Thursday, January 22, 2009

Obama is off to a good start

It still remains to be seen where he is going, but he is off to a good start. The gag order on abortions has been removed, as expected. He's ordered Guantanamo closed. He's ordered an end to torture. (Though now what I want to see him do is order torture prosecutions. My sincere hope is evidence is started to be gathered quietly on this, but that is just a hope).

So far, my hope is still alive, against all odds. It is nice to have a little of that. It beats being a cynical bastard all of the time. Probably improves my health, too.


nabi88 said...

Because I am Pro-Life, I think it is sad the abortion debate never talks about the third option people have for unwanted pregnancy. People only talk about aborting a pregnancy or raising an unwanted child. What about adoption? These women who do not want their children can give them to a deserving family who very much “wants” them.

DBB said...

It is talked about plenty. Plenty of babies are given up for adoption. But what is left out of those adoption discussions by those on the pro-life side is the fact that having a baby ALWAYS risks the death of the mother and even where it is a relatively normal pregnancy, it has drastic effects on a woman's health and well being for several years, including the pregnancy and the recovery afterwards. Just because adoption is an option doesn't mean you can force a woman to risk death and be a human incubator, as well as face the emotional trauma of having and giving up a baby, a baby who will potentially come looking for the mother some day.

So again, it isn't that adoption isn't considered or discussed. I'm sure it is. But ultimately, the decision about what option to pick, be it option one, two, or three, is with the woman, period. Pro-choice is all about giving options and then letting the person most impacted make the decision. It is her body. It is her life.

C Woods said...

What about an even better option that might please everyone ---prevention of pregancy?

But isn't it interesting that the people who are opposed to abortion are often the very ones who are against sex education, against birth control, against distribution of condoms, for abstinence-only programs that don't work?

I don't understand the people who oppose a politician who supports freedom of choice. What has any recent "pro-life" president (Bush 1 or 2, Reagan) done for the "pro-life" cause? Nothing. Why? Because they know it would turn into a nightmare like Prohibition. One could make abortion illegal, but how does the government enforce it? Probably about as well as illegal drugs. Women will get abortions anyway ---but instead of safe, clean clinics, they will use back-alley abortionists or return to using coat hangers. As soon as a few nice upper-class white parents have daughters who died from botched abortions, there would be an outcry to bring legal abortions back.

DBB said...

I think the GOP doesn't really want Roe overturned (as I said in a previous post) because it is too big a rallying point for fundraising and getting out the vote. If it were overturned, that would mobilize the pro-choicers and demobilize the pro-lifers and, more to the point, it would make pro-life politicians pay a price for their views. Right now, a pro-choice person can vote for a pro-life candidate, secure in the knowledge that Roe is there - like if they have other issues they care about more. Eliminate Roe and suddenly, that is issue number one.

And yes, I think the core of the pro-life movement is more about controlling women than about caring about life. Otherwise preventing pregnancy through programs that work (contraception!) would be the focus. But they show no interest in this whatsoever, and in fact, block contraception as much as possible.