HEALTH

Better Prevention or Changing Attitudes?

Abortion rates have hit a 34-year low, but experts disagree on the reasons why.

By Mary Carmichael | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jan 16, 2008 | Updated: 11:09  p.m. ET Jan 16, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Noeloquenceneeded @ 01/17/2008 9:41:35 AM

    What a lopsisded story! You give all the time in the world to the pro-choice side and virtually none to pro-life, then end with a pro-baby-killing proponent: "Not so fast, says Jones, the Guttmacher researcher. We don't want to believe anything that would prevent us from being able to kill babies and make money off of it!"

    Seems that liberal rags like Newsweek just don't even bother trying to be objective, anymore.

    • Posted By: sensil @ 04/17/2008 4:04:44 PM

      Thanks for your comment noeloquenceneeded. What specifically do you think is "biased" and "liberal" about this article. I confess, I can't see it - I think the authors, far from being liberal, have taken a very fair and balanced look at the ideas surrounding this report. Help me out here.

  • Posted By: wiseoldman @ 01/18/2008 9:27:07 PM

    I do not understand why we do not define life in the same terms we define death: the absence of a heartbeat and brainwaves. This does not occur in a fetus until the 10th week. The problem with Roe v. Wade is the Supreme Court defined a viable fetus as the ability to live outside the womb. This is incorrect, but the underlying premise, the right to be left alone by the government is correct. The "pro-life" movement has a terrible problem, how do you deal with the cases of rape and the health of the mother. If a legal, safe abortion was available up to the 10th week, with exceptions for the health of the mother, this matter would be over.

    • Posted By: opinionsqueen252 @ 01/23/2008 5:46:03 PM

      i dont like that abortion exists until i'm pregnant. I have had an abortion and I now am way more conscience with prevention. It has broken my heart in more ways than one and still does atleast 3 times out of a week especially seeing all my friends and families with babies though it was atleast 5 years ago BUT if I was to happen to get pregnant right now while I cannot adequately provide for a child or be there for a child as I feel I should be I would definitely consider having an abortion again. I believe that it is a fetus and in some other country/language or whatever in America it means something unborn. Something unborn has no life to miss. If anything it will be the parents who suffer and frankly I don't give a damn about how the parents choose to live with this decision.

      I believe in the death penalty too!!!!!!!!! lol

      • Posted By: Cecile @ 02/19/2008 5:51:03 PM

        I believe the term fetus, comes from Greek language, meaning baby.

    • Posted By: joanneroy @ 01/19/2008 8:50:22 AM

      Ten weeks is incorrect- an unborn baby has a heartbeat closer to the 4th week and brainwaves quickly follow.

      • Posted By: wiseoldman @ 01/19/2008 7:02:29 PM

        At four weeks, the heartbeat is so weak, you can not hear it without a mechanical aid of some type. The brain has also just begun to barely develop. Therefore, depending on how you wish to define "life", the original post is correct. The miin point of the comment was to make abortion legal until there is a heartbeat and brain function. The only issue under either scenario is the amount of time which is open to debate.

        • Posted By: joanneroy @ 01/20/2008 3:40:25 PM

          A heart beat is a heart beat is a heart beat! Who cares whether it's difficult to hear or not, it's still a heart beat! Same goes for the brainwaves. By the time most women even learn they are pregnant, her baby already has both!

          • Posted By: Zyke @ 01/21/2008 5:06:21 PM

            So what you're saying is that a beating heart grown in a lab dish is life, and by destroying it, you are commiting murder.

            • Posted By: joanneroy @ 01/22/2008 12:54:31 PM

              Talk about people taking things to the extreme. I think the topic here is about abortion, not growing hearts in labs. Moreover, we can hardly consider a heart grown in a lab as a human being, as an unborn baby is!
              It's this simple: If the unborn aren't human beings, then no justification for abortion is needed. If the unborn are human beings, then no justification for abortion is adequate. There is absolutely no doubt that an unborn baby is a human being as there is no way two human beings can create something that isn't a human- the Law of Biogenesis and Biology 101 will prove this. The abortion industry would love for us to believe that what they are terminating is nothing but a clump of cells, but by the time a woman even learns she is pregnant, her unborn baby has a beating heart, a gender, it's own unique genetic print, brain waves, etc. It has now been 35 years since abortion was legalized in Roe V Wade (of which was based on a lie and Norma McCorvey is now pro-life, as well as is the woman from the other landmark case Doe V Dolton) and we have eliminated 50 million human beings. Even those who believe in the so-called right to choose should be taken back by that number. That number to me is proof that we are obviously doing something wrong. Our approach clearly isn't working as this article is about the decrease in abortion, not the decrease in unplanned pregnancies and STD's. That is the true test as to whether our current approach is working. I am not a religious person, so don't waste your breath on accusing me of forcing my religion down anyones throat. This is not a religious issue and people need to simply remove that aspect from this debate. This is a human rights issue and I believe that all human beings have intrinsic value and deserve protection. I believe it is well past time that we start rethinking our approach b/c whatever the hell we are doing right now clearly isn't working!

      • Posted By: wiseoldman @ 01/19/2008 6:57:15 PM

        Once again people take things to the exteme. At four weeks, the heartbeat is so weak, you can not detect it without equipment and the brain has started to develop. That is it. But if this is how you want to define life, then so be it. The only issue we are debating is the timeline, not the legality of an abortion.

