speaking of politics

[tsukikage]

Why is there not a single pro-life liberal candidate?
It pretty much sucks to be pro-tax, pro-welfare, and pro-life.

[EDIT: New icon. ^_^]

[EDIT 2: Some more explicit political viewpoints have emerged in the comments (well, one so far, anyway), and although I'm not worried about flaming, considering that I know all of you are respectful, I'd just like to warn you in case you'd prefer to avoid it.]

Comments

[carve037.livejournal.com]

The American pro-life movement is pretty heavily tied up with religious conservative factions. It makes more sense on the level of factions rather than issues.

[carve037.livejournal.com]

Oh and I just noticed you're reading from National Right to Life. Not exactly a liberally-inclined group. Right-wing wackos are going to tell you to vote for equally right-wing wackos.

[tsukikage85.livejournal.com]

I assumed NRL wasn't particularly liberal (party for the reason you already mentioned), but I figured they'd at least be up-front there... (Also, I wasn't really surprised by the chart.)

[ellie-desu.livejournal.com]

Because liberals recognize that there are other ways to prevent abortion than banning it.

/liberal

[tsukikage85.livejournal.com]

Indeed, and other ways that need to be... used? (what's the verb I'm looking for?) if we are to actually prevent it. Proper financial and emotional support for pregnant women, and proper financial support for economically disadvantaged mothers who chose to keep their babies and for orphanages and the foster care system, as well as proper sex education and availability of contraceptives. But I would also say that, especially once those measures are in place, I am anti-choice (except when it threatens the life of the child, and even then I would like to see financial support for good-faith efforts at trying to remove the child and save their life), and for those cases where the woman wants to have an abortion simply because she doesn't want to carry the child to term, I would like to see a ban on abortion.
My belief that these institutions (foster care, welfare, health care, etc.) should be properly funded goes beyond simply desiring to prevent abortion, of course. (As I said, I consider myself pro-tax, pro-welfare - I am nigh socialist in my views.)
(My views on abortion are still a work in progress, though, so I'm trying to still keep my ears and eyes open on both fronts.)

[carve037.livejournal.com]

Except when it threatens the life of the child? Do you mean the mother? Cause I think threatening the life of the child is kind of the point.

Anyways, my thoughts are that the question essentially comes down to when the fetus becomes a person. The religious right perspective seems to be that since it's got human DNA, it's human as soon as it's conceived. This seems silly to me. Just because it has the potential to become something more, doesn't make it any different at the time it's examined from some other similar cluster of cells with no such potential. Even later in pregnancy, a fetus isn't going to be as advanced a creature as, say, a cow, and we kill cows for beef for our tables by the millions. So, until quite late, when the fetus becomes very humanlike, I'm inclined to say the rights of the mother to choose her own destiny take precedence.

The second aspect of my take on this is based on ideas of women's rights and sexual freedoms. I'm a firm believer that people have the right to make their own sexual choices, falling under the "pursuit of happiness" category. I think the conservative religious establishment uses the abortion issue as a way to attack premarital sex and force women and to a lesser extent, men to conform to their own sexual-social ideals. It boils down to my usual fear of religious domination. If I don't fight for women's right to make their own choices about sex and their bodies, how can I expect anyone to fight for mine?

[tsukikage85.livejournal.com]

Eeep, I meant the life of the mother. *gt;<;
First argument... That's a tricky one. In general I've settled that issue in my head by essentially saying "it doesn't matter when "the cells" become certifiably human - it has the potential for life, and that's enough". I suppose it follows the "Will it develop into a fully-formed child if left alone?" line of thought.
I suppose right here I should clarify that I've always had big qualms with the very simple "it's my body and my choice" argument, since it's two bodies. Of course, that "my body, my choice" argument can be made in increasingly more complex (thoughtful?) ways that require more thought before answering, but I haven't heard/read such a line of argument yet that makes me change my mind.
The second aspect... I do have some sensitivity to the idea that religious conservatives use abortion as a way to oppress women. Although I personally believe that people should wait until marriage to have sex, I also believe in teaching about effective contraception in schools, making contraception available, and in general recognizing that as a personal choice. Also, although I have no problems with homosexuality, I can respect those who believe it to be "wrong", but respect others and their right to make their own choices about it. In those cases, it truly is the choice of both of the two involved.
I guess what I'm saying here is that just because some people may use abortion as a way to control women, there is still a line to be drawn between controlling people in situations where all parties involved have their own say, and situations where there is a life (or the potential for it) involved.

