I've been doing some thinking about Democrats for Life's 95-10 Initiative. The short explanation (for those who don't know) is that it seeks to reduce the number of abortions by 95% in 10 years.
- Why doesn't it seem to be getting much press? Is it because it doesn't fit neatly into red vs. blue, right vs. left, conservative vs. liberal boilerplates?
- Why doesn't it seem popular among pro-life Republicans? If it's just petty party politics, I might retch.
- Why aren't more pro-lifers (regardless of party) excited about it? A ban would be nice, but isn't a drastic reduction better than status quo?
- Why don't more pro-choicers support it? What ever happened to "safe, legal and rare"?
Funky Dung
Comments 13
Unable to save comment (get failed)
+0
Posted 10 Jul 2005 at 1:18 pm ¶D'oh. I'll try to remember to pass the bug report to Halsoscan. Was that the full text of the error?
+0
Posted 10 Jul 2005 at 3:49 pm ¶Yep.
Let me try again:
Some strategists in the pro-life/anti-abortion camp believe that any attempt to reduce abortions without outlawing it completely is counterproductive. They know that the movement is fragmented. For example, many people do not favor outlawing abortions in the case of rape, incest, or when the mother's life or health are endangered.
If you reduce the number of abortions without completely outlawing it, you reduce the number of people in your camp. This reduces your political power. The 94-10 initiative also plays against the stereotype that all Christians are Republican. This is also dangerous to some people.
Years ago, they passed a law through congress outlawing the so-called "partial birth abortions." Clinton would have signed it, but only if there was a provision to permit such abortions if they were necessary to save the life of the mother and if no other way could be found to deliver the child.
Congress refused to ammend the law. If it hadn't been ammended and if Clinton had still signed it, the Supreme Court would have struck it down. If Bush packs the SC with three of his own, they would STILL strike such a law down if it does not permit a woman to defend herself.
The more abortions that are performed each year, the better it is for the pro-life movement, because it gives them more power.
If the 95-10 Initiative gets any support, you can bet that there will be extreme attacks on anyone supporting it by the religious right, since it takes power away from them.
It's sort of like Bush supporting the hard-liners in Iran. He helps them by polarizing the vote, they help him keep Americans frightened. Win-win, if you're evil.
+0
Posted 10 Jul 2005 at 5:29 pm ¶(I got one of those errors the other day, too. Then when I tried to post my comment again, it said I had already commented, even though that comment never showed up. When I posted the same comment from a different computer, it worked fine. Go figure.)
Re: Rob's comment -
Yet another argument against democracy on the grounds of "the tyranny of the majority," eh?
Personally, I think the real answer is much, much simpler: The vast majority of Americans simply do not care enough about this issue to get involved. It doesn't affect them personally, and they are more worried about social security, the war in Iraq, high taxes, a bad economy, or whatever affects them directly. For most people, the abortion issue is just philosophy (and controversial philosophy to boot), and that isn't enough to make them get involved. Since abortion is legal, people who seek it aren't complaining, and people who don't seek it aren't having their activities hampered. That means the only people involved are people who are, well, not really involved.
+0
Posted 10 Jul 2005 at 7:53 pm ¶Nah, not tyrrany of the majority.
Manipulation by the power-hungry is more what I'm thinking.
+0
Posted 11 Jul 2005 at 4:24 pm ¶"That means the only people involved are people who are, well, not really involved." theomorph 07.10.05 - 2:58 pm
I don't believe you thought of the fact that almost all of us know of at least 1 person intimately who has been involved with/in the abortion industry.
I think almost ALL of us are involved.
—
+0
Posted 11 Jul 2005 at 6:25 pm ¶The problem that I, a Roman Catholic, pro-life Republican (in that order) have with 95-10 is that one of the proposed solutions is almost as bad as the disease to be remedied. Namely, mandatory contraceptive coverage in all group health care plans nationwide.
1) I see little ethical difference between snuffing out a human life and preventing a human life from coming into being.
2) Many so-called contraceptives actually act as abortifacents sometimes. The morning after pill and regular birth control pills sometimes prevent implantation of fertilized egg cells, essentially causing abortions. Let's be clear: the "Dems for Life" want to promote use of these poisons and say they're preventing abortions!?
3) As a Roman Catholic who might one day be an employer, the "Dems for Life" (for whom I once had a great deal of respect, by the way) are demanding that I either pay for "medications" that run contrary to my religion and its moral teachings, or else deny my hard-working employees the health care coverage that Catholic teaching on social justice would require me to provide. In other words, I can't be a business owner and a good Catholic.
4) Any kind of health coverage mandates, including contraceptives, causes people to lose health coverage because health coverage becomes more expensive and employers balk at providing it. Again, no Catholic who is conscious of good social teaching should want to see that.
5) Given the failure rates of contraceptives and the promiscuity that it breeds in the culture, I'm not certain that this particular provision of 95-10 would reduce abortions.
Dump that provision, and I'm pretty happy with it.
+0
Posted 13 Jul 2005 at 4:39 am ¶Sure, I know plenty of people who have gotten abortions. There are a couple of them in my family. But I am not them, I did not make their decision, and unless they come to me and ask for my thoughts on the matter, it is really none of my business what they did.
Knowing somebody connected to abortion does not make you "involved." Wishing that nobody get an abortion does not make you "involved." The only thing that makes you "involved" is having had an abortion, seeking one, being actively included in the decision-making process by the person who had or is seeking one, or providing them. The rest of us are just self-righteous moralizers, one way or the other.
+0
Posted 14 Jul 2005 at 7:29 pm ¶If one thinks that abortion is acceptable, of course they will not get actively involved with one who wants or thinks they need an abortion unless they're asked. (In essence, ignoring the issue implicitly approves it.)
In my experience, without being asked, people have offered to put up the female and the baby in their home. If abortion was used as birth control, some would offer to be available if she needed an excuse to leave a situation.
Further, it's not true that someone has to be actively engaged in the decision making to be involved. Many parents/boyfriends/husbands threaten (even before a pregnancy) to disown/beat/etc. pregnant girls. The laws of the democratic world (minus a few countries) make it legal (approve) to dispose of pre-born children. Many people ignore or look down on pregnant girls and women.
On the other hand, many services are available for pregnant women. People sacrifice their time and money to help. Many organizations condemn killing, especially of the most innocent.
We're all involved.
—
+0
Posted 15 Jul 2005 at 5:22 pm ¶"Many parents/boyfriends/husbands threaten (even before a pregnancy) to disown/beat/etc. pregnant girls."
And I don't think compelling women not to get abortions by more removed means is any better, either.
+0
Posted 15 Jul 2005 at 8:41 pm ¶"And I don't think compelling women not to get abortions by more removed means is any better, either."
Really?
Don't you think beating or killing a women to entice her to kill and forcing her & her baby to live are quite different things?
—
+0
Posted 15 Jul 2005 at 9:19 pm ¶I didn't say they weren't different, did I? Nor did I say that they were equal. I merely said that compelling a woman into childbirth is no better than beating her.
+0
Posted 16 Jul 2005 at 5:24 am ¶"I didn't say they weren't different, did I? Nor did I say that they were equal. I merely said that compelling a woman into childbirth is no better than beating her."
I disagree.
It is true that both lead the woman to do something they may not want to do.
However, I believe protecting human life is better than enticing human death.
Don't you now "think [that] almost ALL of us are involved"?
—
+0
Posted 18 Jul 2005 at 8:46 pm ¶Post a Comment