  • Posted By: jamesboy72 @ 01/19/2008 10:37:38 AM

    it's called the morning after pill. who wouldn't prefer to pay $40.00 instead of a few hundred

    • Posted By: Dave in NM @ 01/19/2008 3:25:40 PM

      Which is all well and dandy, until you run into the so-called pharmacist who thinks God thinks he should punish the little hussy by condemning her (and her eventual child) to a life of misery with each other. Great reason to have a kid, isn't it?

      • Posted By: rebltg @ 02/12/2008 12:25:12 AM

        I don't know what the law is in every state, but in my state, a pharmacist can refuse to dispense the drug, but has to refer the person requesting it to a pharmacy/pharmacist who will. Just because a particular pharmacist does not want to dispense the drug, doesn't mean you can't get it fairly easily. It's no more inconvenient than if the pharmacy had simply run out of stock.

      • Posted By: J_Hunter @ 01/30/2008 3:40:41 PM

        Umm.. last I checked , there's this thing called ADOPTION...

  • Posted By: southerngirl131 @ 01/17/2008 8:40:38 AM

    As a medical student in the "deep south" of the US, I can testify from a healthcare provider standpoint that decreased access to abortion providers has a tremendous impact on a woman's ability to access safe and legal abortion. The Guttmacher Institue properly quotes the fact that 87% of counties do not have a provider/clinic. In my own experience I've talked to women with unintented pregnancies who chose to continue with them simply because they had to travel several hundred miles to a clinic. For a working mother, maybe one with chlidren already, this is often an impossibility and the pregnancy continues.
    If this country wants to preserve a woman's right to choose, they've got to realize that increasing access is a vital component! This begins with teaching about birth control, emegency contraception, and abortion in medical schools - something that is largely ignored not only in my medical college but in so many others around the country as well. We're becoming a country that often provides misinformation to patients, but chooses to educate its healthcare workers with little or no information on a woman's reproductive health..

    • Posted By: carl6352 @ 01/17/2008 10:05:07 AM

      the reason they dont provide knowledge of the procedure in schools is because every time you preform a abortion you break your oath to do no harm. or dont you remember your hypocritical oath when you be came a doctor.

      • Posted By: csisme @ 01/17/2008 11:37:14 AM

        It's hippocratic oath you idiot.

        • Posted By: rebltg @ 02/12/2008 12:18:49 AM

          It's not hippocratic if you are performing abortions. That's the whole point. hypocritical would be the correct word for Dr's who end life, who kill, after taking a hippocratic oath.

      • Posted By: csisme @ 01/17/2008 11:38:44 AM

        It's is hippocratic oath you idiot.

    • Posted By: Dave in NM @ 01/17/2008 3:26:43 PM

      "I've talked to women with unintented pregnancies who chose to continue with them simply because they had to travel several hundred miles to a clinic."

      What a lousy reason to have a kid! I shudder to think of the lives these unwanted children lead; resented by their unprepared parents, poorly raised by people who didn't want the responsibility in the first place - THESE are the children the soft-headed anti-abortionists would bring into the world. I notice none of them seem to be offering to RAISE these kids...

    • Posted By: blue_rylie @ 01/17/2008 9:14:06 AM

      I agree with you wholeheartedly. Having lived all over the US, there's no doubt that some areas provide better access than others. Closed clinics, protestors harassing clients, and we won't get into the threats and previous deaths of doctors have definitely had an affect on the availability of access to decent medical care for women. Women are often lied to, manipulated, and guilted into making a choice that others think they should make. Meanwhile, actual education is falling to the wayside. It's a disgrace that for all the battles of the past, this is where we are now. For how hard women had to fight for their rights, they are now losing access to those rights because of manipulations, threats, outright lies, and lack of access. I wish you the very best in medical school, we need more folks in the medical profession like you

  • Posted By: silver shelly @ 02/05/2008 8:46:19 PM

    It has to do with men, men are taking a more active role in preventing pregnancies..
    in the past hey didnt worry about it as much and left the the birth control responsibility up to the woman.
    men can prevent abortion and unwanted pregnancies. Its called wrap it , clip it or keep it in your pants.

  • Posted By: letha c. chamberlain @ 01/29/2008 2:01:32 AM

    In relation to the last comment... don't forget pregnancy CAN be a fatal condition, and furthermore, the behaviors leading to it can also lead to fatal illnesses. People ARE aware of these, too, are they not?

    • Posted By: J_Hunter @ 01/30/2008 3:49:49 PM

      Driving you car CAN be fatal (in fact that's FAR more risky than having a baby)...but we take that risk because we have Obligations and Responsibilites.. so what's you point?

  • Posted By: mik1of3 @ 01/17/2008 9:43:18 AM

    One thing I've noticed...why is it that the majority of pro-lifers are also pro-death penalty? Is that not hypocritical?
    I have been, will always be vehemently pro-choice; I have defended clinics during the GOP convention in Houston in 1992, I have volunteered at Planned Parenthood. Many think this is pro-abortion--that is not the case. I think that while abortion should be legal, and available for the woman who chooses this option, I also think that certain criteria should be met prior to getting the procedure. For example, I do NOT think it should be used as birth control; and I DO think that girls under the age of fifteen MUST have a parent or judges permission, although I will admit to some ambivalence about that. My judgement is clouded, perhaps, by the fact that I have a daughter myself.
    Abortions have been around as long as people have been having sex; it is our duty to defend the rights of women who are here NOW, who are contributing (or not) members of society NOW who are pregnant and alone...NOT treat them as simply baby mills, and disregarding their rights in lieu of the children they MIGHT someday have.

