Abortion

[dmp]

Can anyone here explain the enormous decline in the popularity of giving a child up for adoption?

Selfishness. Dr. Spock. Me-First. Instant-gratification. Liberals to some extent.

 

[-Cp]

One areas that Liberals find themselves being hypocrites on is when asked if they support the Declaration of Independance, most - if not all - will say "Of course I do"...

Well great; what does the first line of the second paragraph of that great document say?

<i>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are <b>Life</b>, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness</i>.

Sorry, you CANNOT be "pro abortion" and "Pro Declaration of Independance" as the two contradict each other.

Being pro-abortion is not giving those babies their God-given right to life..

 

[musicman]

It's not easy to draw the line between fetus and "unborn baby."

I think the word you're groping for is "impossible". Given that fundamental, common-sense truth, why not err on the side of prudent caution? The stakes are, after all, innocent life and death.

I like Hillary Clinton's line--abortion should be safe, legal... and rare.
Mariner.

It's actually Bill's - not that it matters much; they're interchangeable - a true, two-headed monster - audacious duplicity and cynical opportunism in stereo. It's not surprising that that "line" is a popular one; it is liberalism in microcosm: typical, empty, Clintonian horseshit.

If abortion is not - in and of itself - morally reprehensible - who cares whether it's rare or not? It is a RIGHT - correct? A CONSTITUTIONAL right. From what source do Constitutional rights derive? Men - with their historically demonstrated sense of innate fairness? Government largesse - with it's proven track record of concern for individual freedoms?

I'm beginning to understand why liberals fight so desperately to have the Constitution called a "secular document". "Your God-given right to murder your unborn at your convenience" just doesn't seem to roll trippingly off the tongue.

 

[Abbey Normal]

..." I like Hillary Clinton's line--abortion should be safe, legal... and rare.

...

M, I wish that you could see what BS that line of Hillary's really is. Think about it: just how does Hiilary, or any pro-choice person for that matter, propose that abortion actually be rare? Wishful thinking?

The minute anyone tries to put even the slightest restriction on abortion, such as a waiting period, parental consent for minors, or even outlawing partial-birth murder, the pro-abortion faction is screaming and suing to make abortion stay totally on demand. These actions speak much, much louder than the pretty words.

Rare indeed.

Edited to add: Musicman, I saw your post after I posted mine. Great minds, and all that...

 

[Mariner]

become rare via a cultural shift rather than a legal one. I have no idea how such a shift might come about, but I doubt it could be forced, and unfortunately, our natural interest in sex makes it the best sales tool for business of every type (why exactly do women in bikinis sprawl over cars, motorcycles, and boats on the magazine racks?).

Working with children, I've watched childhood be sexualized earlier and earlier, to the point that old-fashioned childhood, where one could care less how one looks, seems forever changed. I've met too many glamourous nine year olds recently.

In some ways, it seems contraception and the availability of abortion let a genie out of the bottle, making sex a form of recreation rather than a sacred thing (as it is seen in Hinduism). Before we were married, my (Catholic) wife and I had meetings with the priest. He (a rather famous Catholic theologian) wasn't very helpful on the subject of sex. Our Indian spiritual guide, however, was most talkative, on the subject of the divine nature of sex. Like many peoples around the world, he was disgusted by the American cheapening of sex, primarily for advertising and entertainment. But isn't the cheapening of sex part of the pursuit of happiness in America? I think some basic values bump up against each other here.

Yes, I know it was Bill Clinton's line originally, but Hillary has been using it to good effect recently in her attempts to stake out a moderate position for '08.

As for dividing fetus from "unborn baby"--there has to be a division somewhere, Musicman. Nature spontaneously aborts many fetuses--perhaps 90% off them. Many would be viable. Should we try to catch them all and implant them? After all, they're all "unborn babies." Life, Liberty... yes, but there's the mother's life to consider too, and the life of an unwanted child. One of the leading theories for the large reductions in crime in the past three decades is that the future criminals were aborted. Most criminals have histories of severe abuse and neglect, which is presumably how they came to not care for others. I'm not sure life itself is such a gift, when the child in question is likely to be mistreated and/or unloved.

