Failed promises of abortion

Ishmael

Literotica Guru
Joined
Nov 24, 2001
Posts
84,005
Maggie Gallagher

January 27, 2003

Failed promises of abortion

Thirty years ago last week, the Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade, transforming abortion from a crime into a constitutional right. Thirty years later, it's a good time to reflect on what we were promised by abortion rights advocates and what we have gained.

Abortion, we were promised, would protect children from the horror of being unwanted and abused. Instead, after Roe, rates of child abuse and child poverty continued to soar, driven primarily by increased rates of family disintegration. In Newark, N.J., headlines scream about a child who is starved to death in a fragmented, fatherless and dysfunctional family. This is progress?

Cases like these are a grim reminder that abortion, if not a cause, has certainly proved no solution to abusive and neglectful parents.

Abortion, we were promised, was the key to progress for women. Women could have no meaningful rights unless we had the right to terminate a pregnancy. Thirty years later, abortions are disproportionately acts of the poorest and most vulnerable women among us. Half of all women having abortions, according to The New York Times, have had more than one. This is progress?

Since 1972, the feminization of poverty intensified, driven to a significant extent by dramatic, unexpected declines in the likelihood that a pregnant single woman will be able to make a stable marriage. Economists George Akerlof and Janet Yellen suggest that abortion was a technology shock, reducing the expectations of men and women about male responsibility in the event of pregnancy. This is progress?

Indeed, despite the repeated contention that women cannot be free or equal unless we are freed from responsibility for the lives our bodies make, a 1999 study by V.K. Pillai and G. Wang in Social Science Journal tried and failed to find any correlation between United Nations measures of social, economic or political equality for women and legalized abortion. Across the globe, there appears to be no relationship between economic and political rights for women and abortion rights.

What abortion does deliver for women is the ability to routinely engage in the sexual practices of the worst kind: meaningless sex with uncommitted partners, aka sexual liberation. The irony for women is that these risky sexual practices are not even very enjoyable. For women, recent research confirms, sexual satisfaction depends primarily on the emotional quality of her relationship with the man she is letting inside of her body.

Perhaps the biggest achievement of the anti-abortion movement in America is that, 30 years after Roe v. Wade, it is still vigorously, prominently here. Most Supreme Court decisions acquire legitimacy with age, but even Americans who support legalized abortion remain deeply uncomfortable with this act. According to an analysis of public opinion on abortion by Gallup, a majority of Americans have taken the middle position, saying abortion should be legal "only under certain circumstances." In the mid-'90s, public opinion abruptly shifted in a pro-life direction, apparently in response to the partial-birth abortion issue. Today, according to Gallup, only about a quarter of Americans think abortion should be legal in all circumstances.

Majorities of Americans support legal abortion only for medical, not social, reasons. Yet this year, in the richest society human beings have ever known, one out of four of our young will be killed before birth. This is progress?

In a June 2000 Los Angeles Times poll, Americans were asked to choose between these two statements: "Abortion is the same thing as murdering a child," or "Abortion is not murder because the fetus really isn't a child." Fifty-seven percent of Americans likened abortion to murdering a child.

Americans who support abortion do so reluctantly because they think it is a necessary evil. In the long run, reversing the abortion culture launched by Roe will require persuading Americans that pitting mothers against their unborn children is not a good way to help either.
 
Although the above commentary is not reflective of all my views I found some of the thoughts contained in it, as well as some of the cources cited to be thought provoking.

Ishmael
 
MAGGIE GALLAGHER
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/maggiegallagher/archive.shtml



Gallagher's first book, Enemies of Eros: How the Sexual Revolution is Killing Family, Marriage and Sex, was published by Bonus Books in 1989. Judge Robert Bork called it "lucid, witty, profound, devastating,"

Her next book, The Abolition of Marriage, on the decline of marriage and its social consequences, was published by Simon & Schuster in 1996.

Her latest book, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier and Better Off Financially was released in 2001.

