Is this it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Indeed. Whatever happened to people voting for a candidate who actually represented their interests, instead of some ivory tower (doesn't affect me) morality rubbish. Not that these issues aren't important they are, just seems that people totally lose perspective where moral issues are concerned vs. current issues that directly affect their own quality of life.

I mean, what about the current crisis in the healthcare system? Thousands of Americans without health insurance. Many of those with insurance are paying through the nose for prescription drugs at massively inflated prices, paying exorbitant premiums - but hey at least we stopped the few people (if you work it out as a proportion of the US national population its incredibly tiny) each year who chose to have an abortion.

I don't think abortion is trivial or unimportant (though admittedly the pro-choice argument is ultimately more convincing for me), but I think undue emphasis is placed on it, and that emphasis detracts from more important issues that people should be concerned with.

It just doesn't make any sense - why are we worrying about a 'few' people who choose to have a single medical procedure, when the entire private healthcare establishment is ripping off the public hand over fist. I find that a far more compelling issue of morality than abortion - because it affects everyone in the US.

In a way, it doesn't make sense, but on the other hand is a very convenient issue for politicians because it incorporates a host of other issues which is probably the reason why both sides get so riled up about.

On the surface, it's about whether or not a woman should have the right to abort. However, this just masks the dislike of conservatives of the women's rights/liberation movement. Many conservatives would like to turn time back before "those feminazis" (Limbaugh, I think) began to burn their bras and push society into immorality by demanding equal rights. By calling for an end to reproductive rights, conservatives hope to return to the golden days before feminism became a danger to social order. They are on the way to get there: feminism has become an equally dirty word as liberal.

However, this is not just about feminism, but about all sorts of social movements attempting to bring change to the social order. At the same time that feminists pushed for equal rights, gay and lesbians and racial and ethnic majorities also demanded to be treated equally. In a way, conservatives want to bring us back to the time before the sexual revolution. And it is supposedly the immorality in the wake of the sexual revolution that led to an increase in abortions and of course such things as men kissing men in the streets, the movies, and finally national television. And in the same way as they have succeeded in branding feminists as evil, it has become perfectely acceptable in society to claim that one "disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle" to express one's belief that the GLBT movement should allow us to return to the golden past when we saw couples on TV sleeping in twin beds,

It's much less acceptable, however, to say that that black folks or those Mexicans should be glad that they're allowed to live in this land of golden opportunity but that everyone else they should just work their way up into a position where they have the power to change things. Of course this view overlooks that the conditions of racial minorities in almost all parts of the country was such that there was no way out because you couldn't get into decent schools, you couldn't get a decent job, and you couldn't get a home in a nice neighborhood. The civil rights movement that changed that, however, also tried to change the social conditions for minorities and educating people in their reproductive rights and in family planning was one way to tackle the problem. The attempt to put more social responsibility in the hands of the federal government was met by heavy resistance because it, like the feminist movement, threatened a certain vision of America. Thus, abortion stands in for the social change wrought by the social movement of the 1960s, allowing people of different convictions to blow in one horn on a single issue that does not directly mention race or sexuality..

Finally, as has been mentioned in the discussion above, there is the issue of state rights vs. federal rights. This issue has been contentious since 1776 and will remain contentious unless there is a movement to rewrite the constitution to more precisely define the relationship. The issue is at the core of most political discussion in the country, but again abortion captures it quite nicely because it shows how the federal government denied states the right to determine their own reproductive policies. So, the single issue abortion unites another group.

Abortion used to be about health care, but the first victory of the anti-abortion/conservative front was to stop states and health insurances from paying for abortions, which they did until the late seventies. Abortion in a way is of course always about health care as well, at least on the pro-choice side, because a pregnancy poses a danger to a woman's health.

Sorry my post is so long, and thanks if your read all the way through. Short recap: Abortion movements fight not just about the issue, but also about social changes brought about by social movement. Other issue underlying discussion: state rights vs federal rights. Finally, about health care.

