Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Santa Cruz: A Pro-Choice City
The Santa Cruz City Council has passed a resolution declaring Santa Cruz a pro-choice city. The resolution-passed last night-is part of a larger Pro-Choice Cities Campaign, aimed at getting California and major U.S. cities to support pro-choice. The resolution came just days after the Walk for Life West Coast abortion opponents rallied in San Francisco.
Listen now:
Santa Cruz is the third city in California to join the Pro-Choice Cities Campaign. Cynthia Mathews, a Santa Cruz City Council member and co-founder of Planned Parenthood in Santa Cruz, co-sponsored the resolution dubbing Santa Cruz a pro-choice city. She says the timings right.
"You have only to look at the statements made by George Bush on the Roe anniversary encouraging anti-choice activists in Washington DC. You have only to look at the hundreds of pieces of anti-choice legislation introduced throughout the country in state capitals to know that this issue is by no means resolved. Those of us who are pro-choice advocates think we are in this struggle for the long haul to protect reproductive freedom, women’s lives, women’s health and we thought it was important for the city to go on the record."
The Santa Cruz City Council's resolution is part of the Pro Choice Cities Campaign-an attempt to get cities in California to support a woman's right to choose whether to keep her pregnancy. Opponents say the pro-choice label is candy coating abortion. Dolores Meehan, is co-founder of Walk for Life West Coast, the San Francisco based organization opposed to abortion, which organizes annual rallies in the city. She says pro-choice means pro-abortion and abortion is murder.
"I think abortion overall has wreaked a lot of havoc on our country. We've aborted over 46 million children, there's over 30 million women, who have had abortions performed on them. Pro-choice has come to mean it really is for abortion. I think it's been a really poor choice and we need to come up with a better solution to meet the needs of women who are in this crisis."
Abbe Land co-founder of the Pro-Choice Cities Campaign disagrees. The Santa Monica City Council member says pro-choice begins with knowledge about women's reproductive health care, including options available during pregnancy.
"Pro-choice means giving people a choice, and it means that women have the choice to make whatever they want. If you are pregnant you will get the full array of choices- whether you choose to have a baby, whether you choose to not have a baby, what you can do to keep that baby healthy, what you can do to keep yourself healthy. Pro choice is really about choice. I do disagree. I think that is a tactic that the pro-life groups use to make it seem they are not as anti-choice as they are."
Supporters of the Pro-Choice Cities Campaign say the right to choose is still under threat. Californians saw it in Proposition 85, the Parental Notification bill that voters struck down in November. Santa Cruz’s mayor Emily Reilly, also co-sponsored the pro-choice cities resolution. She says Santa Cruz has been and will continue to be a pro-choice city.
"This is a city where we take women's reproductive rights very seriously. Especially now when a woman’s right to choose is being threatened. The proponents of Prop 73 and 85 have done us a service, because they've wakened us up and we're looking around and saying that 'yes there are those who are trying to threaten our right to choose' and we want to make sure that doesn’t' happen. "
The Pro-Choice Cities Campaign will be expanding to major U.S. cities later this year. In the Bay Area, the Pro-Choice Cities Campaign has sent letters to San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, and Berkeley is expected to vote on a resolution to support the Pro-Choice Cities Campaign at its next city council meeting.
"You have only to look at the statements made by George Bush on the Roe anniversary encouraging anti-choice activists in Washington DC. You have only to look at the hundreds of pieces of anti-choice legislation introduced throughout the country in state capitals to know that this issue is by no means resolved. Those of us who are pro-choice advocates think we are in this struggle for the long haul to protect reproductive freedom, women’s lives, women’s health and we thought it was important for the city to go on the record."
The Santa Cruz City Council's resolution is part of the Pro Choice Cities Campaign-an attempt to get cities in California to support a woman's right to choose whether to keep her pregnancy. Opponents say the pro-choice label is candy coating abortion. Dolores Meehan, is co-founder of Walk for Life West Coast, the San Francisco based organization opposed to abortion, which organizes annual rallies in the city. She says pro-choice means pro-abortion and abortion is murder.
"I think abortion overall has wreaked a lot of havoc on our country. We've aborted over 46 million children, there's over 30 million women, who have had abortions performed on them. Pro-choice has come to mean it really is for abortion. I think it's been a really poor choice and we need to come up with a better solution to meet the needs of women who are in this crisis."
