional angle that both sides have put on it. Second, we need to logically look at the issue, and finally put it to rest.
When you hear someone refer to Democrats as "baby killers" or show you signs of a fetus in the womb, your emotions are being manipulated. Don't allow this. If you hear someone speaking out against (or for) abortion (or any issue, for that matter), and they begin raising their voice or calling those who hold an opposing opinion by unfavorable names, ignore them. If their argument is sound they don't need to resort to yelling or name-calling. Those are tactics that are only necessary when the argument isn't solid enough to carry itself.
Next, we need to logically look at what the objective of abortion should be. There shouldn't be any argument that the goal of abortions in this country should be zero. For that matter, the number of children who die each year from disease, or people who die from drug overdoses, or people who die from automobile accidents should all be zero. That's not reality, however. In life comes death and there will always be people dying. Sadly, that also at times applies to children.
The issue of abortion was made a legal matter when the Supreme Court made the decision that it should not be illegal. This decision was correct. By making abortion legal it now becomes possible to regulate those who perform them. This does not mean that every pregnant woman should run out and have an abortion, and that has certainly not happened, but that is how the anti-abortionists act.
The goal should not be to outlaw abortion, as that will not end abortion. Outlawing it only sends it underground, and won't do anything to reduce the number of abortions performed each year. Look at drug use; it's illegal to use drugs in this country, but it still happens. The same can be said for speeding, cheating on taxes and jay-walking. All of these are illegal, and all happen daily.
In order to solve this problem we first need to end the emotional ties and look at it intellectually. First, who has abortions? Women. No man has ever had an abortion, yet one of the most vocal voices against abortions is the Roman Catholic Church, an organization comprised of men, run by men, who only allow men in their priesthood. That seems like a strange dichotomy to me. If women are the ones who have abortions, it should be women who make the final decision on this issue, not men.
That having been said, and even though I'm a man, I'm going to continue with my opinion anyway. Following on the same intellectual discussion, do all women have abortions? No, only pregnant women do. All pregnant women? No, only certain ones. The issue then should be to look at who are these women and what are the circumstances surrounding their pregnancies.
First, there are those who were raped or are the victims of incest. Does anyone have the right to tell these women that they must give birth to the child of the man who raped them? I don't see how anyone can force that upon any woman. Yes, she would be able to put the child up for adoption, but that still forces her to grow a child inside her that was formed through violence against her. I can't see that anyone has the right to force that upon her. She certainly has the right to decide to have the child, and the right to put it up for adoption or not, but no one has the right to force her.
Second are those who find that either the life of the child or the life of the mother is in danger. That decision rests solely with the pregnant woman. Again, no one has the right to tell her that she has to give birth when it could kill her, or to give birth to a child who will only die anyway. It's very easy to sit back and say that it's God's will that the child dies, but it's not a fair argument because a) it can't be proven, and b) it is inhumane to force a mother to watch her child die. Again, this decision has to rest with the woman.
Last are the women who never wanted to get pregnant, and I would guess that this is the vast majority of women having abortions. This is also the easiest group to address because it only requires education to end this. Education would include sex education, so that women (and men) understand what can be done to ensure that pregnancy does not occur, and providing birth control. By ensuring that people know how to prevent pregnancy, you eliminate the majority of abortions, because non-pregnant women don't have a need for them.
Now the argument becomes that people should not have sex if they're not re-producing, and that argument is seriously flawed. There is nothing wrong with having sex, and no one in this country has the right to regulate morality. If you believe that sex out of wedlock is immoral, don't have sex out of wedlock, but don't tell anyone else that they can't. No one has the right to tell you what to do with your body. This, of course, goes for adults. Parents certainly have the right to raise their children with their own religious and moral beliefs, but once those children reach adulthood, they have to start making their own decisions.
By teaching sex education to young adults, and providing birth control to all adults (male and female, it's not only up to the women) we could reduce the vast majority of abortions in this country. This is what the goal of the anti-abortionists should be; to reduce all of the abortions possible, not to make them all illegal. For that matter, we should also be working harder to end rape in this country, but that doesn't seem to be an issue. We're more interested in punishing men after they commit the act rather than identifying possible rapists and curing them before the act. We're interested in stopping women from having abortions of unwanted babies rather than helping them to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. We are more concerned with reacting to a problem once it happens rather than preventing the problem from occuring in the first place.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
In order to properly address this issue, it is first necessary to understand that for too many years there has been too much spin put on it. The issue stopped being intelligently discussed a long time ago, and in order to put it to rest, it is first necessary to reduce it to what it is, and remove everything else. The first thing that needs to be removed is the emotional angle that both sides have put on it. Second, we need to logically look at the issue, and finally put it to rest.