As someone who regularly sees abused and neglected children in the medical setting, I would say that the pro-life stance on this would carry a lot more weight with me if pro-lifers also vigorously fought for the expansion of foster care and social service agencies, to prevent the horrific damage to children from physical and sexual abuse, and neglect. This is a problem we sweep under the rug in America. Something like 2 million cases of child abuse are reported every year in this country--which is considered vast under-reporting.

I testified last month in a case where a child had been returned to his mother despite 80 confirmed instances of abuse by her. Social services are overwhelmed, and state budget cuts have made this worse, as has the "family reunification" movement, under the banner of which this child was reunited with his awful mom (who was herself abused and neglected by her mother--and then raised by the grandmother who had abused and neglected her mother). Conservatives need to do some thinking about when family values don't work, and how we can help these families. Shredding the social safety net isn't helping.

Mariner.

 

[liberalogic]

In Georgia, you can't buy or use fireworks (until a recent loophole was discovered) or buy alcohol on Sunday. In Nevada, casino gambling is legal, as is prostitution in certain situations. In Arkansas, all forms of public gambling are illegal except for the dog track and the horse track, and no person may come anywhere near a voting facility on the day of the election unless they intend to vote. In Florida, it is always illegal to stop anywhere in an intersection, without the usual exception for those planning to turn left. Not all states use the death penalty. The age of consent and the minimum marrying age with parental consent vary, usually between 16 and 18, from state to state. The drinking age used to vary between states, though most have now switched over to 21.

Many laws vary from state to state. In fact, the states have the most law enforcement power, which is why murder cases are named things like "Miranda vs. Arizona," or "Simpson vs. California." In fact, before the Civil War, people considered the United States to be plural (i.e. "The United States are" as opposed to "The United States is"), and at one time, most states had their own state religions and currency.

In the Constitution, there's even a section that specifically states that all powers not explicitely given to the federal government by the Constitution rightfully belong to the states. However, the feds have continually attempted to stretch those powers, which is why so many people think of the fed as the end all be all, when the power really lies with the states.

I'm not arguing whether or not "leaving it up to the states" is within the constitution: I'm aware that it is. I am criticizing the idea (I don't think that much should be left up to the states), I'm not debating its existence.

I just think that if we are one country, why shouldn't all (or at least most) laws be the same on "hot" issues?

 

[Hobbit]

I'm not arguing whether or not "leaving it up to the states" is within the constitution: I'm aware that it is. I am criticizing the idea (I don't think that much should be left up to the states), I'm not debating its existence.

I just think that if we are one country, why shouldn't all (or at least most) laws be the same on "hot" issues?

Because this is one of the issues where many people differ. While a time may come when the country must make a moral decision, allowing states to decide the issue in the interim may ease the tension. No matter what the fed decides, the country will not all agree on it. This way, we could reflect that. However, at the very least, I'd like to see Democracy do its work on abortion. In the UK, they almost never have these debates because abortion was decided by parlimentary procedure rather than judicial fiat. In this country, those against abortion feel they were robbed of due process. Those for it are afraid to take the chance that they might lose, so the debate is quite hot.

 

[musicman]

I wish that [abortion] could become rare via a cultural shift rather than a legal one. I have no idea how such a shift might come about, but I doubt it could be forced...

Well, in the first place, let's put the blame for any attempt at a "forced cultural shift" where it belongs - at the doorstep of liberalism. Conservatives at least wish to return the matter to the voters!

and unfortunately, our natural interest in sex makes it the best sales tool for business of every type (why exactly do women in bikinis sprawl over cars, motorcycles, and boats on the magazine racks?).

Working with children, I've watched childhood be sexualized earlier and earlier, to the point that old-fashioned childhood, where one could care less how one looks, seems forever changed. I've met too many glamourous nine year olds recently.