Abbe Land co-founder of the Pro-Choice Cities Campaign disagrees. The Santa Monica City Council member says pro-choice begins with knowledge about women's reproductive health care, including options available during pregnancy.
"Pro-choice means giving people a choice, and it means that women have the choice to make whatever they want. If you are pregnant you will get the full array of choices- whether you choose to have a baby, whether you choose to not have a baby, what you can do to keep that baby healthy, what you can do to keep yourself healthy. Pro choice is really about choice. I do disagree. I think that is a tactic that the pro-life groups use to make it seem they are not as anti-choice as they are."
Supporters of the Pro-Choice Cities Campaign say the right to choose is still under threat. Californians saw it in Proposition 85, the Parental Notification bill that voters struck down in November. Santa Cruz’s mayor Emily Reilly, also co-sponsored the pro-choice cities resolution. She says Santa Cruz has been and will continue to be a pro-choice city.
"This is a city where we take women's reproductive rights very seriously. Especially now when a woman’s right to choose is being threatened. The proponents of Prop 73 and 85 have done us a service, because they've wakened us up and we're looking around and saying that 'yes there are those who are trying to threaten our right to choose' and we want to make sure that doesn’t' happen. "
The Pro-Choice Cities Campaign will be expanding to major U.S. cities later this year. In the Bay Area, the Pro-Choice Cities Campaign has sent letters to San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, and Berkeley is expected to vote on a resolution to support the Pro-Choice Cities Campaign at its next city council meeting.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I work with Bay Area Coalition for Our Reproductive Rights (BACORR) in San Francisco. We have organized a counter-response to the "Walk for Life" for the past two years. Just three years ago, when the first march was announced, Planned Parenthood Golden Gate worked with Tom Ammiano's office to pass a similar resolution. Several activists like myself showed up to the hearing and spoke in favor of it. San Francisco is officially a pro-choice city.
But what does this mean? Each year, since 2005, the Walk for Life has assembled almost 20,000 anti-choice activists, while BACORR has only been able to assemble at most 1,000 folks. This year was no exception.
Part of the low turn out has to do with the decision by PPGG, NARAL and NOW to not participate in the counter-response or to plan an alternative intended to draw thousands into a public affirmation of Roe v Wade. Maybe next year will be different. I'd love a citywide celebration of Roe v Wade that had nothing to do with the WFL, and everything to do with convening like-minded reproductive rights activists.
But back to the city resolution. Even though San Francisco is a "pro-choice city", this city still willingly takes tourist dollars from the anti-choice community in January, many of whom come in from out of town, stay in our hotels, and quite possibly get discounts at those hotels because of their numbers. (I haven't researched this- it's an educated guess...)
San Franciscans also spend money of the police who, every year, are deployed to "protect" the anti-choice community- one of the few communities known to have supported and advocated the killing of doctors and other medical professionals-from the larger reproductive rights community (who, no matter what the anti-choice community claims, have never killed anyone.)
Are there opportunities for San Francisco, and other "pro-choice" to divest city dollars from Catholic agencies or at least to divest any city funds used to support the churches who are the the epicenter of anti-choice organizing?
We need these resolutions but we also need for them to translate real policies that emphasize the findings of the reproductive rights community and that attach a cost to displays of bigotry on city soil. One of the most pointed moments of that bigotry came this year in the shape of a anti-choice activist- a man, carrying a sign that said "You're Queer. were here. Get used to it."
We may well have to "get used to it" if more isn't done to counter rhetoric like this.
I'm proud and happy to have worked with every organization that co-sponsored the BACORR counter-response. But, in the true tradition of the reproductive rights movement, I want more.
My question is this: what can organizations within these cities do to make sure that next year's anniversary, which is the 35th anniversary of Roe v Wade, really reflects the beliefs, numbers and investments of the engaged reproductive rights community?
Big question. What's the answer?
Love,
Elizabeth
But what does this mean? Each year, since 2005, the Walk for Life has assembled almost 20,000 anti-choice activists, while BACORR has only been able to assemble at most 1,000 folks. This year was no exception.
Part of the low turn out has to do with the decision by PPGG, NARAL and NOW to not participate in the counter-response or to plan an alternative intended to draw thousands into a public affirmation of Roe v Wade. Maybe next year will be different. I'd love a citywide celebration of Roe v Wade that had nothing to do with the WFL, and everything to do with convening like-minded reproductive rights activists.
