The New Anti-Choice Democrats: Can We Work With Them?


In a campaign TV advertisement, Don Cazayoux, the Louisiana Democrat
who won a hotly contested Congressional seat in a May 3 special election,
introduced voters to his parents, Don Sr. and Ann. "We thought you
should know what he learned growing up," Ann Cazayoux said. As photographs
of Don Jr. with babies flashed across the screen, she continued, "We
taught him every life is precious." The words "Pro-life" appeared
in the bottom left hand corner.

Indeed, trumpeting broad opposition
to abortion rights was a key strategy of Cazayoux’s campaign. His
improbable three-point win occurred in a district where 59 percent of
the electorate had voted for George W. Bush over John Kerry in 2004.
Meanwhile, in north Mississippi, Democrat Travis Childers was making
a similar case. "Keep this in mind," Childers said matter of factly
in one ad. "I’m pro-life and pro-gun."
On May 14, Childers, too, was elected to Congress, in a district where
62 percent of voters had supported Bush’s reelection. Photo by Arthur D. Lauck, The AdvocateCazayoux, Photo by Arthur D. Lauck, The Advocate

Though both candidates ran
primarily on a platform of creating jobs and providing universal health
care, the media was fascinated by their anti-choice stances, calling
them "conservative," "Blue Dog" Democrats, despite their strong
pro-labor, antiwar positions. In part that’s not surprising; the mainstream
media has long identified politicians more by their statements on divisive
social issues than by their records on more complex economic ones.

But it would be naïve to downplay
Cazayoux and Childers’ anti-choice ideologies. As a state legislator,
Cazayoux voted for one of the harshest anti-abortion laws in the country,
outlawing abortion in every case except when the mother’s life is
at stake — including in cases of rape, incest, or if the woman’s
physical or emotional health is at risk. Cazayoux says he’d support similar legislation
at the federal level.

Childers, whose previous job was as Prentiss County chancery clerk — a mostly administrative
position — doesn’t have a record on abortion. But when the National
Republican Campaign Committee attacked Childers by linking him to Barack
Obama’s opposition to so-called "partial birth abortion" bans
and support for comprehensive sex-ed, Childers hit back hard, claiming
he "didn’t know" and "had never even met" Obama.

In a reproductive health dream
world, pro-choice Democrats would have been elected in Lousiana’s
eighth district and Mississippi’s first. Given widespread anger with
the Bush administration and its conservative policies, maybe Childers
and Cazayoux could have moderated their abortion positions and still
cruised to victory. But in reality, reassuring conservative Southern
voters about core social issues was likely the only way Nancy Pelosi
could have added these two seats to her total. And by preserving a continued
Democratic majority in the House, Cazayoux and Childers, whatever their
personal opinions on abortion, ensure that bills restraining choice
will largely stay off the legislative docket. The last major Congressional
vote seeking to restrict American women’s reproductive rights occurred
in 2006, when Republicans were still in control.

Of course, pro-choicers want
to do much more than just keep existing reproductive rights from being
rolled back; we want to expand upon those rights and make them more
uniform throughout the country. We want women in cities, suburbs and
rural places to enjoy the full range of reproductive health education, information,
care, and yes, access to abortion, regardless of their ability to pay,
their age, or any other facet of their identity. Can anti-choice Democrats
be allies in those goals?

For some of those goals, the
answer is yes. Since 2005, anti- and mixed-choice Democrats have been
pushing the 95-10 initiative, which seeks to reduce the abortion rate
(which is, in fact, already going down) by 95 percent over the next
decade. While the plan would expand federal support for family planning
and access to contraceptives, it also includes parental notification
laws and a ban on certain later-term abortion procedures. Those aren’t
policies many Democrats who identify as pro-choice will get behind.