    • Posted By: letha c. chamberlain @ 01/29/2008 3:39:09 AM

      As a Catholic I's like to say that the Church does support pro-life and anti-death penalty. We are actually pro-life across the board. That is my stance, and in my heart -of-hearts, I believe this strongly and will always live this way. So, I am not so sure this is a true statement. Perhaps one does not hear the Catholics being quite so vocal, however.

    • Posted By: rs1234 @ 01/17/2008 11:34:00 AM

      Innocent unborn child, Murderer. If you do not see the difference then I will not even waste my time responding to the rest of your idiotic comments.

      • Posted By: letha c. chamberlain @ 01/29/2008 3:06:43 AM

        I'm sorry, but a life is a life is a life. in most cases we simply cannot prove another's guilt. There are just too many cases of innocent people having been killed wrongly. I'm all for keeping unsafe people off the streets--but not for killing them. The ten commandments mean something serious to me. This "eye for an eye" does not supercede the Decalogue. The former is the law of the desert--and not the law of Jesus, who said to "forgive seventy times seven" and "not to judge". So, I'll do the dictates of what MY Church proclaims! (and my heart)...

    • Posted By: Potion78 @ 01/17/2008 7:17:13 PM

      I'll answer because for a long time I didn't understand how one life supersedes another either. We were all created equal under God. The Death Penalty is not considered murder because it is a tool used to protect or defend the innocent. It is usually used to punish those who had taken a life. If you take a life the assumption is that you will take another one. Abortion disrupts the natural pregnancy process in the body for Medical (endangerment of the Baby???s or Mother's Life) or Personal/Situational (Financial, Emotional, Rape or Just don't want to have it) reasons. Although I understand the reasoning behind the Death Penalty, I am against it. We have too many over zealous prosecutors and district attorneys who just want to close a case and looking to climb up another rung in their career at the expense of an innocent person life. I would rather see a person spend the rest of their lives in prison than know my money paid for an innocent person???s death. I???m against Abortion because pregnancy is a natural process in the body and the body should not be chastise for doing what it is suppose to do unless during this process the baby???s or mother???s life becomes endangered and medicine or a medical procedure (C- section for example) can not correct it.

  • Posted By: djonesss @ 01/17/2008 9:48:57 AM

    Also, you people who love "the unborn" so much....what happens once they ARE BORN? You people cease to care, that's what. How about the same level of compassion for the poor little babies and children who are ALREADY HERE??? How about some affordable child care so the mother can work and afford to care for her child....you know, the one that's NOT A FETUS anymore? Once the baby or child is HERE, it's too uncomfortable to look him/her in the eye and say "sorry, nobody wants you or can afford to care of you. We cared more when you were a fetus."

    • Posted By: letha c. chamberlain @ 01/29/2008 3:26:31 AM

      YES! There are too many people who try to BLAME others for their misfortunes rather than 'walk a mile in their footsteps"... And, yes, everyoe needs to fight their own battles, but when one has been downtrodden long enough and hard enough, one gives up. Having been close to it a number of times in my life, soehow God managed to always come through for me--some people don't see it that way... I know I'm blessed! I'm not so sure others see it that way, either.

    • Posted By: kellchecker @ 01/17/2008 9:58:44 AM

      I wouldn't be so fast to put everyone in the same category when you say that we cease to care. That's absolutely *ridiculous.* I do work at a "crisis pregnancy center" where women come in to get information on abortion and other alternatives. That's not all we do, though. We also have support programs for women who decide to keep their babies, free maternity clothes for the pregnant women, free parenting classes, free formula and baby clothes for after the babies are born. It is absolutely unfair and untrue to say that people who care for the unborn then don't care after they are born. Learn some information so that you can be informed, before spouting off and acting like a know-it-all about things you obviously don't have a clue about.

      • Posted By: Ithink4myself @ 01/17/2008 10:10:50 AM

        ellchecker: pro-choices don't know about other options than abortion. They only want one. Kill. It's just another sign of our disposable society. Get rid of whatever intereferes with our "right to be happy". And I beleive it is solely political. Anyone who disagrees with so - called pro-choicers are called finaticals. They want their choice to choose. It is all so self-centered.

        • Posted By: blue_rylie @ 01/17/2008 10:27:32 AM

          Generalizing prochoicers as only wanting abortion is as ignorant as generalizing prolifers as a bunch of fanatics. I'm a mother of 3, I'm adopted and lucky enough to have the love of BOTH my adoptive family and my biological family. I am a christian. I am a woman. I am prochoice. I want women to be educated on the risks and benefits of ALL options from abortion to birth to adoption. ALL options have their good and bad, ALL options have their risks. Women should be making well informed and educated decisons about their health and their future.

  • Posted By: norteacher @ 01/17/2008 11:06:56 AM

    Most likely the decline is arributed to the cost of the procedure and more young women going through with it. I see many high school teens who have decided against abortion, moreso because their mothers decide to suck it up and support them through it. Honestly, I feel sorry for the children. Another parent unprepared to nurture and support a child.