In some ways, it seems contraception and the availability of abortion let a genie out of the bottle, making sex a form of recreation rather than a sacred thing... But isn't the cheapening of sex part of the pursuit of happiness in America? I think some basic values bump up against each other here.

Again, let's take care to place blame where it belongs. Sex is a sacred thing to Christians, too, Mariner. But, every time conservatives attempt to stand against liberal permissive culture, we're portrayed as hysterical bigots.

Yes, I know it was Bill Clinton's line originally, but Hillary has been using it to good effect recently in her attempts to stake out a moderate position for '08.

She should be staking out space in an 8'x10' jail cell. Instead, she can portray herself as a "moderate" - in the face of a lifetime of evidence to the contrary - and people will believe it. Isn't American politics wonderful?

As for dividing fetus from "unborn baby"--there has to be a division somewhere, Musicman.

Why?

Nature spontaneously aborts many fetuses--perhaps 90% off them. Many would be viable. Should we try to catch them all and implant them? After all, they're all "unborn babies."

That's just silly, Mariner. A miscarriage is one thing; willful murder is another. You know this...or should.

Life, Liberty... yes, but there's the mother's life to consider too, and the life of an unwanted child. One of the leading theories for the large reductions in crime in the past three decades is that the future criminals were aborted. Most criminals have histories of severe abuse and neglect, which is presumably how they came to not care for others. I'm not sure life itself is such a gift, when the child in question is likely to be mistreated and/or unloved.

You should tread carefully on the thin ice of "social engineering a la Nazi Germany". It's been tried, and found wanting.

Conservatives need to do some thinking about when family values don't work, and how we can help these families.

Conservatives have clear ideas on the subject. Churches and private charities can do amazing things when allowed to; Americans are the most generous people on earth when not compelled to be by arrogant, confiscatory government policy. A hand up rather than a handout provides self-determination; values, where absent, can be instilled and nurtured.

Shredding the social safety net isn't helping.
Mariner.

If, by the "social safety net", you mean sole reliance on the government, it isn't working, and ought to be shredded. It's other name is "the entitlement mentality", and if you would like to see it's positive effects on society, take a look at New Orleans.

Government screws up almost everything it touches.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Mariner, where did you get your political indoctrination? You're such an on-message, agenda driven liberal. You're quite good really, but how did you get this way? I'm so glad we're here to disabuse you of your self-deception, however (good job, musicman). You're in leage with Satan right now,however, Mariner. Come to jesus.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Read this, Mariner.

Can't you see the left are the new Nazis?

Get INFORMED.

You would advocate preemptive murder based on class over the right wing's OURDATED method of fixing society through family values?

You're sick.

http://blackgenocide.org/sanger.html
(This article first appeared in the January 20, 1992 edition of Citizen magazine)

How Planned Parenthood Duped America

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.

While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.

 

[Mariner]

stuff back then, RightWing. Alexander Graham Bell was a prominent eugenicist. One way to see it all is as a reaction to Darwin--if some people were "fitter" then everyone from Nazis to eugenicists thought they could improve humanity by altering who had children. It's unfair to paint modern Planned Parenthood with this single brushstroke from its past--if you did that, many modern institutions would be badly tarnished. The first ENT, for example, used to experiment with putting acid in deaf kids' ears (OK, I haven't really forgiven him for that).

You both have some good points (RightWing and Musicman). Unfortunately, I don't think that reliance on church and private funding is adequate to provide fair, unbiased, nondiscriminatory help to, say, an impoverished teen who gets pregnant, when neither she nor her boyfriend want the baby or can care for it. I'm all for promoting adoption in this situation, but I don't think you can fairly legislate that someone must endure a pregnancy--at risk to her own life--simply because she got pregnant. I can see where others would differ.

I'm not sure that simple selfishness explains the reduction in putting babies up for adoption. I think a new shame about it came from somewhere--possibly an unfortunate side effect of adoptees seeking out their birth parents, who are often doing much better at 40 than they were at 20, and now have some guilt and bad feelings about not raising their own children.