But back to the city resolution. Even though San Francisco is a "pro-choice city", this city still willingly takes tourist dollars from the anti-choice community in January, many of whom come in from out of town, stay in our hotels, and quite possibly get discounts at those hotels because of their numbers. (I haven't researched this- it's an educated guess...)
San Franciscans also spend money of the police who, every year, are deployed to "protect" the anti-choice community- one of the few communities known to have supported and advocated the killing of doctors and other medical professionals-from the larger reproductive rights community (who, no matter what the anti-choice community claims, have never killed anyone.)
Are there opportunities for San Francisco, and other "pro-choice" to divest city dollars from Catholic agencies or at least to divest any city funds used to support the churches who are the the epicenter of anti-choice organizing?
We need these resolutions but we also need for them to translate real policies that emphasize the findings of the reproductive rights community and that attach a cost to displays of bigotry on city soil. One of the most pointed moments of that bigotry came this year in the shape of a anti-choice activist- a man, carrying a sign that said "You're Queer. were here. Get used to it."
We may well have to "get used to it" if more isn't done to counter rhetoric like this.
I'm proud and happy to have worked with every organization that co-sponsored the BACORR counter-response. But, in the true tradition of the reproductive rights movement, I want more.
My question is this: what can organizations within these cities do to make sure that next year's anniversary, which is the 35th anniversary of Roe v Wade, really reflects the beliefs, numbers and investments of the engaged reproductive rights community?
Big question. What's the answer?
Love,
Elizabeth
now we just need SF to declare it as well
Pro choice city or a council that doesn't care about women or the unborn? What an horific resolution. Imagina a city council declaring itself pro torture or pro discrimination. Do these extremists believe in late term abortion? In aborting female babies as occurs in a number of countries? In aborting the disabled? In the poor having to abort because of economic injustice? Abortion is one of the most abhorrent forms of discrimination. Women deserve better.
It isn't torture, it isn't anything but abortion. It is it's own category and as long as you continue to classify it as anything else, you'll always be making a mistake. I had an abortion and what I did was stop a process...I didnt kill a person.
I am confident that this Bush "pro-life" talk is only what it is. Pure talk. He has proven again and again that he hates children and his Republicans have consistently rejected any form of social service, housing or education that would support womyn or their children. There would be revolution in the streets if we had more underprivileged youth!
I really think that all of this display of being anti-abortion is a distraction technique to try to rattle womyn and distract from what they've been focusing so well on: ending the war.
Growling really loud and actually making legal change are two very different things. Also, if it really is to be decided by the Supreme Court, there is nothing we can do about it anyway. Remember the Alioto nomination? The Gore recount decision?
Power is having your own power and knowing (and controlling) your own body without depending on a (usually male) paternalistic doctors.
I really think that all of this display of being anti-abortion is a distraction technique to try to rattle womyn and distract from what they've been focusing so well on: ending the war.
Growling really loud and actually making legal change are two very different things. Also, if it really is to be decided by the Supreme Court, there is nothing we can do about it anyway. Remember the Alioto nomination? The Gore recount decision?
Power is having your own power and knowing (and controlling) your own body without depending on a (usually male) paternalistic doctors.
One: There is a sizable contingent of pro-lifers who aren't Bush Boosters. We HAVE to realize this. The old model of the anti-choice right winger is a bit outdated. Yes, they exist (conservative anti-choicers) but when you really start listening to the conversation, you'll find lots of suspicion on the part of some liberals, too, who link their anti-war, anti-death penalty sentiment to abortion. See the comment above.
Last year, one of the largest union's in the state refused to back efforts to block a parental notification bill written and sponsored by Catholic anti-choicers. There were enough Democratic, Catholic union members who were anti-choice.
Two: we need sterile, safe abortions administered by trained medical professionals, as well as alternatives. There's a reason for doctors performing abortions. I am speaking as a woman who had a first trimester D-n-C abortion in my apt. which was performed by some very loving women, and between doing it that way and doing it in a clinic with access to antibiotics and pain medication, I'd choose the second way any time.
There simply isn't alot of safety in the underground.
Last year, one of the largest union's in the state refused to back efforts to block a parental notification bill written and sponsored by Catholic anti-choicers. There were enough Democratic, Catholic union members who were anti-choice.