    • Posted By: letha c. chamberlain @ 01/29/2008 2:41:22 AM

      Of course, this is what I choose to believe, too. God is not going to allow this kind of genocide to go on forever, one way or another. Whatever the reason, we know the intervention of our prayers has worked! Praise God's Holy Name!

  • Posted By: newsnote @ 01/17/2008 11:06:56 AM

    Abortion is now irrelevant! Get over it, all you nutjobs on both sides of the isle! AIDS has made the use of a condom mandatory for anyone with half a brain, so that makes unwanted pregnancies drop. Now when politicians are forced to listen to nut A or nut B, it is a waste of time and effort. There are so many more important issues, they should put abortion so far down the list that it never comes up again!

    • Posted By: letha c. chamberlain @ 01/29/2008 2:36:43 AM

      I think there is real truth to this--at least to the ract people see the probelms nvolved with unmitigated "free sex"... and are taking steps to do something about it. I tried to make this point, but it never got published.

  • Posted By: iwallace @ 01/17/2008 8:43:05 AM

    * Yawn * You people and your tired rants bore me. Abortion is effective for those who want or need it. If you don't want or need it, don't have one. There, everyone's happy.

    • Posted By: joanneroy @ 01/25/2008 10:02:05 AM

      Don't like slavery, don't own a slave. That logic didn't work then and sure doesn't work now!

    • Posted By: noke4duke @ 01/17/2008 9:48:15 AM

      If a person belives that abortion is the murder of an innocent child, I hardly believe that person can stand aside and yawn it off. If it suddenly became in vogue to kill newborns, would you expect me to stand back and say "well, *Im* not going to do it, but whatever they would like to do is fine by me"?

  • Posted By: GeorgiaJayhawk @ 01/17/2008 3:26:14 PM

    I love how everyone just looses their minds over this....Reality Check time people, this issue has absolutely squat to do with religion....this whole issue is about you getting to tell me what I should or should not do with my life and my body. No one has the right to impose their will, religion, or morality on someone else. That's what the whole freedom thing is about, I get to decide....I get to decide if I want purple hair and 20 gazillion body piercing, I get to decide if I get married or just shack up indefinately, and I get to decide if I want to have children or not. Welcome to the 21st century.

    • Posted By: Tracker500 @ 01/17/2008 3:41:59 PM

      Has anyone here imposed their religion on you? They may have expressed their viewpoint and tried to change your mind, but no one has twisted your arm, have they? From what I have read, the most vitriol is from the people who happens to disagree with certain religious posters, resorting to name calling and insults. You're right, that's what this whole freedom thing is about, a free exchange of ideas. Now, go get your hair dyed purple. That is only if you choose to.

      • Posted By: dancingdiamonds4 @ 01/17/2008 3:54:39 PM

        I have to respectfully disagree with you....these religious types are trying to change the Constitution to reflect their particular point of view. They are also trying to change laws by changing the language from women to unborn child thereby totally ignoring the woman (the human being who is already here as if we don't count at all).

        • Posted By: Tracker500 @ 01/17/2008 4:03:45 PM

          You are the narrow-minded, zealot that you accused others of being. Show me where a single poster has mentioned the word Constitution or changing of the document on this thread. You have so much hatred for people of faith, you just jumped to conclusions and lumped everyone together. As I said before, I am an atheist, but I love people of faith, just as I love people who choose not to have religion in their lives. If you think these are all right-wing nuts, then you are a left-wing nut. I don't know which is worse.

          • Posted By: GeorgiaJayhawk @ 01/17/2008 4:18:59 PM

            I've been called a murderer today on this discussion board, and not even because I had an abortion....but because I chose to get an IUD to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And yes people have tries to impose their religious view points on others...when they make bold statements about how others should live their lives because that is what their relgion preaches, that is them imposing their view point and religion onto someone else. For the record the purple hair was a humorous example....but it still all boils down on everyone being free to make the choices that are right for their life, even if those choices are right for anyone else, and having access to the appropriate facilities and professionals when those tough decisions are made.

            • Posted By: Tracker500 @ 01/17/2008 4:32:56 PM

              Impose: ito make people agree to something or comply with something by having superior strength or authority.
              By suggesting how one should live is in no way "imposing" anything. I just don't understand the irrational fear coming from both sides. On the left, the word God scares the hell of them. On the right, gay rights get the same response. Who is imposing on who? I say neither.

              • Posted By: GeorgiaJayhawk @ 01/18/2008 10:21:55 AM

                Let me rephrase....there are many on this discussion that are TRYING to impose their view points and religious beliefs. They have most stubbornly attempted to impose themselves and their beliefs on myself and others, instead how about we just leave religion at the door, and discuss the article like rational educated adults.

                • Posted By: Kinch @ 01/24/2008 7:25:23 PM

                  They are arguing their viewpoint. Just like you are. Because their values and ideas are shaped around their religion means nothing. Good for them for sticking with their beliefs. Like tracker said... they're not imposing or forcing you... they're giving their opinion which happens to be religiously based.

          • Posted By: dancingdiamonds4 @ 01/17/2008 4:17:05 PM

            If i'm not mistaken the right proposes a Constitutional ban on abortion. In fact Huckabee has just proposed changing the Constitution to "reflect God's law instead of Man's law". The religious right is salivating at that one. Perhaps you need to keep up with the latest news.