You can probably both sense that I'm ambivalent on this issue, and have a conservative feeling about sexuality in particular. I like the way sex is handled in my Indian culture a lot better than the way it is handled in America. I do think it's fair to say that liberal thinking, exemplified by the 60's, created our current mentality about sexuality. But liberal thinking of this kind is enshrined in the Constitution and is deep in the culture of America: "do your own thing," "express yourself," "aint' no one telling me how to live," "whatever." There's a whole strain of conservatism--libertarian conservatism--which is more liberal than liberals in some ways.

RightWing--how did I get this way? Of course, I'd say that I thought as hard as I could about things and read as widely as I could to reach my own conclusions. You'd probably say I was raised by liberal educators, indoctrinated in college and medical school, and dated too many feminists.

Are either of you seeing my point about child abuse and neglect? I honestly don't think churches can or should do it alone--this marginalizes people who hate the church for whatever reason (Christian or not), and it leaves holes in the safety net. Cutting social services like Food Stamps increases the pressure on the poorest families where child abuse and neglect is the most common. Pro-lifers ought to be pro-quality-of-life too. What's the point of saving all those babies, just so they can be neglected or beaten? (Of course, not all of them are, but research is pretty clear that being unwanted is a leading risk factor for being abused.)

Mariner.

 

[musicman]

I honestly don't think churches can or should do it alone--this marginalizes people who hate the church for whatever reason (Christian or not), and it leaves holes in the safety net.

Mariner.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the "safety net" exists through the good graces of productive society. Don't you think they get tired of an attitude that snarls, "Keep your stinking advice and give me your money"? Don't you think that someone who can't seem to get her mind around the fact that OPEN LEGS = PREGNANCY could DO with a little advice? Particularly, from the people whom she expects to pay her freight? Isn't that just common gratitude and decency? Or, are these anachronisms - throwbacks to a more rustic, less tolerant age?

 

[deaddude]

Can anyone here explain the enormous decline in the popularity of giving a child up for adoption?

Selfishness. Dr. Spock. Me-First. Instant-gratification. Liberals to some extent.

I am a liberal, my parents are liberals, my little brother is adopted.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Mariner, You're a eugenicist. In this very thread you talked about the great crime reductions from abortions. And to you, this is a better solution than fixing the social decay in our society.

And many institutions should rightfully be tarnished.

 

[Mariner]

approve of abortion used as birth control, yet I feel that it must be left to an individual woman's conscience--because it is a highly invasive thing to force someone to endure a pregnancy, and it would be very difficult--impossible really--to force someone to take proper care of that pregnancy (doctors appointments, prenatal vitamins, avoiding mercury, stopping drinking, stopping smoking, stopping drugs). Spend a little time with children who had Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, and you'll see what I mean.

I'm all in favor of societal change that increases peer and social pressure to bear children and give them up for adoption.

The main point I'm trying to make is that prolife can't just mean antiabortion. It ought to mean pro-quality-life. Which means vastly expanded help for those many mothers who have used abortion as a way to avoid having a family they cannot take care of. I never said I approved of this (i.e. am a eugenicist). I said that we should take these social realities into account when discussing the subject.

Other social realiities count too: how about a young woman who will be beaten or punished if her parents find out she has been having sex? Abusive families are incredibly common. We've had lots of time before Roe v. Wade when abortion was illegal--the reality was that thousands of women died. Being pregnant at the wrong time was such a dire predicament it was worth risking death by hemorrhage or infection. There are Catholic countries in South America thinking about making abortion legal--even though their entire populace is theoretically pro-life--for this exact reason.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

approve of abortion used as birth control, yet I feel that it must be left to an individual woman's conscience--because it is a highly invasive thing to force someone to endure a pregnancy, and it would be very difficult--impossible really--to force someone to take proper care of that pregnancy (doctors appointments, prenatal vitamins, avoiding mercury, stopping drinking, stopping smoking, stopping drugs). Spend a little time with children who had Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, and you'll see what I mean.