When you hear someone refer to Democrats as "baby killers" or show you signs of a fetus in the womb, your emotions are being manipulated. Don't allow this. If you hear someone speaking out against (or for) abortion (or any issue, for that matter), and they begin raising their voice or calling those who hold an opposing opinion by unfavorable names, ignore them. If their argument is sound they don't need to resort to yelling or name-calling. Those are tactics that are only necessary when the argument isn't solid enough to carry itself.
Next, we need to logically look at what the objective of abortion should be. There shouldn't be any argument that the goal of abortions in this country should be zero. For that matter, the number of children who die each year from disease, or people who die from drug overdoses, or people who die from automobile accidents should all be zero. That's not reality, however. In life comes death and there will always be people dying. Sadly, that also at times applies to children.
The issue of abortion was made a legal matter when the Supreme Court made the decision that it should not be illegal. This decision was correct. By making abortion legal it now becomes possible to regulate those who perform them. This does not mean that every pregnant woman should run out and have an abortion, and that has certainly not happened, but that is how the anti-abortionists act.
The goal should not be to outlaw abortion, as that will not end abortion. Outlawing it only sends it underground, and won't do anything to reduce the number of abortions performed each year. Look at drug use; it's illegal to use drugs in this country, but it still happens. The same can be said for speeding, cheating on taxes and jay-walking. All of these are illegal, and all happen daily.
In order to solve this problem we first need to end the emotional ties and look at it intellectually. First, who has abortions? Women. No man has ever had an abortion, yet one of the most vocal voices against abortions is the Roman Catholic Church, an organization comprised of men, run by men, who only allow men in their priesthood. That seems like a strange dichotomy to me. If women are the ones who have abortions, it should be women who make the final decision on this issue, not men.
That having been said, and even though I'm a man, I'm going to continue with my opinion anyway. Following on the same intellectual discussion, do all women have abortions? No, only pregnant women do. All pregnant women? No, only certain ones. The issue then should be to look at who are these women and what are the circumstances surrounding their pregnancies.
First, there are those who were raped or are the victims of incest. Does anyone have the right to tell these women that they must give birth to the child of the man who raped them? I don't see how anyone can force that upon any woman. Yes, she would be able to put the child up for adoption, but that still forces her to grow a child inside her that was formed through violence against her. I can't see that anyone has the right to force that upon her. She certainly has the right to decide to have the child, and the right to put it up for adoption or not, but no one has the right to force her.
Second are those who find that either the life of the child or the life of the mother is in danger. That decision rests solely with the pregnant woman. Again, no one has the right to tell her that she has to give birth when it could kill her, or to give birth to a child who will only die anyway. It's very easy to sit back and say that it's God's will that the child dies, but it's not a fair argument because a) it can't be proven, and b) it is inhumane to force a mother to watch her child die. Again, this decision has to rest with the woman.
Last are the women who never wanted to get pregnant, and I would guess that this is the vast majority of women having abortions. This is also the easiest group to address because it only requires education to end this. Education would include sex education, so that women (and men) understand what can be done to ensure that pregnancy does not occur, and providing birth control. By ensuring that people know how to prevent pregnancy, you eliminate the majority of abortions, because non-pregnant women don't have a need for them.
Now the argument becomes that people should not have sex if they're not re-producing, and that argument is seriously flawed. There is nothing wrong with having sex, and no one in this country has the right to regulate morality. If you believe that sex out of wedlock is immoral, don't have sex out of wedlock, but don't tell anyone else that they can't. No one has the right to tell you what to do with your body. This, of course, goes for adults. Parents certainly have the right to raise their children with their own religious and moral beliefs, but once those children reach adulthood, they have to start making their own decisions.
By teaching sex education to young adults, and providing birth control to all adults (male and female, it's not only up to the women) we could reduce the vast majority of abortions in this country. This is what the goal of the anti-abortionists should be; to reduce all of the abortions possible, not to make them all illegal. For that matter, we should also be working harder to end rape in this country, but that doesn't seem to be an issue. We're more interested in punishing men after they commit the act rather than identifying possible rapists and curing them before the act. We're interested in stopping women from having abortions of unwanted babies rather than helping them to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. We are more concerned with reacting to a problem once it happens rather than preventing the problem from occuring in the first place.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Links I Recommend
- Citifarmer
- Common Dreams
- Crooks and Liars
- Democracy for America
- Democratic National Committee
- Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
- Media Matters
- Mick's Blog
- Nation, The
- News Hounds (we watch Fox so you won't have to)
- Patt's Adventures in Cooking
- Political Research Association
- Progressive Majority
- Public Citizen
- Salon
- Sourcewatch