            • Posted By: rs1234 @ 01/17/2008 4:33:23 PM

              There is no reason to amend the Constitution. It already states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law " That should be the end of it yet the proabortionist have somehow managed to "legalize" abortion depriving over 264,000 babies their right to life.

              • Posted By: dancingdiamonds4 @ 01/17/2008 4:41:19 PM

                rs1234 fetus' are not considered persons under the Constitution or did you not know that? It would take an amendment to the Constitution giving fetus' the same rights as the already born person to make abortion illegal..

                • Posted By: joanneroy @ 01/21/2008 3:32:00 PM

                  There was a time that African Americans weren't considered persons either. They were nothing but white mans property. Those that supported slavery used slogans very similiar to ones used today to support aborition- "don't like slavery, don't own slave." Sounds pretty similiar to "don't like abortion, don't have one." Blacks didn't choose slavery and babies don't choose abortion.

              • Posted By: blue_rylie @ 01/17/2008 4:40:58 PM

                You conveniently left out the first line. Allow me to help you complete the entire quote from the constitution. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
                jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
                wherein they reside."

                • Posted By: rs1234 @ 01/17/2008 6:52:57 PM

                  So since it states "born or naturalized" does that give us the right to kill all illegal aliens? Didn't think so.

                  • Posted By: blue_rylie @ 01/17/2008 7:02:53 PM

                    It gives us the right to deport them. Care to try deporting a fetus? you're comparing apples and oranges now. But I'll meet you in the middle, next time I get pregnant I'll have the fetus deported. The reality is an embryo/fetus does not have rights equal to that of a woman, nor should it. A newborn does not have rights equal to those of an adult, nor should it.

                    • Posted By: kellchecker @ 01/18/2008 3:39:42 AM

                      But a newborn does have SOME rights equal to those of adults. For instance, a newborn has a right to life, same as an adult does.

                      • Posted By: Bisonberg @ 01/18/2008 8:06:11 PM

                        A fetus and a newborn are two very different entities under the law.

                • Posted By: rs1234 @ 01/17/2008 5:35:41 PM

                  Duh! That is because the framers had no idea that our society would become so sick that we would kill the baby before it was actually born. The whole purpose of that line was to establish citizenship not to say when a baby becomes a human deserving the right to life.

                  • Posted By: Bisonberg @ 01/17/2008 5:41:58 PM

                    Uh, actually abortions were a regular occurrence in the 18th century. You may want to learn some history.

                    • Posted By: blue_rylie @ 01/17/2008 5:54:30 PM

                      And the point goes to brisonberg! Abortions have been around longer than the bible, they are not new. Only the methods have changed. Thank you for adding that point!

                      • Posted By: rs1234 @ 01/17/2008 6:48:23 PM

                        Where's the proof? More of your ultraliberal so called text books?

                        • Posted By: Bisonberg @ 01/18/2008 7:57:09 PM

                          Ultra-liberal? The official Catholic Church history states that abortions have been around since Biblical times.

                          Take your head out of the sand.

                        • Posted By: GeorgiaJayhawk @ 01/18/2008 10:35:48 AM

                          Why are you so hateful?

                          • Posted By: GeorgiaJayhawk @ 01/18/2008 10:46:51 AM

                            If'd you like proof, try doing a google search on abortion+ history, you'll end up 264,000 results.

                  • Posted By: blue_rylie @ 01/17/2008 5:45:21 PM

                    Silly them for putting something into the constitution that destroys your point! Dumb farmers! Point stands, you posted only part of the constitution in an effort to make a point knowing FULL WELL that if posted the entire phrase it would disprove your point.

                  • Posted By: Bisonberg @ 01/17/2008 5:42:53 PM

                    Abortions were a regular occurrence in the 18th century. The framers were well aware of the practice. You might want to learn some history before assuming things.

    • Posted By: dancingdiamonds4 @ 01/17/2008 3:40:09 PM

      Good Job -- You summed it up nicely. Do you think any of these "I feel the need to be in your bedroom" types get the message? It's good to know there are some level headed people out here.

      • Posted By: Tracker500 @ 01/17/2008 3:51:14 PM

        Are you referring to the "You can't smoke in your own house" people? I didn't know abortions were performed in people's bedrooms. When you get a surgical procedure done at a publicly subsidized facility, the pros and cons of the facility and its services are open to discussion by the taxpayers. Go back to your bedroom and we won't talk about you anymore.

        • Posted By: dancingdiamonds4 @ 01/17/2008 3:57:49 PM

          From what I understand abortions are not publically funded...at least not yet. We can have that discussion as well if you would like but I think you know what I meant by some people wanting to be in other people's bedrooms so don't feign ignorance.

          • Posted By: Tracker500 @ 01/17/2008 4:09:23 PM

            You are the one feigning ignorance. Planned Parenthood gets one third of their money from government grants. That's my tax money and every posters' tax money.

            • Posted By: blue_rylie @ 01/17/2008 4:13:09 PM

              Bush enacted a federal ban on any funding to abortion. There is zero federal funding going to abortion in this nation as it stands right now. PP gets federal funding for it's (here's that pesky list again) pap smears, breast exams, STD testing and treatment, contraception, and various other health services provided but gets zero funding towards any and all procedures relating to abortion.

