Low Income Women:They just accept the fact that abortion is not an option. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 11-10-2005, 06:58 AM

I want to know how the successful efforts of the "pro life" movement to restrict (effectively....BAR...) mostly low income, predominantly rural women from access to medically safe, inexpensive, abortion services, and....for that matter, access to birth control and information about responsibly engaging in sexual activity, other than admonition about abstinence, is not loudly condemned for the outrage and discrimination against the poor, that it is....

Is it acceptable that largely, "in the name of god", (or in the exploitation of the name), whole areas of the U.S. primarily in the "red states" have been manipulated, via legislation and moralizing, into places where women have lost their reproductive rights? Is this not a symptom of a political agenda that, as a matter of policy, preys upon the poorest and the least powerful, and lacks concern for the measurable increased health risks it weighs women in these areas down with, as a consequence to it's moralized religious zealotry that has grown to control the political machinery in these areas?

As I've explored in another <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1666885&postcount=76">forum</a>, there is indifference exhibited by these advocates to the fact that they only are able to control the sexual and reproductive lives of the poor and the powerless, while those with more resources largely escape their clutches as they always have.

I see this as arrogance, coupled with the same indifference and conflicting adherence to "christian values", largely by folks who pledge their faith to a prince of peace whose message was one of commitment to the well being of the "least of us", as they demonstrate in their advocacy against the rights of workers to a living wage, affordable health care, and to some measure of job security, a progressive income tax system, and a political culture that favors a populist bias vs. a corporatist one.

We are nearing the end of the year 2005. What is reported here by PBS Frontline, to me, is shocking and unacceptable. Are women to be treated as mere "vessels" without rights, just because of where they live? How dare these people who seek to deprive these women of access to health care and to reproductive choices that most of us can still easily obtain.

Quote:

http://oregonmag.com/FrontlineAbortion1105.html
PBS: Frontline Defends Infanticide

November 09, 2005 -- These people can see the handwriting on the wall. First Roberts, then Alito. The U.S. Supreme Court, as Dylan would put it, is a'changing. No wonder liberals hate Bush. They enjoy killing tiny humans.

Last night the PBS program, Frontline, ignoring the obvious problem generated by recent decisions that killing a pregnant woman is a double murder, said that resistance to the slaughter of the unborn was detrimental to women's health. The legions of the anti-baby-murder movement are, additionally, racist, since they oppose access to the procedure to poor black single mothers in Mississippi.

These poor women, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, need tax dollars to kill what anti-abortion fanatics describe as children..........

Quote:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features...ures-headlines
PBS program looks at Mississippi's last abortion clinic

By Connie Lauerman
Chicago Tribune
Posted November 8 2005.........

........Q. Does Roe vs. Wade still matter?

A. What we found is that certain states have been so active [about restricting abortion locally] that they certainly have diminished the importance of Roe v. Wade.

Q. Do women dominate the anti-choice movement?

A. Women mostly lead it, but there are a ton of men inside the movement. ..........

....Q. How do low-income women, who some might believe would want access to abortion, view restrictions?

A. Abortion was not on their radar. A multitude of issues face people who are living in extreme poverty that have nothing to do with abortion access.

On the other hand, there are many places across the country like Mississippi that are very rural and a lot of women do not have access to abortion and the women are very conflicted about it. They are not adamant [on either side of the issue].

They just accept the fact that abortion is not an option. One woman says abortion is $300 or $400 so there was no way she was going to be able to have that option, even if she could travel to the clinic, which is hours away and she would have to go [to the clinic] twice.

Q. Among most people of all social classes, abortion probably is not a major concern, yet it has divided the nation for decades.

A. Even before Roe v. Wade, middle- and upper-class women could find a way to get an abortion.

After Roe v. Wade, things changed for a couple of decades and now it has sort of gone back to [a situation where] poor women cannot access abortion, while middle-class and upper-middle class women can, many pro-choicers would argue.

Those pushing an anti-abortion agenda are pushing for things that have a lot of popular public support, like parental consent. When they start to talk about overturning Roe v. Wade that's when the country and the moderate pro-choicers get upset. Whenever that has happened historically the [anti-abortion forces] have lost.