Doesn't it strike you as odd though that the pro-choice / pro-life debate is little more than a footnote in most European countries? I mean, abortion is not a 'new' argument there, pretty much all the points of view expressed in this thread have been expressed in Britain (for example) at one time or another, yet abortion is still not the 'hot-button' issue that it is in the US.

Could it be possibly due to the fact that the US (as a whole) has a higher proportion of actively religious church-going types than most European countries. I mean, as far as I am aware abortion is legal in most European countries, I'm pretty sure Ireland (a Catholic country) bans it.

Essentially this debate really masks another argument, that is much deeper than the abortion issue. That is the ongoing battle between secularism and religion to define society's rules.

[Sister Fracas 5]

Essentially this debate really masks another argument, that is much deeper than the abortion issue. That is the ongoing battle between secularism and religion to define society's rules.

yep, and it gets tiring that politicians run on this issue during every blessed election. F#cksake, you'd think there are issues that affect EVERYONE that would be more important...such as access to health care for ALL. But nooooooooo, gotta pull this one out.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Essentially this debate really masks another argument, that is much deeper than the abortion issue. That is the ongoing battle between secularism and religion to define society's rules.

yep, and it gets tiring that politicians run on this issue during every blessed election. F#cksake, you'd think there are issues that affect EVERYONE that would be more important...such as access to health care for ALL. But nooooooooo, gotta pull this one out.

It's wilfully dishonest, IMO.

[Carol&Marc 0]

The discussions that hubby and I have had over "what happens if I get pregnant by mistake in the meantime" have been interesting to say the least, and I still do not know what I would do in that situation.

I'm sure they ARE interesting... I don't for a minute believe that the majority of women who go through these decisions do so lightly...

Oh, but if you were to believe the "pro-life" crowd's propaganda, the majority of women practically make it a sport to go and have abortions. Hell, it sometimes sounds as if they have competitions as to who gets to abort, excuse me, violently murder the most babies in a lifetime. That's why the "pro-life" crowd is calling so loudly for big governemt to come in and make decisions for these sick elements of our society since they are, quite obviously, too careless and irresponsible to make any such decision for themselves. Of course, they are not too irresponsible and careless to be the breeding machine producing babies for potential parents willing to adopt. That is, if it happens to be a desirable baby. Otherwise, it just gets piled on with the rest of them undesirables...

There is something seriously wrong in your head.

I have to agree Ace

Also, I dont wanna pay for your health care! buy your own! I do.

Edited February 25, 2006 by Carol&Marc

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The discussions that hubby and I have had over "what happens if I get pregnant by mistake in the meantime" have been interesting to say the least, and I still do not know what I would do in that situation.

I'm sure they ARE interesting... I don't for a minute believe that the majority of women who go through these decisions do so lightly...

Oh, but if you were to believe the "pro-life" crowd's propaganda, the majority of women practically make it a sport to go and have abortions. Hell, it sometimes sounds as if they have competitions as to who gets to abort, excuse me, violently murder the most babies in a lifetime. That's why the "pro-life" crowd is calling so loudly for big governemt to come in and make decisions for these sick elements of our society since they are, quite obviously, too careless and irresponsible to make any such decision for themselves. Of course, they are not too irresponsible and careless to be the breeding machine producing babies for potential parents willing to adopt. That is, if it happens to be a desirable baby. Otherwise, it just gets piled on with the rest of them undesirables...

There is something seriously wrong in your head.

I have to agree Ace

Also, I dont wanna pay for your health care! buy your own! I do.

Good for you, but not good for someone who's willing to pay but is priced out of the insurance system by massively inflated premiums for pre-existing conditions.

Better hope you don't get a heart condition (like my father in law) anytime soon - you might see the rough end of the stick from the private healthcare establishment.

[Sister Fracas 5]

I've also heard no solution as to who is going to pay for the pre-natal care and birthing costs for the women in South Dakota who will be forced to carry these babies to term?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Also, I dont wanna pay for your health care! buy your own! I do.