Two: we need sterile, safe abortions administered by trained medical professionals, as well as alternatives. There's a reason for doctors performing abortions. I am speaking as a woman who had a first trimester D-n-C abortion in my apt. which was performed by some very loving women, and between doing it that way and doing it in a clinic with access to antibiotics and pain medication, I'd choose the second way any time.
There simply isn't alot of safety in the underground.
abortion HURTS woman! Abortion is a cruel victimization of ACTUAL HUMAN LIFE!
Men have NO SAY in their LOST FATHERHOOD!
Men have NO SAY in their LOST FATHERHOOD!
Men have all the say they need and more.
* Men have the choice to wear a condom
* Men have the choice not to rape women
* Men have the choice not to pressure women
* Men have the choice not to run out on the kids they do have
And men have the responsibility to understand that women are ultimately in charge of their own bodies. If we stick around and show our support, they may ask for our opinion, but ultimately, the decision is theirs.
* Men have the choice to wear a condom
* Men have the choice not to rape women
* Men have the choice not to pressure women
* Men have the choice not to run out on the kids they do have
And men have the responsibility to understand that women are ultimately in charge of their own bodies. If we stick around and show our support, they may ask for our opinion, but ultimately, the decision is theirs.
It is torture! Today's latest ultrasound high technology (4 Dimensional, Full Color Videography) Free to those in a crisis pregnancy at the Crisis Pregnancy Center in Santa Cruz, is hard evidence that the HUMAN UNBORN does react to the death instruments invading it's temporary womb home.
..." it isn't anything but abortion"...Abortion is KILLING an ACTUAL HUMAN LIFE, and not a "potential person" but actual human life, that deserves a name and priviledge of life rather than murder in the womb. If you didn't or couldn't protect yourself from concieving a child, then allow the child the God given providence of life and let a loving family adopt the child to care for it, love it, .....murder is always a selfish act of the heart. When you break through your denial of abortion reality, you can begin to grieve, forgive, accept and heal from the events that surrounded your act of taking your own fresh and blood's life. Just because human life is "unwanted" doesn't mean it is meant to be killed, whether in the womb, retirement home, or Nazi gas chambers. Who doesn't love a baby? There is NO MISTAKE in today's HARD EVIDENCE... abortion is killing a human life that already has all it's DNA and sex determined. When your baby was in pieces on the abortion "waste tray" you merely had to ask your abortionist to tell you the sex....it is easily determined in every abortion. Perhaps you aborted twins, did your abortionist tell you this? Did you know to ask?
We at SantaCruzProLife are hear to lovingly hold you while you experience an awakening to the healing process of post-abortive trauma.
..." it isn't anything but abortion"...Abortion is KILLING an ACTUAL HUMAN LIFE, and not a "potential person" but actual human life, that deserves a name and priviledge of life rather than murder in the womb. If you didn't or couldn't protect yourself from concieving a child, then allow the child the God given providence of life and let a loving family adopt the child to care for it, love it, .....murder is always a selfish act of the heart. When you break through your denial of abortion reality, you can begin to grieve, forgive, accept and heal from the events that surrounded your act of taking your own fresh and blood's life. Just because human life is "unwanted" doesn't mean it is meant to be killed, whether in the womb, retirement home, or Nazi gas chambers. Who doesn't love a baby? There is NO MISTAKE in today's HARD EVIDENCE... abortion is killing a human life that already has all it's DNA and sex determined. When your baby was in pieces on the abortion "waste tray" you merely had to ask your abortionist to tell you the sex....it is easily determined in every abortion. Perhaps you aborted twins, did your abortionist tell you this? Did you know to ask?
We at SantaCruzProLife are hear to lovingly hold you while you experience an awakening to the healing process of post-abortive trauma.
Why should a man take responsibility for contraception, when he has no say in the child's welfare anyway....the doctor, the woman, and the courts ace him out at every angle. Ironically, abortion allows and even encourages men to sexually exploit women without fear of having to take responsiblity for any children that are concieved into a human life. If the woman does get pregnant, the man can hand over $400 and buy a dead child. When the man is long gone (relationship ties are almost always broken through abortion) with no child to have to support, the woman if left with the burden of having killed her human unborn child in her womb.
