This is an exchange between myself and a local woman who is a well known reproductive rights advocate. I will label myself as ME, and her as RRA.
ME: Should the Democratic party and liberal thought continue to support the right to abortion? I have pretty liberal friends, one is in my friend list here, whom I know contribute considerable resources to alternatives to abortion. Should those type of efforts be advertised by “our movement” to the same degree reproductive choice is? Thanks, in advance, for your thoughts.
RRA: Liberals have always supported sex education, contraception, and other such actions to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies. I’m not sure what type of efforts you’re referring to, but you’re referring to those crisis pregnancy clinics, I would never support those places. The people who work there lie to women and they really don’t provide all that much help. If the Democratic Party continues to turn its back on abortions rights, I will have to leave the party.
ME: Yes I am aware that those “crisis” places are a sham. I know of people who will financially help a woman carry a pregnancy to term if that is her choice and assist with adoption afterward.
I am concerned about the black and white position of all abortions that could happen, must happen. I have wondered is there a Clintonesque (Bill, that is) third way possible?
I favor that the abortion rights continue to exist. Some people want and need that – it should be their right. But is the Democratic party advanced when we refuse to consider other options that are positive in my view? That is at the heart of my question….
I was hoping you would weigh in. Thank you.
I would like to know what specific options the Democratic Party should consider. We already have the Bliue Dogs, who want to get rid of abortion rights. A woman is never half-pregnant, so half measures won’t do.
My counter to that is that the party needs to be the advocate for reproductive choice – the full spectrum of reproductive choice which would include carrying a child to term to then adopt out. Or, having a kid and keeping it – regardless of one’s marital status.
You are correct women are definitely “dis-incentifized” in our culture to reproduce. That should change and we could look to Europe as models to consider. We need more people. Our largest demographic is growing older and we will likely have to depend upon immigrants to take care of our aging population. [I have nothing against immigrants, btw, and I think it is too bad, that I have to stipulate that].
This position of mine is more of a general one at this point and I don’t have figures to consider what kinds of costs we are talking about. Again, Europe may provide some clues on that.
Though you can’t make everyone happy, it does seem like taxpayers are less adverse to social programs if they help children/families.
Thank you for this interesting discussion.
More people is not what this suffering, polluted earth needs. I used to belong to a group that advocated for zero population growth. I still think that’s a good idea. Eventually, Mother Nature is going to turn on us and wipe us out anyway. We won’t be able to breathe the air or drink the water, what’s left of it.
What most people don’t seem to understand is that the abortion rate remains consistent over time no matter what the laws on abortion are. The only thing that changes is the risk women have to endure if abortion is made illegal. If the Democrats want to turn their backs on abortion rights, then I will turn my backs on the Democrats. I won’t be alone. Pro-choice women, and men, who have consistently supported the Democratic Party will leave it behind. Even now, I don’t send money to national party because I don’t want my money going to anti-choice candidates. So….