I'm all in favor of societal change that increases peer and social pressure to bear children and give them up for adoption.

The main point I'm trying to make is that prolife can't just mean antiabortion. It ought to mean pro-quality-life. Which means vastly expanded help for those many mothers who have used abortion as a way to avoid having a family they cannot take care of. I never said I approved of this (i.e. am a eugenicist). I said that we should take these social realities into account when discussing the subject.

Other social realiities count too: how about a young woman who will be beaten or punished if her parents find out she has been having sex? Abusive families are incredibly common. We've had lots of time before Roe v. Wade when abortion was illegal--the reality was that thousands of women died. Being pregnant at the wrong time was such a dire predicament it was worth risking death by hemorrhage or infection. There are Catholic countries in South America thinking about making abortion legal--even though their entire populace is theoretically pro-life--for this exact reason.

Mariner.

Your simple equation of PROLIFE must equal socialist policy is CRAP. Private charity works and is NOT coercive. Your socialist utiopia will never occur. WIll you renounce babies rights until then?

 

[Mariner]

I started concerning Jimmy Carter's new book. He makes precisely the same arguments as I did, from a Baptist Christian point of view. I'm sure you'll call what he writes "crap" too, but he has a lifetime of honorable work and experience to back up his arguments, and impeccable patriotic and religious credentials.

Private charity works? Have you spent much time in an impoverished American town? A ghetto? Among homeless people? Among disabled people? I have done all of these things, and seen plenty of evidence of well-intentioned and effective private charity--but so much is left unfinished, and there's the huge question of neutrality. Would you accept charity from a Hare Krishna charity organization?

Mariner.

 

[Bonnie]

Alright, I have to say that I am pro-life. I think abortion is disgusting and very unfair to life.

But I have to ask all you other pro-lifers a question that's been bugging me: Why do you want to get rid of institutionalized abortion?

It's simple.. a culture that kills and sanctions killing it's most precious and helpless is barbaric and uncivilized, and nowhere in our contsitution does it stipulate it's okay to do so.

 

[Gem]

Here is my take on abortion (by the way...there is a Cliff's Notes version of this incredibly long post waaaaay at the bottom):

I believe strongly that the majority of people in America (I would go so far as to say the world) believe that abortion is a bad thing.

Why do I say this? Because when a friend (or our wives, sisters, or we) get pregnant and we want to be pregnant we do not congratulate our loved ones on the new blob of tissue on the way. We do not refuse to give a hug and say "how exciting" until the baby has reached a stage where it can live outside the womb. We don't say..."Hey...right now its just some cells...call me when the blob can live outside of ya and I'll buy you a pair of booties."

In the worst possible situations, we do not comfort couples who have miscarried by saying, "Hey...it really was just a mass of cells...nothing to get all emotional about yet..." Instead...we discuss how God doesn't make mistakes...this baby could not be born for a very serious reason. We comfort the family by acknowledging their feelings of the loss of a potential child...not the loss of some bits and pieces of the woman.

None of us think a man is stupid for rubbing or cooing at the belly of his pregnant wife...even if the baby is too young to hear still. Instead, we recognize that he is excited about his baby...and wants to bond with it. If we ever saw a pregnant woman being mugged, and the mugger punched the woman in the stomach...we would be horrified...we would run over and immediately offer to take her to a hospital to check on the BABY...we wouldn't say..."Oh, your just 4 months? Whew...lucky for you it isn't a baby yet. Have a good day."

I could go on...but I am hoping that everyone here is intellectually honest enough (and I think everyone is) to know that we would prefer LESS abortions because we do understand that a fetus is a brand-new person that is growing. We understand this inherently...just like we understand that murder is wrong, we understand lying and stealing are wrong...

So with that in mind...with the knowledge that the vast majority of people truly dislike and are saddened by the thought of someone having an abortion...where do we go from here?

I think that if we are serious about decreasing (or ending) abortions, then we need to be serious about why people are having abortions.