Abortion has powerful long-term effects on men. It has disastrous effects on their relationship with the woman. There remains a disturbing sadness, guilt, regret and denial. Abortion may cover up a problem, but it never solves it....now the woman has a worse mistake to cover up. Most woman live in post abortive trauma in a secret, lonely, empty place in their hearts and emotional wellbeing.
Abortion has powerful long-term effects on men. It has disastrous effects on their relationship with the woman. There remains a disturbing sadness, guilt, regret and denial. Abortion may cover up a problem, but it never solves it....now the woman has a worse mistake to cover up. Most woman live in post abortive trauma in a secret, lonely, empty place in their hearts and emotional wellbeing.
You aren't loving- you're authoritarian and sadly unable to hear anything but the yelling of your own voice. And i am in a far better position to tell YOU about what abortion is than likewise.
I'm just wondering if you have the same concerns for all the Iraqi children that have been killed since sanctions started in 1991? Do you have the same concern for Iraqi fetuses as you have for American fetuses? How about Palestinian fetuses? Just curious.
Oh, and don't tell me what abortion is like. I've had one and as a previous responder said I'm also in a far better position to explain what it's like than you are. My mother also had an abortion in 1968. She had to go to Juarez, Mexico to have it because abortions were illegal then. My brother had died the year before, she had three other children, and was in no shape emotionally or physically to have another child. The abortionists in Juarez shot my mom up with anesthesia without weighing her first. She could have died from that, and the place was unsanitary. Later, she got an infection, and fortunately her ob/gyn was understanding - he was the one who helped her find out where to get an abortion in Mexico. My mom died last year; she was staunchly pro-choice until the end. In fact I am proud to say that the day before she had a fatal stroke, the last check she wrote in her life was a donation to CARAL.
Oh, and don't tell me what abortion is like. I've had one and as a previous responder said I'm also in a far better position to explain what it's like than you are. My mother also had an abortion in 1968. She had to go to Juarez, Mexico to have it because abortions were illegal then. My brother had died the year before, she had three other children, and was in no shape emotionally or physically to have another child. The abortionists in Juarez shot my mom up with anesthesia without weighing her first. She could have died from that, and the place was unsanitary. Later, she got an infection, and fortunately her ob/gyn was understanding - he was the one who helped her find out where to get an abortion in Mexico. My mom died last year; she was staunchly pro-choice until the end. In fact I am proud to say that the day before she had a fatal stroke, the last check she wrote in her life was a donation to CARAL.
The phrase"no shape emotionally" says so much and yet is so undiscovered,in terms of the deep meaning it has- that's where the story is with women who elect to have abortions for reasons other than their health and/or rape...fully 90 percent of women have abortions because they are being told in know uncertain terms from their soul that they should not reproduce. Abortion in this case isn't the trangression- giving birth is.
Of course this is where the anti-choice person screams' well, don't have sex!" but guess what? I'm the owner/operator. It's my system, and quite frankly nothing in my experience, embodied or intellectual ever told me there was anything wrong with abortion. period. I am pro-choice politically and pro-abortion personally- it's so messed up that because we bear the brunt of the experience, our evidence towards supporting abortion is dis-counted as either "biased" or simply unsound. I won't allow my findings to be usurped in this manner.
Of course this is where the anti-choice person screams' well, don't have sex!" but guess what? I'm the owner/operator. It's my system, and quite frankly nothing in my experience, embodied or intellectual ever told me there was anything wrong with abortion. period. I am pro-choice politically and pro-abortion personally- it's so messed up that because we bear the brunt of the experience, our evidence towards supporting abortion is dis-counted as either "biased" or simply unsound. I won't allow my findings to be usurped in this manner.
I meant to say "no uncertain terms". Whoops! Indybay needs to give us a spell-check function...
"Indybay needs to give us a spell-check function..."
Use a better browser. Download Firefox 2.0
http://getfirefox.com
Inline spell checking: A new built-in spell checker enables users to quickly check the spelling of text entered into Web forms (like this one) without having to use a separate application.
* Thanks for posting!
Use a better browser. Download Firefox 2.0
http://getfirefox.com
Inline spell checking: A new built-in spell checker enables users to quickly check the spelling of text entered into Web forms (like this one) without having to use a separate application.
* Thanks for posting!
There were 2.5 billions humans in 1950. There are now 6.5 billion.