              • Posted By: Kinch @ 01/24/2008 7:15:57 PM

                Your argument could be stronger if you didn't include in your list the items that prevent/detect diseases.... you can't compare pregnancy whether wanted or not to a perhaps-fatal disease....

              • Posted By: Tracker500 @ 01/17/2008 4:20:58 PM

                And I agree with no funding for abortion at taxpayers' expense. I have said before that I don't care about abortion and I don't vote based on which candidate is pro this or pro that. But, I do care where my tax money goes. If a woman wants an abortion, more power to her, but don't make me pay for it. And especially someone who is strongly opposed to abortion. Why should they have to pay for someone else's "personal" decision to undergo a medical procedure?

                • Posted By: blue_rylie @ 01/17/2008 4:27:54 PM

                  That begs the question...are you okay with your tax dollars paying for birth and care after birth? Just a curiousity, not an attack. But we have quite a lot of tax dollars every year going to medical care for uninsured children, uninsured pregnant women, and so on and so forth. So out of curiousity, is it just abortion (birth also being a personal choice) that you disagree with federal funding for?

                  • Posted By: dancingdiamonds4 @ 01/17/2008 4:36:22 PM

                    blue_rylie some of these same people who don't want their tax dollars going for abortions also don't want their tax dollars going to help the children and their mothers once the children are here. II's quite interesting and very sad. It's the love the fetus hate the child syndrome. Get the baby born at any cost but don't spend any money once they're here to help them survive....cut aid to uninsured children, cut aid to families with dependent children, cut education aid, don't raise the minimum wage, but by George by hook or by crook get them born!!! It's truly breathtaking in its hypocracy.

                    • Posted By: joanneroy @ 01/21/2008 3:41:26 PM

                      Are you kidding me- there are more Crisis Pregnancy Centers than abortion clinics! These centers, while yes, don't like abortion, want even more to help women become competent mothers and they help these women with their education, with baby supplies AFTER the birth of their child, protection from domestic violence if needed, parenting courses BEFORE and AFTER the birth of their child, they help them financially, etc... etc... etc.. That's a pretty ignorant statement to make that "pro-lifers only care about the baby until it's born." That's complete bullcrap!.

                  • Posted By: Tracker500 @ 01/17/2008 4:41:00 PM

                    I vote Libertarian. Live and let live. Get government out of my hair. If I want to help someone in need, I'll take care of it myself, should I choose to, and I do it frequently. Tax me just enough to deliver the mail, fix the roads, make bus run on time and defend the country from foreign invaders.

                    • Posted By: blue_rylie @ 01/17/2008 4:52:08 PM

                      I appreciate that at least you hold true clean across the boards, and I appreciate you giving me a direct answer. Thank you

                • Posted By: Dave in NM @ 01/18/2008 10:51:22 PM

                  Tracker: "I don't vote based on which candidate is pro this or pro that."

                  Uh ... just curious ... what DO you base your votes on?

              • Posted By: joanneroy @ 01/21/2008 3:36:15 PM

                While Planned Parenthood does provide many other services, they are still the number one provider of abortions- so you can't deny the fact that our tax dollars go into the pockets of the abortion industry.

              • Posted By: dancingdiamonds4 @ 01/17/2008 4:20:11 PM

                Thank you blue_rylie you are completely right.

                • Posted By: rs1234 @ 01/17/2008 4:37:35 PM

                  So wait a minute before you said PP was interested in providing all these other services for people now you admit the taxpayer actually pays for those services. What a nice cover for the abortionist. Make $55.8 million a year by providing abortions and have the taxpayer fund things that might actually do some good so when people complain you can say how great PP is.

                  • Posted By: blue_rylie @ 01/17/2008 4:55:59 PM

                    You are truly the best at attempting to twist things to suit your own vantage point. Abortion is not federally funded, other services are. I've never claimed PP wasn't attempting to make a profit, they are a business. They do provide these other services by CHOICE because they think it matters. It has been a long standing practice in PP to provide a wide variety of health services, twist that anyway you'd like. The point stands that they provide these services, ALL of these services, because think these services matter. Obviously these services do matter, or PP would have long since been out of business. On a side note, do you folks realize that PP is not the sole provider of abortions in America? They are simply the most outspoken

                    • Posted By: rs1234 @ 01/17/2008 5:43:30 PM

                      Then why do they need any taxpayer funding? If they admit they had a $55.8 million profit in 2006 why can't this cover those other services?

                      • Posted By: blue_rylie @ 01/17/2008 6:56:26 PM

                        I'm not their accountant, ask them yourself. Better yet, ask Bush why he is funding them

            • Posted By: dancingdiamonds4 @ 01/17/2008 4:18:37 PM

              That's not the same as tax payer funded abortions those have been banned I believe by the Hyde Amendment.

  • Posted By: Tracker500 @ 01/17/2008 2:54:00 PM

    "Why oh why oh why does PP continue to offer contraceptive services? Seems to me that defeats their purpose, if the real money is in abortion then logic would be to fight AGAINST contraception not for it."

    blue_rylie,
    That's like saying just because the beer companies placed drink responsibly ads on television that they are not interested in maximizing beer sales. That is ludicrous.