Currently an affiliate scholar at the Institute for American Values, Gallagher has worked as an article editor of National Review, senior editor of the Manhattan Institute's City Journal, and as a senior fellow at the Center for Social Thought.

A graduate of Yale (class of '82), she lives with her husband and children in Westchester, N.Y.

Townhall.com is a one-stop mall of ideas in which people congregate to exchange, discuss and disseminate the latest news and information from the conservative movement.
 
Is it progress that we socially demean single women that do face the responsibility for the life their body created?

Thanks for the thought provoking post. But it is something I don't believe I will ever have a clear cut thought about.
 
intrigued said:
Is it progress that we socially demean single women that do face the responsibility for the life their body created?

Thanks for the thought provoking post. But it is something I don't believe I will ever have a clear cut thought about.

I reread the article and found nothing demeaning in it at all.

Statistically children from single parent households do much worse in life. Those are numbers. They are neither inherently demeaning or uplifting. They just are.

Ishmael
 
This is what I lovingly refer to as a piece of utter shite.
 
<Clip>
"Americans who support abortion do so reluctantly because they think it is a necessary evil. "

You and I probably both remember the stories that all too often crept into the news from pre-liberalization days of botched abortions Ish. I couldn't support anything that threw us back to those days; neither can I support the current disaster.

Rhumb
 
Anything that reduces the number of children is a good thing. Abortion has done that. That is progress.
 
lavender said:
This is what I lovingly refer to as a piece of utter shite.

Why did I know youd be here.

Pick it apart or forever hold your shite. :D

Ishmael

PS. I know where the flaw is, you can find it yourself seeing as how you shot off your mouth. ;)
 
gee...and I thought this thread was going to be about Hann's mom...oh well
 
The only thing Roe vs. Wade did and needed to do was provide physicians with the means to legally and safely provide a service to women that if they really wanted they would go out and seek anyway.

To presume any one thing will clear confusions of the rights of men and women when parenting is concerned, or will rectify the injustices that are done to children is absurd. That it would have an affect is not. That is hasn't had an affect I think would be impossible to tell seeing as there's no real valid control group that I can think of.

25% more population being born in this country would have an impact, I bet.
 
Ishmael said:
I reread the article and found nothing demeaning in it at all.

Statistically children from single parent households do much worse in life. Those are numbers. They are neither inherently demeaning or uplifting. They just are.

Ishmael
I never said that the article stated it or even implied it.
 
weed said:
The only thing Roe vs. Wade did and needed to do was provide physicians with the means to legally and safely provide a service to women that if they really wanted they would go out and seek anyway.

To presume any one thing will clear confusions of the rights of men and women when parenting is concerned, or will rectify the injustices that are done to children is absurd. That it would have an affect is not. That is hasn't had an affect I think would be impossible to tell seeing as there's no real valid control group that I can think of.

25% more population being born in this country would have an impact, I bet.

You nailed it weed. The author of the article, while factually correct, implies that because abortion didn't cure the problems that the proponents claimed it would that abortion contributed to making them worse.

As you pointed out, the two are disconnected. The high incidence of single parent households was not caused by abortion. A whole different set of social dynamics is at work there.

I did find the shift in public opinion interesting. I was under the impression it was still pretty much a 50/50 toss up.

Ishmael
 
Cases like these are a grim reminder that abortion, if not a cause, has certainly proved no solution to abusive and neglectful parents.

Agreed; the article revealed its Big Lie in paragraph three with the attempted "if" connector between two unrelated issues, abortion and parenting.

In addition, a Los Angeles Times poll is hardly representative of American opinion...we don't even know how many respondents took the poll.

There's a lot of shoddy, offensive crap that comes from townhall.com, Ishmael. Sure, it's provokative, but don't you sometimes think it gives conservatism a bad name?

Lance
 
Ishmael said:
You nailed it weed. The author of the article, while factually correct, implies that because abortion didn't cure the problems that the proponents claimed it would that abortion contributed to making them worse.

As you pointed out, the two are disconnected. The high incidence of single parent households was not caused by abortion. A whole different set of social dynamics is at work there.

I did find the shift in public opinion interesting. I was under the impression it was still pretty much a 50/50 toss up.

Ishmael

Yes, she does imply, doesn't she?

The remark that 25% of US believes that abortion should be legal in any circumstances does nothing to clarify the positions of the other 75% who may believe that some restrictions should be placed on the procedure. I would fall into that category. I personally don't think it should be a "same day" procedure. But I would not want it denied anyone. Even a minor.

Perhaps, especially a minor.

She brings up the partial-birth abortion as impetus for this. PBA's are used to inflame the issue and promote viewpoints based on emotionalism. Therefore, if true, the shifting of opionion is based on misrepresentation of the whole abortion issue.
 
What abortion does deliver for women is the ability to routinely engage in the sexual practices of the worst kind: meaningless sex with uncommitted partners, aka sexual liberation. The irony for women is that these risky sexual practices are not even very enjoyable. For women, recent research confirms, sexual satisfaction depends primarily on the emotional quality of her relationship with the man she is letting inside of her body.

*bullshit*

Indeed, despite the repeated contention that women cannot be free or equal unless we are freed from responsibility for the lives our bodies make

Using that logic, shouldn't we also make adoption illegal?

The whole article is bullshit... based on false connections and statistics that don't mean anything.

And just so you know... this is demeaning.

dramatic, unexpected declines in the likelihood that a pregnant single woman will be able to make a stable marriage.
 
Hamletmaschine said:
Anything that reduces the number of children is a good thing. Abortion has done that. That is progress.

I disagree, but then your smiling AV leads me to believe that your use the word "Anything" was broader than you intended.

Did you mean reduce the number of children born? There is a world of difference.
 
Ishmael said:
Abortion, we were promised, would protect children from the horror of being unwanted and abused. Instead, after Roe, rates of child abuse and child poverty continued to soar, driven primarily by increased rates of family disintegration. In Newark, N.J., headlines scream about a child who is starved to death in a fragmented, fatherless and dysfunctional family. This is progress?

Cases like these are a grim reminder that abortion, if not a cause, has certainly proved no solution to abusive and neglectful parents.

Is the article insinuating that Abortion rights came to late and these abusive parents were born?

How can elective abortion filter out abusive parents? Are they proposing the government control who can procreate?
 
Hamletmaschine said:
Anything that reduces the number of children is a good thing. Abortion has done that. That is progress.



In Newark, N.J., headlines scream about a child who is starved to death in a fragmented, fatherless and dysfunctional family. This is progress?
 
Americans who support abortion do so reluctantly because they think it is a necessary evil.

Wrong. Even if I am the only one, this comment becomes immediately false.

Why do these people think that their thought process should be everyone's?

How white bread of them.
 
Abortions should be retroactive. Parents should be allowed up to one month after the child is born to decide if the want it or not. If they don't want it they can wack them over the head with a metal pipe and suck their brains out with a shop-vac. There really is no difference.
 
Worm said:
Abortions should be retroactive. Parents should be allowed up to one month after the child is born to decide if the want it or not. If they don't want it they can wack them over the head with a metal pipe and suck their brains out with a shop-vac. There really is no difference.

:rolleyes:

One more for the Dumbass Clique.
 
Worm said:
Abortions should be retroactive. Parents should be allowed up to one month after the child is born to decide if the want it or not. If they don't want it they can wack them over the head with a metal pipe and suck their brains out with a shop-vac. There really is no difference.

Heh
 
CoolidgEffect said:
I disagree, but then your smiling AV leads me to believe that your use the word "Anything" was broader than you intended.

Did you mean reduce the number of children born? There is a world of difference.

Well, I think parents should have the option to abort until the kid reaches the age of consent.

But I realize that's not a popular view.
 
Back
Top