Tell that to the fetus!

I've also heard no solution as to who is going to pay for the pre-natal care and birthing costs for the women in South Dakota who will be forced to carry these babies to term?

Logically, the baby itself since it is the woman's equal as has been pointed out above...

[Carol&Marc 0]

I've also heard no solution as to who is going to pay for the pre-natal care and birthing costs for the women in South Dakota who will be forced to carry these babies to term?

The adoptive parents, max out of pocket for me is 250.00! There are plenty of socialist governments out there health savings accounts?

Edited February 25, 2006 by Carol&Marc

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I've also heard no solution as to who is going to pay for the pre-natal care and birthing costs for the women in South Dakota who will be forced to carry these babies to term?

The adoptive parents, max out of pocket for me is 250.00! There are plenty of socialist governments out there

There are?

Socialist healthcare doesn't equate to socialist government.

[Carol&Marc 0]

I've also heard no solution as to who is going to pay for the pre-natal care and birthing costs for the women in South Dakota who will be forced to carry these babies to term?

The adoptive parents, max out of pocket for me is 250.00! There are plenty of socialist governments out there

There are?

Socialist healthcare doesn't equate to socialist government.

I see, just a little socialism is good? I see just the part you like.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Doesn't it strike you as odd though that the pro-choice / pro-life debate is little more than a footnote in most European countries? I mean, abortion is not a 'new' argument there, pretty much all the points of view expressed in this thread have been expressed in Britain (for example) at one time or another, yet abortion is still not the 'hot-button' issue that it is in the US.

Could it be possibly due to the fact that the US (as a whole) has a higher proportion of actively religious church-going types than most European countries. I mean, as far as I am aware abortion is legal in most European countries, I'm pretty sure Ireland (a Catholic country) bans it.

Essentially this debate really masks another argument, that is much deeper than the abortion issue. That is the ongoing battle between secularism and religion to define society's rules.

Europeans don't engage in the debate because it has been settled a few decades ago and because European voters seem more comfortable discussing the underlying issues because they are more central to their daily lives. The underlying issues are also much more likely to be resolved by a sort of consensus which is becoming increasingly rare in US-politics. If a European politician fighting for reelection would claim to vote for him just because he is pro-life, people would think he's a nutcase. But all that has to do with political awareness for which reason European politicians would get flamed for a host of things that flow out of the mouths of US-politicians. While there are attempts to turn back time in Europe as well, they are much more scrutinized by the press.

Religion probably has something to do with it, but the US used to be much more secular than it is now a few decades ago. I think the revival of religion - particularly of the fanatic-fundamentalist kind - reflects another way in which certain groups of society feel threatened by the transformations brought about by social movements. Coupled with a media feeding almost exclusively off sensationalism and sound-bites, that's a dangerous mixture because the people who scream the loudest are the ones who get the attention not those who have the best arguments.

Secularism vs. religion is just another flavor of the culture war - an invention of the conservative right who fail to understand that the changes in society, such as racial integration, sexual liberation, etc. - are a result of majority consensus and not of an attack on American values by a minority. But the sustained effort of the few who call themselves paradoxically "the silent majority" is threatening the essence of the 1960s-consensus, and by ever raising the banner of religion and the like they have managed to get what they want - a polarized society that rejects any form of consensus and which is thus becoming increasingly less democratic.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I've also heard no solution as to who is going to pay for the pre-natal care and birthing costs for the women in South Dakota who will be forced to carry these babies to term?

The adoptive parents, max out of pocket for me is 250.00! There are plenty of socialist governments out there

There are?

Socialist healthcare doesn't equate to socialist government.

I see, just a little socialism is good? I see just the part you like.

I don't see what point you are making. Its a different philopsophy but in the end it amounts to pretty much the same thing.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I've also heard no solution as to who is going to pay for the pre-natal care and birthing costs for the women in South Dakota who will be forced to carry these babies to term?

