Why has abortion become so hot in this election cycle?

[freein05]

The comments made by men about how they would control a woman's body when it comes to abortion is disturbing. The latest comes from another guy running for thr senate. Here is his dumb statement.

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” God intended it to happen. I guess when a person commits murder God intended it to happen.

Now ask yourself how would a women feel being forced to have a baby conceived from

[Alan]

The comments made by men about how they would control a woman's body when it comes to abortion is disturbing.
I think it has less to do with controlling a woman's body than protecting an innocent life. But, a fetus/infant can't vote so the political marketers must concentrate on the woman.

[San Onofre Guy]

I think one of the reasons that it has become so hot during this political cycle stems from the fact that the parties have become so polarized. The Republicans in some states have become controlled by extremists in their party to such an extent that they will not support a candidate that does not support extreme positions. Thus unlike the past, extreme candidates win primaries where in years past they did not. Note that one of the best middle of the road Senator's, Richard Lugar losing his primary race. The person who made that dumb comment beat him!

[Gregg]

I think Alan is exactly right regarding why most people who are anti-abortion feel that way. That feeling is what would stop me from considering abortion in my own life. That said, I thought Richard Mourdock chose a particularly ridiculous way to describe his stand regardless of whether it comes from pandering to a base that more extreme or simply loosing touch with reality.

[bae]

I don't see a difference between the moral consideration owed a child conceived from rape and that owed a child conceived from consensual intercourse.

Thus, I do not spend efforts in my reasoning concerning abortion trying to draw that particular line, and I don't quite understand the whole "I'm against abortion, except in cases of rape/incest", because that approach seems intellectually lacking to me.

[iris lily]

well free, my friend, I think that abortion is popular in these last few weeks of the election because

1) it provides sound bites that the idiot media think are sizzling

2) it deflects the real problems of the world

[Lainey]

Also it reminds voters that the next president could likely nominate 1 or 2 Supreme Court justices, and depending on their persuasion, Roe would get overturned just like that.

[loosechickens]

To my way of thinking, it has become a hot issue because of the extreme views of the issue being espoused by a number of male Republican legislators and people running for national office.

There are certainly differences of opinion regarding abortion, by thoughtful and sincere people. And we can respect that. However, we, in this election, seem to be faced with a Republican party that apparently believe that government should be FAR more limited, individual freedom should be a most important thing, yet seem all too willing to have government step right into womens' lives, in extremely intrusive ways, in medical and health decisions, because of THEIR religious or political views.

I guess they want the government to keep their hands off their money, but are perfectly willing to have the heavy hand of government control women, their reproductive decisions and even their rights to health care. And also, seem quite willing to protect the DNA deposited by criminal rapists rather than to protect the woman who was the traumatised victim of a heinous crime.

They wish to put the rights to a nearly microscopic collection of cells over the rights of fully grown, intelligent and able women, even to the point of wishing to force a woman to take a pregnancy to term and give birth to her rapist's child.

We live in a country whose Supreme Court has said that a woman's right to privacy extends to her being able to make decisions about her own reproductive life, and whether or not she chooses to terminate a pregnancy. In fact, Roe vs Wade simply legalizes that right, without conditions. Republicans make no bones about wishing to see this right overturned, and in their official platform, do not even make exceptions for victims of crimes.

Over time, a consensus seems to have arisen with many if not most people that early abortion in the first trimester, before the fetus could sustain life, is, if not acceptable, the woman's decision to make. If you get pregnant and don't believe in abortion, you have the choice to continue the pregnancy, but if you don't wish to do so, you have the right to terminate that pregnancy. Many restrictions have been placed on late term abortions (despite the fact that the huge majority of such abortions are made for serious medical reason, not simply because the woman has decided that she doesn't want to continue the pregnancy). While support for restrictions on late term abortions is wide, support for all out bans on abortion, especially ALL abortions is a decidedly minority view.