Men of all nations caused overpopulation by mandating pregnancy by forbiding birth control and abortion. Women do not voluntarily have more children than they can support, so mens laws and phony male gods must mandate pregnancy since men want to use women to manufacture more men.
Women shoot them out
and men shoot them up-in their wars.
No man (or men's feeble minded, brainwashed barbie dolls) have the right to tell a woman she must bear a child. The control of humanity belongs to women, not men. In ancient Goddess societies, women controled their uteruses and so the human race favored quality over quantity.
Since men usurped womens uteruses, its been quantity over quality. Even the patriarchal term "reproduction" is a mechanized term for the industrial mass production of billions of babies to keep the male controled global economy growing
Like a machine, each uterus must be kept in full production to fuel the assembly line of cheap workers and consumers, shooting out babies like shells from a bazooka:
katchung! plop!
katchung! plop!
katchung! plop! (repeat until uterine prolapse).
As Marge Piercy wrote:
I am not your cornfield
Not your uranium mine
Not your cow for milking
Not your calf for fattening
You may not use me as your factory
Priests and legislators do not hold shares
In my womb or in my mind
This is MY body.
If I give it to you, I want it back
My life is a non-negotiable demand
Men of all nations caused overpopulation by mandating pregnancy by forbiding birth control and abortion. Women do not voluntarily have more children than they can support, so mens laws and phony male gods must mandate pregnancy since men want to use women to manufacture more men.
Women shoot them out
and men shoot them up-in their wars.
No man (or men's feeble minded, brainwashed barbie dolls) have the right to tell a woman she must bear a child. The control of humanity belongs to women, not men. In ancient Goddess societies, women controled their uteruses and so the human race favored quality over quantity.
Since men usurped womens uteruses, its been quantity over quality. Even the patriarchal term "reproduction" is a mechanized term for the industrial mass production of billions of babies to keep the male controled global economy growing
Like a machine, each uterus must be kept in full production to fuel the assembly line of cheap workers and consumers, shooting out babies like shells from a bazooka:
katchung! plop!
katchung! plop!
katchung! plop! (repeat until uterine prolapse).
As Marge Piercy wrote:
I am not your cornfield
Not your uranium mine
Not your cow for milking
Not your calf for fattening
You may not use me as your factory
Priests and legislators do not hold shares
In my womb or in my mind
This is MY body.
If I give it to you, I want it back
My life is a non-negotiable demand
I think its kind of funny that this year, we've been able to see several several communities across the US make their voices heard on the issue of abortion.
The poorest county in the US, Shannon county in South Dakota (the Pine Ridge rez for the Oglala Lakota people) banned abortion and ousted its leader when she announced plans to open an abortion facility.
Santa Cruz, a wealth-laden enclave, makes it claim to be a pro-choice city.
The poorest county in the US, Shannon county in South Dakota (the Pine Ridge rez for the Oglala Lakota people) banned abortion and ousted its leader when she announced plans to open an abortion facility.
Santa Cruz, a wealth-laden enclave, makes it claim to be a pro-choice city.
Both Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany banned abortion (among Christian Germans) since they wanted larger populations to fight wars.
In poor parts of the world even though population growth adds to the poverty at a macro level having a lot of children is logical at a local level to get help on the familly farm in the hope that one child will survive and "make it", and thus be able to support the whole family.
The reason peopel have fewer children in developed countries (and thus are not scared about abortion decreasing the population) is that it hurts ones ability to make money beyond a certain level in wealther areas of industrialized countries.
When you look at indigenous groups that are worried about the entire group dying out, opposition to abortion can often take another strictly nonmoral tone since the worrry is not the personal moral one but one of a desire for a larger group.
Among rural poor whites in the US one has one of the highest rates of abortion combined with one of the highest moralistic oppositions to abortion. Strangely its actually true that communities that oppose abortion tend to have higher rates of unwanted pregnancies and even abortions. This is probably more tied to education and opportunity/wealth than directly tied to views on abortion, but I wonder if some of it could be a traditionalist idea about wanting a larger familiy/community/country since it traditionally made ones familiy/community/country more powerful if it had larger numbers (although thats questionable now since it seems more likely to add to poverty).
Why would communities like Santa Cruz, San Francisco, New York and Berkeley have higher numbers of prochoice people? Education is a factor. So are worries about getting ahead in careers (academic or business) where one can risk ones standing if one takes breaks. The morality and liberal vs conservative sterotypes are merely looking at the results of the underlying causes.