The adoptive parents, max out of pocket for me is 250.00! There are plenty of socialist governments out there

There are?

Socialist healthcare doesn't equate to socialist government.

I see, just a little socialism is good? I see just the part you like.

Not to break your bubble, but it's called socialized healthcare not socialist healthcare and it has nothing to do with socialism but with the fact that in some countries taxpayers prefer to pay for health care only once and not twice like they do in the US: once for yourself in your private plan and once for all the people who can't affoord it through your taxes...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Doesn't it strike you as odd though that the pro-choice / pro-life debate is little more than a footnote in most European countries? I mean, abortion is not a 'new' argument there, pretty much all the points of view expressed in this thread have been expressed in Britain (for example) at one time or another, yet abortion is still not the 'hot-button' issue that it is in the US.

Could it be possibly due to the fact that the US (as a whole) has a higher proportion of actively religious church-going types than most European countries. I mean, as far as I am aware abortion is legal in most European countries, I'm pretty sure Ireland (a Catholic country) bans it.

Essentially this debate really masks another argument, that is much deeper than the abortion issue. That is the ongoing battle between secularism and religion to define society's rules.

Europeans don't engage in the debate because it has been settled a few decades ago and because European voters seem more comfortable discussing the underlying issues because they are more central to their daily lives. The underlying issues are also much more likely to be resolved by a sort of consensus which is becoming increasingly rare in US-politics. If a European politician fighting for reelection would claim to vote for him just because he is pro-life, people would think he's a nutcase. But all that has to do with political awareness for which reason European politicians would get flamed for a host of things that flow out of the mouths of US-politicians. While there are attempts to turn back time in Europe as well, they are much more scrutinized by the press.

Religion probably has something to do with it, but the US used to be much more secular than it is now a few decades ago. I think the revival of religion - particularly of the fanatic-fundamentalist kind - reflects another way in which certain groups of society feel threatened by the transformations brought about by social movements. Coupled with a media feeding almost exclusively off sensationalism and sound-bites, that's a dangerous mixture because the people who scream the loudest are the ones who get the attention not those who have the best arguments.

Secularism vs. religion is just another flavor of the culture war - an invention of the conservative right who fail to understand that the changes in society, such as racial integration, sexual liberation, etc. - are a result of majority consensus and not of an attack on American values by a minority. But the sustained effort of the few who call themselves paradoxically "the silent majority" is threatening the essence of the 1960s-consensus, and by ever raising the banner of religion and the like they have managed to get what they want - a polarized society that rejects any form of consensus and which is thus becoming increasingly less democratic.

Which is what American politicians play upon. They know that most people don't know the facts about an issue and won't (or simply don't have time to) fill in the gaps left by a media that is hopelessly inadequate for the public's needs.

Edited February 25, 2006 by Fishdude

[Carol&Marc 0]

I've also heard no solution as to who is going to pay for the pre-natal care and birthing costs for the women in South Dakota who will be forced to carry these babies to term?

The adoptive parents, max out of pocket for me is 250.00! There are plenty of socialist governments out there

There are?

Socialist healthcare doesn't equate to socialist government.

I see, just a little socialism is good? I see just the part you like.

Not to break your bubble, but it's called socialized healthcare not socialist healthcare and it has nothing to do with socialism but with the fact that in some countries taxpayers prefer to pay for health care only once and not twice like they do in the US: once for yourself in your private plan and once for all the people who can't affoord it through your taxes...

Parsing words, socialist,socialized! If you take all the ppl out there with no health care and put the burden on all the ppl that are employed (paying the bill) I beleive i would be paying more! I got an idea why doesnt everyone that wants socialized (corrected) health care get together and chip in a hundred a month and then give it out to the ones who need it! start your own little health care club, we would see what would happen when a few use it the most and the ones who dont would be a little pissed off! or maybe instead of whining about it, I want this, I want that! get a job that has a decent plan!