I think that abortions to save the life of the mother are an absolute neccesity. I think that abortions in the cases of rape and incest are also situations where the two sides of this debate need to find middle ground. No woman who was attacked/assaulted should be forced to carry a child, in my opinion.

However...

We need to get serious about discussions regarding the mental state of women who have abortions after rape and women who carry the children to term. There are several interesting studies that indicate that women who carry the babies to term experience greater emotional healing than those who have abortions after rape. The women who have the children express feelings of being "better" than the rapist...of "surviving," the horror...of having something good out of the situation. The women who abort have nothing but terrible memories of both the rape...and the following abortion. We should be interested in investigating which solution is more mentally beneficial to women...while still allowing assaulted women to make their own choices... (ONCE they have received all of the information).

When looking at it from the standpoint of a child of rape or incest...life will be hard...there will be times when facing their origins will be depressing, devestating, and hard to deal with...but I do not think you will find any of them (providing stable mental health) that would have rather been aborted.

But overall...I find abortion conversations that center around the argument: It should be legal because of rape, incest, and life of mother...disingenuous. These abortions account for only 1% of the abortions performed annually...we could allow for all of these abortions to be legal and by making the rest illegal would see a STAGGERING reduction in the number of abortions.

So that leaves us with the real question: Should women be allowed to abort for simply because they want to. Most women who get these type of abortions do so because of financial costs or lifestyle hinderances.

If we are serious about reducing these types of abortions...we need to be serious about reducing these problems. You can not tell a 18 year old college freshman: "By the way...your life as you know it now is over. You, statistically, will be single and poor for the rest of your life. Your child is far more likely to have learning and/or behavior disorders and be in trouble with the law....good luck...and hey, be happy about that unplanned, unwanted pregnancy" and expect young women to be happy with and/or go along with that.

Instead...we should be pushing for assistance (and I always support private assistance rather than governmentally regulated assistance) from people who are pro-life....What if...instead of "Hey, you're on your own...congrats on not having an abortion..." Young women heard..."We know that this is a difficult decision...but here is how we can help you. There are several couples who are looking to adopt. Come and meet them. Hear them talk about how much they would love to have your baby...they will pay for your medical expenses and give that baby a wonderful, loving life. Or, if you would like to keep your baby...here is how we can help. We will support you throughout the pregnancy...we can offer very inexpensive day care so you can stay in college...etc etc etc"

Imagine if the choice wasn't: Get an abortion, get on with life. or Have the baby totally alone and ruin my life. But rather...Have an abortion, get on with life...OR Be supported through the pregnancy and then give the baby to a loving family...or be supported by people who care as I become a parent.

The number of abortions is already falling...lets continue that NOT by outlawing all abortions...which will simply lead to partisan bitching and potentially dangerous situations...but rather, HELP women make this difficult choice by giving them more options and support when they choose to keep their baby.

Whew...ok...I'm done now.

(Cliff's Notes Version: In a nutshell...I would prefer abortion to be legal in the cases of rape, incest, life of mother, and during the 1st trimester only...AND I think that Pro-Life organizations need to move past calling women facing terribly difficult decisions murderers...and instead talk to them about how they CAN carry a baby to term and that they CAN raise a child...and that there will be people their to help them.)

 

[Mariner]

to agree with you. I do wish that there were sufficient emotional and financial support, as well as cultural acceptance, available so that most women who got pregnant unintentionally would feel comfortable having the baby and giving it up for adoption if unable to raise it themselves.

Imagine a woman working a minimum wage job with no health insurance, and having a complicated pregnancy that requires, say, 3 months of bedrest. Where, in the pro-life position, is there the support for this woman?

What about an alcoholic woman who gets pregnant but can't quit drinking?

Or a woman in an abusive relationship whose partner doesn't want to have the baby?

That's where I think the arguments I made earlier apply--much of the pro-life movement seems to neglect that actual issues that make many women choose to have an abortion.

Mariner.