Anecdotal evidence indicates that "Pro Life" advocates do not care that the impact of their morally based zealotry is exclusively against the poor. They moralize that they are "saving the life" of an unborn child. How do you justify what amounts to revenge against the poor because they lack the good judgment to have protected sex, coupled with a their own bias against birth control, actually against non-reproductively motivated intercourse (they label it "population control"....Margaret Sanger was evil....etc...)?

Quote:

http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles...he_last_ab.php
Media: November 09, 2005
Was The Last Abortion Clinic Biased?
........Terri Herring, president of Pro-Life Mississippi, was interviewed for the film because of the successful pro-life efforts in her state. There were also many other interviews with Pro-Life leaders and state representatives, like Lt. Governor Amy Tuck and Americans United for Life.

"We have passed 15 pro-life laws in Mississippi that in some way restrict or prohibit abortion," Herring said. "But . . . even those are very minimal."

Commentator - Nonetheless, those minimal restrictions have reduced the number of abortion clinics from seven to one. Herring sees the conflict as David versus Goliath.

"I think right now the pro-life movement has the rock in the sling," she said. " I think the head of the giant is Roe vs Wade." ...........

..........Pan to poverty

"More then a third of the city's population lives in poverty, infant mortality rate is almost two times the national average and 75% of babies born here are born to single mothers, many of whom are teenagers".

A female doctor then talks about poverty in Mississippi compared to America. She says "a lot of the girls come in pregnant because they didn't have access to birth control".

Pro-Aborts frequently bring up poverty and population control as an important reason for birth control and abortion. Margaret Sanger anyone?

Women make the decision to have sex and get pregnant and somehow we're supposed to believe that they are pregnant because they don't have access to birth control? They are the ones in control in the first place. Someone should inform the world that babies don't come from a stork!

Doctor - "Most of the girls are of the mind that once they become pregnant that there are no options except for them to have the baby".

I would certainly hope that human beings understand that there are no options except for them to have the baby!

Just a quick throw-in. Isn't it funny how during the Vietnam war the peaceniks called soldiers "baby killers" and those same peaceniks today are the ones pushing for abortion rights?

Woman with children - "In the Mississippi Delta it's not realistic. Stuff like that don't happen here. We don't have clinics like that here. Young girls have 3 or 4 children because they can't afford abortion. If you don't have money, if you're living on welfare or on Medicaid, you have to deal with it, you have to deal with that baby."

Yes, you do have to deal with that baby. That baby is a living human being and because of abortion, humanity is losing it's relavance and meaning. Post Roe vs Wade we have become "things". Things we can grow, things we can kill. Things we can experiment on.

In reference to the fact that the state and the United States government don't pay for abortions, the attorney Kathryn Kolbert says "How can the government decide not to pay for something that's a perfectly legal procedure?"

Sex changes are legal in California. Should America pay for those? And what about other extreme procedures? Why should a person who believes abortion is murder have to pay for a person to murder her child?

Doctor says "a lot of these women do want to be pregnant, and if you don't want to be pregnant and you're in denial. Just having the ability to make the choice just to say that this is something that she would want to continue with is going to make all the difference in terms of the outcome of the pregnancy".

Terri Herring - "We don't feel bad that people in the Delta can't have an abortion. To say that we want to be sure that poor women can get their abortions, like we're doing them a favor by helping them kill their baby is just not okay with me. It's not acceptable to make that to seem something so bad. "Helping and supporting their children is not helping them kill their babies"..............

Seaver · 11-10-2005, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Is it acceptable that largely, "in the name of god", (or in the exploitation of the name), whole areas of the U.S. primarily in the "red states" have been manipulated, via legislation and moralizing, into places where women have lost their reproductive rights?

Is it acceptable to kill a living human being to preserve "reproductive rights"?

What are these reproductive rights? These women are still allowed to have sex, they're still allowed to have children, they're still allowed the dozens of options to avoid the latter without the deaths of their babies.

With such an enormous demand to adopt children, people willing to pay all medical fees and pay richly to monetarily compensate the mother, why is this such a bad plan?

You want everyone to support everyone else through monetary and political means (socialism), which is a lofty enough goal. But how can you draw the line on humans simply because their mothers dont want them?

Sure enough you can say how conservatives are often pro-war and pro-death penalty. I hear this all the time. The difference being is those people (the ones involved at least) have had a choice. There were active decisions that lead to it. The killer/rapist before he struck, the enemies as they supported people who preach "death to America".