    • Posted By: Kinch @ 01/24/2008 7:04:49 PM

      PP was originally started because the founder was a racist and wanted to help people of non-white descent not have offspring. I'm not saying they still believe this...hopefully not... but there business practice hasn't changed really since the beginning and that's the roots of it

    • Posted By: rs1234 @ 01/17/2008 3:11:13 PM

      Perfect comparison Tracker500.

      • Posted By: blue_rylie @ 01/17/2008 3:19:02 PM

        I'm guessing sarcasm is wasted on you. I've yet to deny that PP makes money on abortions, my point is they also provide a variety of other services. Perhaps they make more on abortion than their other services, perhaps they do not. I haven't been bothered enough to check that as of yet. However, my statement WAS made in sarcasm. I'm sorry that you missed that, perhaps if you had read further you might have caught on. The idea that PP promotes only abortion is ignorant. PP promotes a wide variety of issues including abstinence. Next time, I'll be sure to state I'm being sarcastic so you can keep up more easily

        • Posted By: Tracker500 @ 01/17/2008 3:31:49 PM

          Spare the sarcasm. I cannot read minds on the internet. Perhaps PP makes more money on abortion? There's no perhaps about it. The numbers are available if you look for it. Sure, like any other business, PP engages in other activities. They all do it for public relations. But, make no mistake, beer companies sell beer and abortion clinics do abortions. That's their bread and butter. And, the dollars show they do an awlful lot of it.

          • Posted By: blue_rylie @ 01/17/2008 3:39:29 PM

            Then they are doing their job well. Good on them for running a lucrative business as well as providing a clearly needed service at the same time.

  • Posted By: sjbrock80 @ 01/24/2008 5:21:22 PM

    I'm glad abortion rates are hitting new lows, no matter what the reasons are.

    Pro-life, Pro-choice, no matter what you believe in, you have to be happy about the facts in this story, right?

  • Posted By: peace and love @ 01/22/2008 1:25:24 PM

    Michelle, you are right that more needs to be done. We need to work harder to be sure that pro choice candidates are elected so the choice that you had is available to all women.

    • Posted By: Potion78 @ 01/23/2008 9:57:52 PM

      Ok seriously, Abortion has remained a law through a host of republican president. NOT ONE BILL, since January 22, 1973, was created to abolish the law. NOT ONE AMENDMENT, since January 22, 1973 was added to the law that threaten it's existence. Why are you punked by these "do nothing" republicans. The pro-life battle-cry made by the republican candidates is to rally the Bible -Belt community into a frenzy so that they would elect a republican and give a republican a job for 4 to 8 yrs. If you notice republicans don't actual do anything while there in the office. They believe the work should be left to the state. Exhibit A: The Economy. Exhibit B: Unemployment. Besides, there are more important thing to worry about than this. Such as the educational system for those children who parents didn't get the notion to kill them. Breathe People ... The right to kill your baby isn't going anyway anytime soon!

  • Posted By: opinionsqueen252 @ 01/23/2008 5:33:10 PM

    no man!! more little girls are keeping their babies!!

    1) clinics are not as easy to sneak off to on the weekends

    2) its becoming more socially accepted for kids to have their babies

    • Posted By: Potion78 @ 01/23/2008 9:34:16 PM

      LOL ... Little girls don't have to sneak anymore but hey at least you took a stab at answering the question.

  • Posted By: peace and love @ 01/18/2008 10:57:31 AM

    Most of the comments here are reasonable and for choice of the individual. We must all go out and vote for candidates who will protect that freedom. The GOP (which is anti choice in their platform) will continue to work toward filling The Supreme Court with those who will vote to take choice away. VOTE FOR PRO CHOICE CANDIDATES IF THIS ISSUE IS IMPORTANT TO YOU. CHOICE GOES BEYOND ABORTION RIGHTS - THIS CROWD WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CHOOSE OTHER THINGS FOR THE REST OF US. Get out there and vote pro choice.

    • Posted By: Potion78 @ 01/23/2008 9:29:30 PM

      Are you kidding? There are more things be worry about then the republicans actually creating a law that would abolish the abortion law. Republicans have been against the abortion law ever since January 22, 1973. The last amendment passed didn't even threaten the existence the law. Last I read you can kill a baby up to the 5th term no questions asked (except do you have insurance -- Maybe). No one is dragging you out of Planned Parenthood people ... Relax and think of a more worthy cause.

    • Posted By: Dave in NM @ 01/18/2008 10:37:01 PM

      Hear, hear. Thanks for pointing out the elephant (heh heh) in the living room.

  • Posted By: Potion78 @ 01/18/2008 6:42:35 PM

    Better Prevention or Changing Attitudes was the question but no matter what is asked on the topic of abortion it always come back to: Are you for or against it? Personally I think the decision should not be included under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. When the 18th amendment was repeal it was left to the states as to how they wanted to regulate alcohol. I think the decision should be left up to the states to decide whether they want to regulate or outlaw abortion practices. The states should regulate how it???s funded or punished and so on and so forth. The truly sad part is the decision wasn???t based on the right to privacy but it was made based on a lie. Norma Leah McCorvey (Jane Roe) said she was raped and later said that it wasn???t true. This case dragged on for three years and she still gave birth. I would say no better for her but I feel sorry for the child knowing by now that his or her mother single-handedly help created a law not only to kill him or her but any unborn child of a woman who feels the notion to do so. The republicans drop the ball on this issue as well. If Bush and Cheney worked as hard as they did on side-stepping congress on the issue of wire tapping and eluding attempted investigations surrounding Cheney, Rove and others I could believe them to be the pro-life advocates they claim to be because we would have the proof.