But Congressional advocates
for reproductive health, as well as pro-choice interest groups, should
be aggressively reaching out to anti-choice Democrats on issues such
as comprehensive sex education and access to birth control. When it
comes to pharmacists’ responsibility to provide women with The Pill,
for example, even those who support restricting abortion rights can
agree that women have the right not to face discrimination when filling
a prescription.

This year, House Democrats
continued funding President Bush’s abstinence-only program. That should
change during the next Congress, but it won’t be possible without
the support of a core group of socially conservative Democrats and socially
moderate Republicans. These centrists should agree to put aside their
ideology on abortion to ensure that our children’s’ education is
medically and scientifically sound.

On later-term abortions, parental
notification, and federal funding for abortion, pro-choicers may need
to part ways with the Cazayouxs and Childerses of the world. We should
do so respectfully and without alienating them or their supporters.
Just by being Democrats from the South, these politicians are giving
reproductive rights a major lift. By rebuilding progressivism in that
region, they ensure that more Democrats — some of them pro-choice —
will receive a fair hearing when they run for office. Stay tuned, for
example, to Josh Segall, a 29-year old pro-choice Dem running
for Congress in a traditionally Republican Alabama district. Candidates
like Segall have the potential to de-stigmatize pro-choice
politics in the South. But for that to happen, "Democrat" can’t
be a scary word. Guys like Cazayoux and Childers help make that transition
happen.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with Dana Goldstein please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • http://www.studentmotivation.org invalid-0

    It was over a dozen years ago that former Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey was the speaker at the Annual Dinner for Texan’s For Life in Dallas. He gave a powerful speach. It was loved by the crowd.

    One statement he made I remember especially well. He said; “It would be impossible for a Democratic Presidential Candidate in the national election for President to loose that national election if he were pro-life.”

    He was right!

    • invalid-0

      “He was right!”

      I don’t believe you understand what an insult it is to assume that the millions of pro-choice women (and men) who make us the largest voting bloc in the Democratic party, would vote for or support such a man. We would not. Not in a million years.

      You folks need to make a culture where women can support the children they have, a goal the ‘pro-life’ folks have worked against for generations. Y’all have no business forcing women to carry to term children they cannot afford to feed and care for and bleating on endlessly about your respect for life when, under the rule of social conservatives we now have a higher child, infant and maternal mortality rate than Cuba’s.

  • http://marisacat.wordpress.com invalid-0

    can we work with such types?
    duh. no.

    im not voting for a party that supports Cazayoux types. good luck winning long-term without women like me. you donks will need it.

  • jessica-arons

    The 95-10 initiative does not expand federal support for family planning and access to contraceptives. Instead, it includes funding for deceptive crisis pregnancy centers and an ambiguous reference to pregnancy prevention education, which likely would take the form of more funding for abstinence-only programs.

    You may be confusing 95-10 with the "Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act," also known as the "Ryan-DeLauro bill," which didn’t include family planning provisions until pro-choice Rosa DeLauro became a co-sponsor. In fact, the Democrats for Life, who created the 95-10 initiative, refuse to endorse the Ryan-DeLauro bill because of its inclusion of family planning.

    Second, although the abortion rate has been declining overall, it has been increasing for the poorest women in our country – because we have not given them the tools to prevent unintended pregnancy and to raise the children they do want to have.

    I agree we should work to reach out to those with whom we can find common ground, but there are some who simply cannot be reached. And it is very important for us to know the difference.

  • invalid-0

    Thanks, Jessica, for pointing out the differences between the 95-10 initiative and the Ryan-DeLauro bill. I do think increased access to contraception and comprehensive sex-ed (and no funding for misleading CPCs!) should be a key facet of any bill whose goal is to prevent abortions. And there are mixed-choice Dems out there who’d be amendable to such compromises. As for Childers and Cazayouz specifically, we’ll have to wait and see how their legislative record shapes up. I do believe, however, that a mixed-or-anti-choice progressive is better than a mixed-or-anti-choice conservative when it comes to filling Congressional seats.

  • amanda-marcotte

    That makes no sense, as the majority of Americans are pro-choice.  There are a lot more Republicans holding their noses and voting for anti-choice politicians than Democrats holding their noses and voting for pro-choice ones.  The percentage of people that are anti-choice and otherwise liberal is pretty small.  And even then, when push comes to shove, a lot of people with misgivings about abortion are pro-choice because they don’t hate women and want them to suffer for having sex.

  • invalid-0

    The biggest reason is that there are many people who say they are pro-choice but really believe in choice only in cases of rape and the many other special circumstances. Another reason I think is that a person who is ant-choice is more likely to let that affect his or her vote. I should say that I think if you look though enough surveys you will find that people don’t fit into individual categories on this issue. But you are right that there are more people who label themselves pro-choice than pro-life.

  • invalid-0

    Most people in politics who vote consider a lot of issues when deciding who to vote for. Likewise both parties consider many issues when deciding who to support. Also keep in mind that just because some Democrats are pro-life doesn’t mean that your local Democrats are not strongly pro-choice and when you eliminate your voice by not voting you do not gain more influence.

  • invalid-0

    Maybe in upper middle class and white communities, but people of color and lower income people do sway verymuch towards pro-life sentiments, especially the influx of new Hispanic voters.

  • http://northcarolina.democratsforlife.org/ invalid-0

    I am a pro-life democrat. You can check me out at:
    http://northcarolina.democratsforlife.org/

    I take offense to the pejorative term “deceptive” used to describe crisis pregnancy centers. In my personal experience with 4 different crisis pregnancy centers, women come to crisis pregnancy centers and get help and are happy to get help without paying for it. If you want to play games with anecdotal references, should we generalize abortion providers as sexual predators and malpracticing quacks because of some high profile rotten apples in that industry?

    Next, we can ask how could there be a lack of funds available for family planning/contraception/abortion? Looking only at Planned Parenthood we find that in 2006 they received $336 million in government funding with a “profit” of $112 million (11% of total revenue). Talk about windfall profits. It seems that the government is already spending a lot of money considering that PP is just a small slice of the pie. And what does Planned Parenthood provide with those federal dollars? How about only 2,413 adoption referrals, prenatal care for only 11,058 women, and a whopping 289,650 abortions.

    • http://myspace.com/saynathespiffy invalid-0

      take offense to the pejorative term “deceptive” used to describe crisis pregnancy centers. In my personal experience with 4 different crisis pregnancy centers, women come to crisis pregnancy centers and get help and are happy to get help without paying for it. If you want to play games with anecdotal references, should we generalize abortion providers as sexual predators and malpracticing quacks because of some high profile rotten apples in that industry?

      You’re making a false analogy here. When 80% of crisis pregnancy centers are found to give their clients medically inaccurate information, I think they deserve their bad reputation! Especially when this misinformation is purposely used to convince women not to have abortions! Women who are happy about coming to CPCs probably already had their minds made up, or are unaware that the CPC was dishonest and inaccurate on the facts on abortion, childbirth, and sometimes even contraception.

      Your stereotype about abortion providers, is, as you said, based on very few extreme cases of abuse and completely leaves out the fact that there have been sexual predators and quacks in all different medical occupations.

      Calling CPCs deceptive is based on the fact that, frankly, they aim to deceive women, and the vast majority of them do it. They may provide safety and support for pregnant women, which is great, but that doesn’t change the fact that their main reason for existing is to convince women not to have abortions. Calling abortion providers quacks and sexual predators is based on a few extreme examples of horrible doctors out of the millions of competent, non-sexual-predatory doctors. The two are simply not comparable!

      And what does Planned Parenthood provide with those federal dollars? How about only 2,413 adoption referrals, prenatal care for only 11,058 women, and a whopping 289,650 abortions.

      [The second set cannot possibly be national statistics, as the numbers are much too small to be even remotely plausible for an entire nation. Have a source?]
      Did you ever possibly consider the fact that most women who go to Planned Parenthood do so because they want to terminate a pregnancy? Or that they could be going somewhere else for prenatal care or adoption services? You act like no woman could ever possibly not want to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term!

      You have also oh-so-conveniently left out what else Planned Parenthood provieds. Where’s your info on how many pap smears, treatments for urinary tract infections and STDs, and other general reproductive healthcare they provide? And why is it that you leave out the fact that they’re also the leading provider of low cost and sometimes even free condoms and contraception? Surely a non-profit organization that supposedly makes most of its money on abortion wouldn’t be out there preventing unwanted pregnancy in the first place!

      Honestly, who’s going to prevent more abortions:
      The place that gives out cheap/free contraception OR the place that tells women that contraceptives are abortifacients, dangerous, or ineffective?
      The place that gives out medically accurate and unbiased information OR the place specifically aimed at convincing women that there is only one acceptable choice, even at the cost of honesty and integrity?
      The place that actually provides medical treatment and is thus required to abide by the laws of informed consent OR the place that only gives out the kind of pregnancy tests you can get for $10 at the grocery store and is held to no such standards of medical accuracy or informed consent?

  • http://www.democratforlife.org invalid-0

    First off, I would like to thank Dana for posing this question. Our Party does, in fact, need to have a serious discussion on how we can all work together to form an even stronger Democratic Party that unites people on both sides of this issue.

    I beleive that pro-choice and pro-life democrats can and must work together but we first have to learn to respect one another by calling each other by the preferred labels — pro-choice and pro-life. Just as the pro-choice side does not like to be referred to as pro-abortion, pro-lifers are equally offended by the anti-choice label. There is much too much hostility between pro-life and pro-choice democrats. People jump to conclusions about one another without looking at the facts first. We need to take a few steps back.

    As Democrats, we should focus on the 90 percent of issues we agree on — end the war, take care of our environment, make sure health care is affordable for everyone, address the rising gas prices and food prices so people have enough money to put gas in their tank to drive to work and enough money left over to feed their familes. There is too much at stake to close the big tent off some democrats simply because they oppose abortion. It is not a winning strategy.

    With regard to the 95-10 Initiative, as the Executive Director of Democrats For Life Of America, I would like to clarify a few items posted. The 95-10 Initiative, which is endorsed by several pregnancy centers, does not include funding for them. They simply support the bill because it is in line with their mission to provide options other than abortion for pregnant women. I challenge my pro-choice democrat friends to visit one of these centers to see the amazing work they do — most do for little or no pay. They provide emotional support, cribs, strollers, clothes for both mother and baby and so much more. I see what they do as more in line with Democratic priniples. I will be more than happy to arrange such meetings with anyone who is interested in meeting the people on the front lines or providing support to pregnant woman and their families.

    DFLA does not oppose family planning. When we were putting the bill together, we examined all types of ways to decrease the abortion rate in America. We found that the federal government, thru Title X and Medicaid, provides a wide array of money for prevention. Some argue that it is not enough. Senator Reid, a pro-life democrat introduced a bill in the Senate to provide more family planning funds. DFLA was looking for other ways to decrease the abortion rate in America and we found that not much has been done to support a woman once she becomes pregnant. The Pregnant Women Support Act (PWSA), introduced by Congressman Lincoln Davis in the House and Senator Bob Casey in the Senate provides options and opportunities for a women who wants to carry her child to term and provide for her and her child in the future.

    The PWSA is the first relasitic attempt to draft a common ground proposal to bring people on all sides of the debate together to help the people who really need it — the prenant women, their families and their unborn children. The legislation is supported by pro-life and pro-choice democrats and republicans.

    I urge my democratic friends to take another look at this groundbreaking legislation and work together to reduce the abortion rate in America.

    The

    • invalid-0

      I have watched the debate about abortion since long before Roe v. Wade. I, personally, am opposed to abortion. In my opinion it imbrues the spirit of all who are involved. The woman who makes the choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy must face the consequences of her actions. Besides the risks (no matter how minimal) to her health and the indignity of the procedure is the doubt about the ‘might have been’ of the child that never was. Then there is the doctors and nurses whose training and experience makes them more aware than most of the value of life. As well as the importance of preserving life.
      As a man (this applies to women as well) I have no right to tell any woman (or man) what they must do with their body. The only thing that gives me any right to have any input at all in a womans decision is if I am the father of the fetus she bears AND if I am willing and able to take full responsibility for the physical, emotional and financial support of the mother and child.
      In the real world we are often called upon to make choices. Choices that don’t always conform to standards of right and wrong, or on the basis of good or bad. Too often we must choose between the lesser of two evils. We make such choices every time we enter a polling booth to cast our ballot. Every time we elect to buy a foreign-made product because it is cheaper even though we know it means taking jobs from our friends and neighbors. We make such unsatisfactory choices in many other aspects of our lives.
      As a caring person I prefer to see a world where no woman is forced to choose abortion. But if the choice must be made it is preferable that the choice be available to all women not just those wealthy enough to travel to another country where the abortion can be performed safety and professionally. It is preferable to have the procedure done in the safety of a doctors office by trained professional than in some germ infested back room as was often the case before Roe v. Wade.
      We will never stop abortion, whether it be legal or not. However, if we educate more young people on ways to prevent pregnancy and the emotional, financial and physical resposibilities and consequences of sexual activity there will,likely, be fewer unwanted pregnancies. If we find viable alternatives to the termination of pregnancy. Alternatives such as finding more people who are willing and qualified to adopt. Join with organizations that support people who are plagued with infertility and encourage those people to adopt. Adoptions that will allow the birth mother to be a part of the childs life after adoption. People and agencies that are willing to to provide medical, emotional and financial support for expectant mothers. As well as intensive parenting and vocational training. In this way they can raise and provide for a happy and healthy child.
      As a citizen I MUST support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I, like every other good citizen, must follow the laws of this land. The law stands and we must obey the law and Roe v. Wade is the law. Currently, nationwide, all of the polls show that the majority agrees with the current laws. It is only a vociforous minority that opposes the law. It is only a small minority of states whose legislatures choose to oppose the Constitution of the United States and pass laws in violation of the Constitution.
      Women in the United States of America have the right to choose whether or not to bear a child. Noone has the right to infringe that right not by law, not by force, not by coercian and not by intimidation. Not now, not ever.
      However, as opposed as I am to abortion, in conscience and in principle, I would rather see 1,000,000 fetuses aborted, I would rather see 10,000,000 pregnancies terminated than to see even one(1) unwanted, unloved, neglected or abused child.
      So I call on you all NOW… Let us all be civil. Let us find the common ground without rancor, anger or hatred. Many of those who support a womans Right to Choose would rather see fewer abortions. So if people of good will from the antiabortion camp can sit down with people of good will from the Right to Choose camp. Both sides can find common ground and productive solutions. Isn’t that preferable to the anger, intimidation and, sometimes, even murder that currently accompanies the debate?
      Thank you for your kind consideration.

  • http://blog.billsamuel.net/ invalid-0

    Jessica Arons is right about they’re being different bills, and Democrats for Life taking no position (her wording might imply opposition, which is not the case) on the Ryan-DeLauro bill. That bill would probably result in massive increases in taxpayer support for Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider. You can’t really expect a pro-life group to support that.

    Saying “deceptive crisis pregnancy centers” does not prove they are deceptive. Many of them are United Way members who can get referrals from government agencies even where the governments are strongly pro-choice. Most of them have a strong policy of being absolutely honest and upfront with clients, and will terminate volunteers who don’t adhere to that. There was a bill in the Maryland legislature to combat the claimed deception by pregnancy centers, but after holding hearings on it, virtually no one in the legislature was convinced – pro-choice and pro-life alike.

    The deception charge is closely related to disputes about facts. Many pro-choicers claim, for example, that abortions do not have an impact on breast cancer likelihood. But pregnancy centers note that the best and most recent studies appear to confirm the link. But if they point out the results of those studies, they are accused of being deceptive.

    • invalid-0

      “You can’t really expect a pro-life group to support that.”

      to fund all manner of ineffective programs and raving lunacy from the pro unbreathing life folks while we do our best to protect our children from your ‘faith’. We’ve been forced to pay for abstinence only sex education which destroys young lives, the building of churches with ‘faith based’ monies which were supposed to ‘help the poor’ but which instead line the pockets of grifters and monsters like Pat Robertson in order to buy the votes of the morons who follow them.

      we know precisely what happens when we allow ‘pro-life groups’ to become the arbiters of what we can and cannot support. What we end up with is a culture which is increasingly dangerous and demeaning to women. So spare us all expressions of what we can and cannot expect from ‘pro-life’ groups.
      Something like 95% of Planned Parenthood’s work has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with being the sole source of gynecological health care for millions of low income women who would not otherwise be able to afford health care.. The pro unbreathing life folks have, after 30 YEARS, done nothing useful to bring affordable health care to low income people and much that has been destructive. They’re CLEARLY not concerned that poor women and their children have no access to health care. Why should they have a say?
      Oh, and an abortion does not increase the likelihood of brest cancer howevermuch y’all would like for that to be true. The folks who come up with that stuff are the same folk who would force us to pay for the teaching of ‘intelligent design’ in science classes.

  • http://blog.billsamuel.net/ invalid-0

    I think the real question should be on what pro-lifers and pro-choicers can work together, not whether we can.

    There may be those on both sides who will just refuse to work with anyone with the opposing view, but I think many are willing to work together around common purposes.

    If one is really concerned about preserving lives, one should be more than ready to support measures that might have nothing to do with whether abortion is legal but which make it easier for women who want to make the choice for life. Similarly, if one is really concerned about true choice for women, one will also want that alternative to be one that can appear a truly viable one for pregnant women.

    Feminists for Life has held Pregnancy Resource Forums on many campuses. Often that has been successful in bringing about improvements in options for pregnant students and for students who are mothers. One of the reasons it has been so successful is that many pro-choicers see the merit of it, and so support for such efforts crosses the typical pro-life/pro-choice lines.

    If folks on both sides are more concerned about helping actual people than promoting ideology, they can work together to a greater degree than many might think possible. And shouldn’t Democrats be in the forefront of working together to actually help people?

  • http://www.cremation-online.com invalid-0

    Abortion is killing period. So, in the name of convenience you can kill a baby you don’t want because you were to dump to protect yourself, and instead of growing up and learning responsibility you decide to take the life of a child. It’s selfish and morally wrong.

    I know that there are cases of rap and incest, but the majority of American’s that have an abortion were never rapped or molested. But, I can tell you countless people that were born from mothers that were rapped and have grown up to live exception lives.

  • mellankelly1

    Abortion is killing period

    Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.  Period.  Is your issue with "killing" in general?  Please, we kill things (including people) every day… we kill criminals, we kill animals, we kill insects, we kill forests, we even kill innocent people (sometimes referred to as "collateral damage")

    So, in the name of convenience you can kill a baby you don’t want because you were to dump to protect yourself, and instead of growing up and learning responsibility you decide to take the life of a child.

    Two things… first, if someone kills a baby they go to jail (or spend a lot of time in a psychiatric facility).  Numero Dos, regardless of how you feel about it, it is every bit as responsible to terminate a pregnancy as it is go gestate a pregnancy. 

    It’s selfish and morally wrong.

    This is your opinion.  I believe that it is every bit as moral and caring to terminate a pregnancy as it is to gestate a pregnancy.  I find it to be selfish and morally wrong to force a woman to gestate a pregnancy or terminate a pregnancy.  Bottom line is that the person most qualified to decide the course of her own pregnancy is the pregnant woman… what you or I feel about her pregnancy is completely irrelevant.

    I know that there are cases of rap and incest, but the majority of American’s that have an abortion were never rapped or molested. But, I can tell you countless people that were born from mothers that were rapped and have grown up to live exception lives.

    And just what the heck does that have to do with anything?  What if I know "countless people" who were born from mothers that were completely incompetant and/or abusive and grew up to live miserable lives… would that mean that we should criminalize procreation?  How absurd.

  • invalid-0

    Amazing…In response to the simple fact that “abortion is killing, period”, registered user “Mellankelly1″ says:

    Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Period. Is your issue with “killing” in general? Please, we kill things (including people) every day… we kill criminals, we kill animals, we kill insects, we kill forests, we even kill innocent people (sometimes referred to as “collateral damage”)

    Comparing the killing of an unborn child to the killing of an animal or an insect…unbelievable, but not surprising on this site.

    After making the false distinction between killing a baby and terminating a pregnancy through abortion (which kills an unborn baby), this pro-abortion registered user goes on to respond to the observation that baby-murder is “selfish and morally wrong” by writing:

    This is your opinion. I believe that it is every bit as moral and caring to terminate a pregnancy as it is to gestate a pregnancy.

    What better illustration of the twisted thinking that gives us the pro-abortion movement? There’s simply nothing I can add to these statements…they say it all!

  • invalid-0

    After making the false distinction between killing a baby and terminating a pregnancy through abortion (which kills an unborn baby), this pro-abortion registered user goes on to respond to the observation that baby-murder is “selfish and morally wrong” by writing:

    aren’t we ever politically correct? [snark]

  • mellankelly1

    Comparing the killing of an unborn child to the killing of an animal or an insect…unbelievable, but not surprising on this site.

    Right… because killing anything other than an embryo or fetus is a-okay.

    After making the false distinction between killing a baby and terminating a pregnancy through abortion

    Hey… terminating a pregnancy and murdering a person aren’t the same thing, so lets hate the messenger instead of hating the fact.  Makes perfect sense, right?

    What better illustration of the twisted thinking that gives us the pro-abortion movement? There’s simply nothing I can add to these statements…they say it all!

    Yes, because women who terminate their pregnancies do so not after giving great thought to their current family obligations (including the children that they have), their economic situations and the state of their health before deciding what course their pregnancies should take but because they are selfish, uncaring harlots who get pregnant and abort on a whim, right?  Again… it’s good to know where your heads at.

  • http://www.monexfraud.com invalid-0

    I hate to say I’m on the fence on any issue, but on the abortion issue I am. The part of me that thinks of the unborn infant as a living feeling being really hates the whole concept of abortion. However, bleeding heart aside, the reality on the ground is this:

    1) 6.5 billion people on planet Earth is too many, and definitely too many to overvalue human lives.

    2) If a woman/girl gets an abortion it’s a good bet she wasn’t going to provide adequate mothering to the child.

    3) If it’s in her body how can I assume a right to tell her what to do with it? This is where she must make the decision and then live with that decision. I just don’t believe in policing other people’s lives even when some might consider it allowing murder.

    All that said, my sister got pregnant at age 20 and was not prepared for the responsibility to raise the child. Yet she decided to have the child anyway. Her daughter is one of the most beautiful and intelligent babies I have ever seen, and my sister is an outstanding mother to her. I love my niece, and I don’t think I’d want to be in a world where she hadn’t been born.

    For me at least, I don’t think the abortion issue will ever be cut and dried.

  • http://greekpierecipes.com/ invalid-0

    I am somehow sceptical about how things have been playing out recently. the whole situation has not been clarified yet and I am wondering if there will be a defining issue for this election at all. The sad thing is that both sides of the spectrum represent two political realities that are after the same pieces from the same pie.