[tsukikage85.livejournal.com]

Eeep, I meant the life of the mother. ><;

[belindabird.livejournal.com]

Pro-choice includes the right to choose not to have an abortion, while Pro-life assumes everyone has the same beliefs about life, which is not true :)

As someone who never wants to have children, but still wants to have sex and does it responsibly with as much safety as possible, abortion would be a very last resort for me. But I don't see it as a means to have children, more as something to share with my husband which might have that undesired consequence. I feel by being and voting pro-choice, I'm not telling people how to live their life, but I'm giving them the option to live it how they choose for themselves.

[tsukikage85.livejournal.com]

Certainly, and I believe that pro-choicers who are "irresponsible aborters" are few and far between.

[killercherrypie.livejournal.com]

There is no single liberal pro-life candidate because they recognize 1) the dangers that come about because of outlawing abortions and 2) the liberty to make informed medical decisions without the interference of the government.

In countries where abortion is outlawed, women and young girls are raped and can't abort the fetus which results. Women of all types and ages who choose to have abortions are getting back-alley abortions which are many times more dangerous than carrying a baby to term (carrying a baby to term is also more dangerous than a safely performed abortion). Women in this country also were seriously harmed, sterilized, or killed with illegal abortions before abortions were legal here.

Being pro-choice doesn't necessarily entail that one supports abortion across the board. I am pro-choice, but I would personally never have an abortion unless under extreme circumstances. However, I personally believe it is every woman's right to come to that decision by herself and it is not the government's place to dictate that to them. The problems in this country are: women are uninformed or misinformed about sexual and reproductive health, women are not respected by men or the government to make their own medical decisions (check out some of the republican views on abortion- Huckabee seems to think that women don't know what abortion means and so they are victims of "abortion doctors" who brainwash them or something), men do not take enough responsibility for their own birth control (see controversy over male birth control pill), women are shamed into not taking or denied access to proper birth control methods, etc etc etc.

I agree with those above. There are many other ways to prevent abortions (and the pregnancies that bring them about) without outlawing the procedure.

BTW, remember that supreme court decision to outlaw intact late-term abortion? Turns out that procedure is done only a fraction of a percentage of the time considering all abortion cases. And guess what, it is also the safest way to perform an abortion should one be needed to save the mother's life. The only method left is non-intact late term abortion, which entails cutting apart the fetus in the womb and then removing it piece by piece. Turns out this is more dangerous to the mother since the pieces can cause lesions in the womb, internal bleeding, infertility, etc. So now we've outlawed the safest method of late term abortion that would be used to help save a mother's life. The anti-choice people on the supreme court came up with that one.

[tsukikage85.livejournal.com]

The dangers from outlawing abortions... I admit that I wouldn't feel right in outlawing (or rather, severely, severely restricting) abortion until proper support measures are in place to prevent "back alley abortions".
You have made me interested in reading in more detail what republicans have said about abortion, though... *is disturbed by the Huckabee example*
I do support abortion to save the mother's life, but I would prefer to see, where possible, good-faith attempts at simply removing the child and treating them as a preemie.

[carve037.livejournal.com]

Ultimately, I think that those kind of "prefer to see" decisions should be made by doctors, not by politicians.

[tsukikage85.livejournal.com]

I agree with that. The mother's life comes first, and the only one who can tell that is the doctor.

[tsukikage85.livejournal.com]

I suppose I should also be up-front in saying that I think those other issues you mentioned are sad (being un- or mis-informed about sexual and reproductive healthy, being denied proper birth control, men being irresponsible about birth control), but in my mind the life (or potential life) of the child outweighs these. In the end it's still weighing (severe) inconvenience to one person against the existence of another.

[carve037.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I like the idea of this men's birth control pill. I think it has the potential to really change things.

[tsukikage85.livejournal.com]

If they use it. ><; Which I hope they do.

[tsukikage85.livejournal.com]

Honestly, the definition of life confusion is quite confusing, I agree. That's sort I why I move to the "potential" approach, but I suppose that makes it possible that I'm avoiding the question. At the same time...
Maybe this is all self-serving, but I don't think it would be my mom's right to abort me in the first trimester if I happened to have been conceived by rape. Granted, I'm not the outcome of rape, so I can't really know, but for all I know, once she would have already gone through that, I'd rather she suffer for nine months and then never see me again, and have me be adopted or raised in an orphanage, than her have gone through that and me never be born.
Yes, an unknown and probably fairly high number of zygotes don't implant, resulting in natural abortion, but I'd have to think some more before I could decide how much justification I feel that gives first-month abortions.