    • Posted By: Dave in NM @ 01/19/2008 11:03:05 AM

      "I think the decision should be left up to the states to decide whether they want to regulate or outlaw abortion practices."

      Unfortunately, conservatives always seem to be in favor of "states' rights" when it comes to /restricting/ rights (abortion, segregation), then abruptly abandon that position when states might have the power to /grant/ rights (e.g. gay marriage, medical marijuana). The "states' rights" argument would carry more weight were it not so transparently hypocritical and deceptive. The real position seems to be that states have the right to benefit white conservative Christians, and anything else is off-limits.

      • Posted By: Potion78 @ 01/23/2008 9:11:12 PM

        Well, I can???t speak on behalf of the ???White Conservative Christian Movement??? but I just think it???s fair to just let the state regulate it. You have a large number of people who believe life begins when the doctor says so and others who believe life begins at the moment of conception. Abortion should be dealt on a case by case basis because it is a touchy issue that intertwines God and medicine. The federal government shouldn???t ever choose one person faith or lack of it in God or medicine when creating a law that would affect everyone. The decision should not have been left to a case especial one conceived from a lie. And Why? Why is this an issue? I really don???t understand why abortion is an issue in the presidential race. We had a host of republican presidents that have declared that they were pro-life and the abortion law is STILL in the constitution. No bills were constructed or pass to abolish it. Very few amendments that didn???t even threaten its existence were passed. Why is this an issue ??? STILL!? Didn???t the Roe Vs Wade case celebrate its 35th anniversary or something like that? Why are you in a panic by the ???White Conservative Christian Movement??? when they have failed for 35 yrs to move?

  • Posted By: peace and love @ 01/20/2008 7:53:06 AM

    MIchelle, That's a sad story regarding your experience. However, you were lucky to have the choice to do what you wanted to do at that time in your life. The suicide attempt could have happened even if you had the child. There is no guarantee that you would be living in a fairy tale life had you chosen to have the child, in fact, you would have had even more stress in your live. Unless you can provide a link for the 60% figure, I will accept that as your opinion and give it no basis in reality.

    • Posted By: michelle032 @ 01/21/2008 10:18:03 PM

      Thank you for your sympathy about my experience...it was very tragic for me, and I think for my boyfriend too.

      I believe the pain I felt after my abortion is a common, and very human experience. It is fascinating to me that more and more musicians are beginning to write about their abortions and their lyrics express what I felt.

      For instance, in Retrospect for Life with Lauryn Hill, the rap group Common sings:
      ???Nerve I got to talk about them *** with a gun
      Must have really thought I was God to take the life of my son
      I could have sacrificed goin out
      To think my homies who did it I used to joke about, from now on
      I'ma use self control instead of birth control
      Cause $315 ain't worth your soul
      $315 ain't worth your soul
      $315 ain't worth it???

      You might also want to look up the lyrics to Lost Woman Song by punk rocker Ani DeFranco, Brick by Ben Folds Five, and Speculum by the heavy metal band Adema. There are others if you look for them. And of course there is ???Can I live???? by rapper Nick Cannon.

      It doesn???t matter if you are liberal or conservative, I think it shows that abortion is a choice many different kinds of people regret.

      Obviously, I don't feel lucky that I had the choice. I have wished a thousand times I could go back and do it differently. In my work, I do see girls every day that I think ARE lucky though. They are working hard and accomplishing their goals, but they chose not to end the lives of their children to do it. They don't have lives without struggles but as you pointed out, whether we abort or not, none of us do.

      These girls have something I didn't have though. I see in them a deep sense of pride and self esteem. They know that they did something good even though it was hard, and they are happy and at peace with themselves. I think they are the lucky ones. I hope the downward trend in abortion continues so there will be more of them.

      As for the link you asked about, there hasn???t been a lot of research done. It should be. If you google ???coerced abortions??? I believe it will bring up some interesting information for you though. I had stated that my view was an estimate???I am comfortable with you saying it is my opinion. But it shouldn???t be left at that. More needs to be done.

  • Posted By: michelle032 @ 01/19/2008 7:30:30 PM

    I am the director of a crisis pregnancy center and had an abortion when I was 18 years old. I had a scholarship to Duke University and an invitation to model in New York ??? and was taking the pill ??? when my pregnancy threatened my dreams. I was so sure that having the abortion would give me back control of my life, but it didn't feel the way I thought it would feel to actually do it. Instead, my life spiraled out of control. I began drinking heavily four nights a week to silence the intrusive thoughts and nightmares. Within two years I dropped out of college, four years later I attempted to commit suicide.

    One of the things I see driving the drop in abortions is that women, like myself, are telling our stories and for many young women facing unplanned pregnancies, abortion just doesn't sound like a choice they are going to be happy with. An overwhelming number of my clients have told me that their mothers, their sisters, their friends are telling them, 'Don't do this, you will regret it" and they are influenced by what they hear.

    Sadly, I would estimate that 60% of the time it is the boyfriend or husband who is driving the abortion decision. The girl herself would be inclined to continue the pregnancy if she had support.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse