<p>Sylvan - I agree. And that’s precisely why I posted what I did. To make it absolutely clear that there are two sides of the fence (and my side of the fence - which is PRO-LIFE - is very heavily populated).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>MD Mom -</p>
<p>I did a quick google search and cannot find it playing anywhere in the states. Seems as if it only opened in Canada yesterday, from what I found. Has anyone else found it playing anywhere in the states?</p>
<p>My bet is that its distribution is going to widen pretty quickly due to this week’s fiasco.</p>
<p>“Some 20% of pregnancies end in abortions in the U.S., the vast majority among Christians (and Catholics). Cities with very high Catholic populations (such as NYC (41% in 2009) and Boston) have particularly high abortion rates.”</p>
<p>Your statement is too simple. While you may be correct, is the high abortion rate due to the number Catholics or some other population demographics? Perhaps these towns have greater populations of ____________ (enter your demographic information here) who may be more likely to have abortions.</p>
<p>Have no idea. As noted, the data that I have access to shows that American Catholics account for more than 30% of all abortions, and are only 22% of the population - so (it would seem) that Catholics are far more likely to have abortions than everyone else (is it possible that it is significantly more common for Catholics to use abortion as a form of birth control? I have no expertise in these matters whatsoever.)</p>
<p>I’m just Pro-Life, and glad that (in places where clinics aren’t being bombed and doctors being killed) abortion is safe and legal.</p>
<p>Mini, I think Handel will be gone by this Friday. She’ll resign to spend more time with her family. Do I have to pick a day? If so, I pick Wednesday.</p>
<p>Mini-</p>
<p>The problem with the term pro life is that in many people’s minds it means anti abortion, which leads to all kinds of glaring inconsistencies. For example, many people who are pro life support the death penalty, while many pro choice people are against it. Likewise, many pro life people will support gutting funding for programs that help poor kids including things like health care (medicaid for example), and I think it is because for them life seems to end at birth as such. Likewise, the hard pro life types are also anti sex, they are against sex education (claiming preaching ‘abstinence only’ is the only way), or dissemination of condoms and such and it doesn’t quite register with them that if you do that, you decrease abortions (not all, but many of the pro life types are also anti sex in many ways, they seem to have the old notions that sex is evil, it is for procreation, etc); they can’t look at statistics on teen pregnancy, for example, and note that the rates are highest in places where there is the highest resistance to thinks like planned parenthood and sex ed. Worse, many of them have the idea that if the ‘wages of sin’ ie. pregnancy is forced on women, somehow pre marital sex is going to go away (which among other things is the old eve syndrome, that if sex happens the woman must have seduced the man <em>gag</em>)</p>
<p>My concept of pro life is probably similar to yours, that to be pro life means you also recognize the quality of that life as well and look at consequences. Many of the ‘pro life’ anti abortion types, for example, stress adoption, but don’t look at the real world figures on that, that for example, getting minority babies adopted is extremely difficult and that is where a lot of the kids would be born if abortion was made illegal, and in effect it would either leave the kid a ward of the state or with a parent without the means or will to want to raise the kid. The real question is without abortion, what happens to the kids born to a parent who doesn’t want them (which is often the case the father is nowhere to be seen), what will their life be like? What is their quality of life, what will happen to them? It is the same way that as a parent, I could never take away the option of abortion for parents facing a child with severe disabilities or genetic diseases or the like, while I don’t know what I would do in that kind of case, I also can’t make that decision for others facing those kind of choices, which banning abortion would do. I kind of go along what Hillary Clinton said, that abortion should be rare but legal, there are far too many abortions being done but the answer is cutting the demand, not the supply. With volunteer work I have done and simply by reading the paper each day, I see too often what the results of unwanted kids are…as much as I would rather not see abortion, I also would rather not see children born to a parent or parents who can’t/don’t want to have it.</p>
<p>Eyeballing Mini’s statistics on which women and girls get abortions, it looks rather like the numbers reflect the demographics of the age group. Which is surprising, if true.</p>
<p>I think abortion should be rare too, because it is a medical procedure that is expensive and involves some significant risk to women. I think there are too many abortions, but simply because we haven’t done a good job with sex education, and with ensuring women have inexpensive, and easy access to contraception, and to morning-after pills. </p>
<p>And I’m proud to be PRO LIFE, with an adopted daughter, with a program that cares for more than 250 children, and an organization that works hard to promote survival rates among children under age 5 (in places where under-five mortality is as high or higher than 300 deaths per live births). And every time I get a call from the anti-abortionists trying to raise funds, I make it quite clear that I am PRO LIFE, and will work to ensure that abortion remains available, safe, and legal for those who make that choice.</p>
<p>mimi, I have teenage sons and they certainly have had good sex education at their school and definitely have access to condoms (unlike I did 40 years ago when I had to sneak to a pharmacy on the other side of town). So I am not sure what you mean. Also, when you say women should have inexpensive and easy access to contraception, what do you mean? Isn’t the price of contraception the price of contraception?</p>
<p>Once Komen decided to move down the path of trying to appease one side of the abortion debate they were doomed. Changing one’s practices and values to accommodate outside pressure can be a dangerous game, whether it’s bullies in elementary school or in American public life in the early 21st century. And nwo they’ve given in to outside pressure twice!!!</p>
<p>They began the compromising of their longstanding practices last November when they decided to defund breast cancer research if that research used embryonic stem cells.</p>
<p>The message from that decision was that when it came to what was more important to the organization - breast cancer research or choosing sides in abortion battles - Komen now does NOT hold curing breast cancer as its most important value.</p>
<p>Sad.</p>
<p>And lousy strategic planning by their newly hired policy VP.</p>
<p>Sometimes I question how much these organizations want to cure anything. A cure would put them out of business and business seems to trump cure. </p>
<p>If the Catholics and other religious groups that rail against abortions would just embrace birth control, a big part of the abortion problem would take care of itself. Great strides could be made in stopping unwanted pregnancies if everyone were on the same page.</p>
<p>“Also, when you say women should have inexpensive and easy access to contraception, what do you mean? Isn’t the price of contraception the price of contraception?”</p>
<p>We have a giant lawsuit in our state about pharmacies unwilling to stock Plan-B. Many health insurance plans refuse to cover birth control. Sex education is schools, in most places, is primitive.</p>
<p>More later.</p>
<p>Mini, I too consider myself pro-life, which is why I am pro-choice. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or today in Texas which is an abstinence-only state for sex-ed in public schools. Easy, free or low cost public access to birth control for Texas minors? Not in our wildest dreams. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, the price of contraception is not the price of contraception. The family planning clinic I am associated with buys contraception under a waiver that makes it far less expensive than it is for the general public, then we are able to provide it our clients at that same cost. </p>
<p>Further, pregnancy and then babies are a lot more expensive than contraception. I believe the state/fed gov. has good reason to subsidize contraception and make it as easily accessible as possible.</p>
<p>Looking at it purely economically, contraception should be free. It should be handed out on street corners and in baskets on bars like peanuts. A condom in every Happy Meal. Rather than hearing “It’s 11 pm, do you know where your children are?” it would be “It’s 11pm, have you taken your birth control pill?”</p>
<p>cartera, but it isn’t free. Someone has to pay.</p>
<p>I am curious is anyone is hearing anything about restoring the funding for stem cel research?</p>
<p>geo, we’re all paying anyway. Unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children are very expensive and we all pay. It is a classic pay now or pay later. The government of course would be a source, but insurance companies could kick in more too if it were completely socially acceptable. They have a lot to gain by preventing pregnancies.</p>
<p>catera, I just don’t buy that people today have less info and less access to information and products about sex, pregnancies and the ramifications than we had 40 years ago when I was in high school.</p>
<p>This thread is so gone. I still stick by Wednesday for Handel’s resignation, though.</p>
<p>I ask that the thread be closed and my post gets deleted? That’s a response?</p>