It is hard to take seriously any argument about prebirth life when men kill thousands of things one could call life if they masterbate, have sex, dont have sex or even have sex that results in a baby (since usually all but one of the sperm still die). For women not having a child every mont similarly results in the death of an egg. From a strictly scientific standpoint one cant say life begins at birth or even conception since the sperm and eggs are by most definitions alive. One is left logically either having to come up with a time at which the preborn fetus has a certain level of brain development of just waiting till it is viable to give it full human moral standing. There isnt any scientific or clear historical moral answer to what one should take as ones morality since authoritarian cultures that want members to fight wars have always banned abortion and many societies that were worried about population growth (such as during times of famine) have always allowed the killing of babies right after they are born. Postnatal depression and watching most other animals kill their just born babies during times of crisis would make this seem the most natural morality around this issue but I doubt anyone these days is in support of this type of thing anymore.... I guess from a religious standpoint one would have to say that god made most animals and even humans to allow for the killing of their own children right after birth when resources are scarce, would you? The evolutionary reason for this make sense but I wonder how the religious right who talks about things being "natural" and "unnatural" deals with the fact that we evolved in this way.
In poor parts of the world even though population growth adds to the poverty at a macro level having a lot of children is logical at a local level to get help on the familly farm in the hope that one child will survive and "make it", and thus be able to support the whole family.
The reason peopel have fewer children in developed countries (and thus are not scared about abortion decreasing the population) is that it hurts ones ability to make money beyond a certain level in wealther areas of industrialized countries.
When you look at indigenous groups that are worried about the entire group dying out, opposition to abortion can often take another strictly nonmoral tone since the worrry is not the personal moral one but one of a desire for a larger group.
Among rural poor whites in the US one has one of the highest rates of abortion combined with one of the highest moralistic oppositions to abortion. Strangely its actually true that communities that oppose abortion tend to have higher rates of unwanted pregnancies and even abortions. This is probably more tied to education and opportunity/wealth than directly tied to views on abortion, but I wonder if some of it could be a traditionalist idea about wanting a larger familiy/community/country since it traditionally made ones familiy/community/country more powerful if it had larger numbers (although thats questionable now since it seems more likely to add to poverty).
Why would communities like Santa Cruz, San Francisco, New York and Berkeley have higher numbers of prochoice people? Education is a factor. So are worries about getting ahead in careers (academic or business) where one can risk ones standing if one takes breaks. The morality and liberal vs conservative sterotypes are merely looking at the results of the underlying causes.
It is hard to take seriously any argument about prebirth life when men kill thousands of things one could call life if they masterbate, have sex, dont have sex or even have sex that results in a baby (since usually all but one of the sperm still die). For women not having a child every mont similarly results in the death of an egg. From a strictly scientific standpoint one cant say life begins at birth or even conception since the sperm and eggs are by most definitions alive. One is left logically either having to come up with a time at which the preborn fetus has a certain level of brain development of just waiting till it is viable to give it full human moral standing. There isnt any scientific or clear historical moral answer to what one should take as ones morality since authoritarian cultures that want members to fight wars have always banned abortion and many societies that were worried about population growth (such as during times of famine) have always allowed the killing of babies right after they are born. Postnatal depression and watching most other animals kill their just born babies during times of crisis would make this seem the most natural morality around this issue but I doubt anyone these days is in support of this type of thing anymore.... I guess from a religious standpoint one would have to say that god made most animals and even humans to allow for the killing of their own children right after birth when resources are scarce, would you? The evolutionary reason for this make sense but I wonder how the religious right who talks about things being "natural" and "unnatural" deals with the fact that we evolved in this way.
To the poster who asked about caring for Iraqi children. Of course. That is why I marched against the attack on Iraq. I oppose war, I oppose killng the unborn too. I oppose capital punishment. It is a view that gives respect to al life. It is called a consistent ethic of life.
Hi all.
I'm French and I would like to remember you that the US has the most liberal abortion law in the world, along with communist China and Canada. Isn't it surprising to find that most of the countries that have very liberal laws on abortion also have high or very high abortion rates? (see Cuba, Vietnam, Russia, Canada, Sweden, the UK, the US, HK etc... they all have almost no restrictions on abortion, and yet the rates are among the highest)...