These babies, however, never had a choice. They've committed no sin other than their mothers bad decisions. They've done no wrong other than simply existing. Now with all the alternatives out there, why is this so terrible to let these children live and simply have a good family adopt them?

Of course you can point out over-populated childrens homes at the turn of the century when abortion was illegal. However that is flawed because it was before the plethera of contrceptives out there.

So now you will point out the argument that if it's illegal, backstreet abortions will occur. However there are states that are strongholds of the pro-abortion group in which it will never go away. Simply buy a plane ticket, or greyhound if you cant afford it (what was it last? $100 cross country or something?) and go.

Quote:

how do you justify what amounts to revenge against the poor because they lack the good judgment to have protected sex, coupled with a their own bias against birth control, actually against non-reproductively motivated intercourse

Do you honestly think that just because someone is poor they're too ignorant to know about birth control? For all your touting about the suffering of the poor in this country, this is unlike you. This simply turns the poor into semi-retarded cattle. I'll tell you something, they DO know about it, it's a (I know I keep going back to this, but..) CHOICE.

Now I'll agree if you make the argument that birth control should be free. It already is (condoms), but not in all forms. I'll agree about that, because abortions will simply have no more excuses to lean on.

Your comment about how the rich find a way out, they always do. This doesn't mean the pro-life group wishes to make exemptions for them. It means that it's a fact of life since pre-history.

Sorry this is so long, last time Host attacked me for being short. This time I took the time to point out all the "lines" of the left and their flaws.

aswo · 11-11-2005, 01:59 AM

Wow Seaver,
Finally a well thought out conservative opinon. i agree 100% Unborn children are given no chance at life it doesn't matter whether you are religous or not death is still death

tecoyah · 11-11-2005, 04:17 AM

I dont think the intent of the OP was to start a moral debate on the acceptablility of abortion....we have plenty of those here anyway. In a nutshell I think he is asking/pointing out, the trend of the administration to remove Options from the poor thru cuts in services. He also seems to tie this in to the Dogma projected by Government descisions to promote a More Christian approach to sexual ethics, by manipulating Government sponsored benefits to the lower classes.
I would agree that the removal of support programs has affected the ability of the poor to recieve healthcare (reproductive and otherwise) but, it is a much bigger problem than just Abortion.

Seaver · 11-11-2005, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Wow Seaver,
Finally a well thought out conservative opinon.

Sorry, I work 2 jobs and go to school full time. I rarely have open time to post full in-depth arguments like that.

aswo · 11-15-2005, 10:03 AM

i wasn't trying to sound sarcastic just happy to hear a more conservative opinion on this forum, doesnt happen very often

Leto · 11-15-2005, 12:59 PM

two of my close friends were students when they went for abortions. They had no income to speak of, yet they were able to do this without worrying about the cost at the local hospital. That would have been a terrible burden to add to an already difficult situation.

11-11-2005, 01:59 AM	#3 (permalink)
aswo Crazy	Wow Seaver, Finally a well thought out conservative opinon. i agree 100% Unborn children are given no chance at life it doesn't matter whether you are religous or not death is still death __________________ People who love people

11-11-2005, 04:17 AM	#4 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I dont think the intent of the OP was to start a moral debate on the acceptablility of abortion....we have plenty of those here anyway. In a nutshell I think he is asking/pointing out, the trend of the administration to remove Options from the poor thru cuts in services. He also seems to tie this in to the Dogma projected by Government descisions to promote a More Christian approach to sexual ethics, by manipulating Government sponsored benefits to the lower classes. I would agree that the removal of support programs has affected the ability of the poor to recieve healthcare (reproductive and otherwise) but, it is a much bigger problem than just Abortion. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

11-15-2005, 10:03 AM	#6 (permalink)
aswo Crazy	i wasn't trying to sound sarcastic just happy to hear a more conservative opinion on this forum, doesnt happen very often __________________ People who love people

11-15-2005, 12:59 PM	#7 (permalink)
Leto Junkie Location: The Danforth	two of my close friends were students when they went for abortions. They had no income to speak of, yet they were able to do this without worrying about the cost at the local hospital. That would have been a terrible burden to add to an already difficult situation. __________________ You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey And I never saw someone say that before You held my hand and we walked home the long way You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I