Western Europe, where I live, has the lowest rates of abortion in the world. And in 4 EU countries, abortion is completely illegal (Poland, Ireland -including Ulster-, Malta and Portugal). In all other countries, there is a ban on late-term abortion (the limit to have an abortion is 10 or 12 weeks, after that it is illegal). It is very shocking for most Europeans that abortion can be performed in the US after 12 weeks.
See, Europe is not that liberal on abortion, and YET, it has the lowest rates!
And I'm not exclusively pro-life... I'm just looking at the FACTS.
Regards
I'm French and I would like to remember you that the US has the most liberal abortion law in the world, along with communist China and Canada. Isn't it surprising to find that most of the countries that have very liberal laws on abortion also have high or very high abortion rates? (see Cuba, Vietnam, Russia, Canada, Sweden, the UK, the US, HK etc... they all have almost no restrictions on abortion, and yet the rates are among the highest)...
Western Europe, where I live, has the lowest rates of abortion in the world. And in 4 EU countries, abortion is completely illegal (Poland, Ireland -including Ulster-, Malta and Portugal). In all other countries, there is a ban on late-term abortion (the limit to have an abortion is 10 or 12 weeks, after that it is illegal). It is very shocking for most Europeans that abortion can be performed in the US after 12 weeks.
See, Europe is not that liberal on abortion, and YET, it has the lowest rates!
And I'm not exclusively pro-life... I'm just looking at the FACTS.
Regards
happens in countries like Portugal, Ireland, etc...and those numbers are grossly underreported. So don't comfort yourself by claiming that outlawing abortions causes the rates to fall- it simply creates a black market where the true number of abortions cannot be accounted
It also puts womens health at risk and tends to orphan children. What are you doing for the, Mr/Mrs European?
Finally most Europeans I know strongly believe in progressive reproductive rights- they tend not to be anti-choice(which is all that you are)
It also puts womens health at risk and tends to orphan children. What are you doing for the, Mr/Mrs European?
Finally most Europeans I know strongly believe in progressive reproductive rights- they tend not to be anti-choice(which is all that you are)
I don't understand why some people in the US are saying that abortion is highly restricted in their country. You've got in fact the most liberal abortion law on the planet and are still complaining? what do you want? legal "abortion" even after birth?!
And well, you should now that I'm (just as 99% of French people) NOT against abortion if it's done according to the French and European laws (NO elective abortion after 12 weeks). The majority of people here are pro-choice but despise abortion done after 12 weeks and believe it should remain legal before that term. And you should also know that France has a far better healthcare system than the US (fewer maternal deaths, fewer infant mortality, longer life expectancy, lower cancer, AIDS and disease rates etc etc). So just to say I JUST DON'T THINK that women in France are having abortions on their kitchens' tables after 12 weeks because they can't do it elsewhere, as you suggested. The French abortion rate is reliable. Restrictions on abortion does not necessarily means more abortions. Some countries with restrictive laws have higher rates, some other have lower rates. Some countries with liberal laws have higher rates, some others have lower rates. There's NO link between abortion laws and abortion rates.
I WASN'T SAYING THAT OUTLAWING ABORTION OR RESTRICTING IT NECESSARILY MEANS FEWER ABORTIONS!
And well, you should now that I'm (just as 99% of French people) NOT against abortion if it's done according to the French and European laws (NO elective abortion after 12 weeks). The majority of people here are pro-choice but despise abortion done after 12 weeks and believe it should remain legal before that term. And you should also know that France has a far better healthcare system than the US (fewer maternal deaths, fewer infant mortality, longer life expectancy, lower cancer, AIDS and disease rates etc etc). So just to say I JUST DON'T THINK that women in France are having abortions on their kitchens' tables after 12 weeks because they can't do it elsewhere, as you suggested. The French abortion rate is reliable. Restrictions on abortion does not necessarily means more abortions. Some countries with restrictive laws have higher rates, some other have lower rates. Some countries with liberal laws have higher rates, some others have lower rates. There's NO link between abortion laws and abortion rates.
I WASN'T SAYING THAT OUTLAWING ABORTION OR RESTRICTING IT NECESSARILY MEANS FEWER ABORTIONS!
Sperm is not a human being. An egg is not a human being.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$140.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network