However, in THIS election, we are faced with an official Republican platform that says that abortion should be illegal EVEN in cases of rape and incest. The official Republican position in their official platform is that should a woman be criminally and brutally raped, her victimization should be extended to having to give birth to the child she was forced to conceive during a crime, against her will, and to allow that criminal rapist's DNA to be replicated into the future.

We had Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on tape saying that women should not have access to contraception because "it leads to improper sexual behavior". The Republican nominee, Mitt Romney wants to make abortion illegal and is on the record saying that he wants Roe vs Wade to be reversed, and if he is elected President, we can be sure that he will nominate Supreme Court judges that would be in agreement with his view.

The Republican candidate for Vice President, Paul Ryan, wants to make abortion illegal even in cases of rape and incest.

We have Republican Todd Akin (who, believe it or not, serves on the U.S. Congress's committee on science), in a ridiculous, completely incorrect view, speaking out to say that we don't need to make an exception for pregnancy caused by rape, because if it is a "legitimate" rape, the woman's body has a built in system to reject that alien semen. Of course, the many thousands of women who have become pregnant after brutal, criminal rapes would beg to disagree.

Now we have a candidate for the U.S. Senate, Republican Mourdock, who is so taken with the preciousness of God intending for that pregnancy to happen (persumably overcoming, he is, after all, God, the woman's supposed built in defenses against such pregnancies, that regardless of how the pregnancy started (by a brutal crime), that woman should be further victimized by not allowing an abortion, because GOD intends that pregnancy. One might wonder that if God is that powerful, he might have prevented the rape in the first place, but.........

I'm sorry, but ANY woman in this country who believes that the Republican party has respect for her personhood, her right to make decisions about her own reproductive health care, etc., deserves exactly what they will end up getting should the Republicans be able to put their aims into law and practice.

If you are a woman, and you vote Republican in this election, you are handing over your rights to control your own body, your own decisions about your reproductive system, etc., not to your doctors, but to a group of men, mostly supremely unqualified to make such decisions, ignorant of science, and certainly indifferent to women or their rights. Go into that voting booth with your eyes open, because these guys are NOT on YOUR side. JMHO

[redfox]

I think it has less to do with controlling a woman's body than protecting an innocent life. But, a fetus/infant can't vote so the political marketers must concentrate on the woman.
And precisely why the choice to carry to term is up to the carrier.

[loosechickens]

The disconnect with the Republicans between their supposed wish to get the government out of their lives and off of their backs, isn't just to let them alone to hoard all the money they can put their hands on, and trash the environment free of those pesky environmental controls, while calling on government to exercise almost Orwellian control over women, their health, their reproductive choices, and of course, who gay people can marry......

But, even within the places where they are happy to let men in government have the last say about women and their health in one area, they have hissy fits about it in others.....I saw this comment tonight on the internet by a person commenting on a news article......and it made me chuckle.

It must almost make some of these folks' heads explode trying to encompass all the contradictions and hypocrisy in their views....

"Republicans were up in arms about the idea of the government "forcing" an HPV vaccination on their 11 year old daughters, even though they could opt out.

But here is the truth about the republican platform. According to the republican platform, an 11 year old girl who gets impregnated by a rapist, would be required by the government to carry that pregnancy to term. Parents would have no say in that decision. How on earth is that "Small Government"."

hmmmmmm.....certainly made ME think......ohmigod, the sky is falling if that evil government tries to make me vaccinate my daughter to protect here from cervical cancer (and even allows me the right to opt out), but if my little girl is brutally raped by a violent adult man, and she becomes preggers, I guess I'll be happy to allow the government to force her to carry his fetus for nine months, and I'll hold her hand through her labor and be glad that those "wonderful" Republican men were so protective of that rapist's sperm and the results of their trip through her body to find that egg........Isn't government wonderful?

Heck, MY head feels like it might explode. g'nite........back in a couple weeks, hopefully.

[peggy]

I think it has less to do with controlling a woman's body than protecting an innocent life. But, a fetus/infant can't vote so the political marketers must concentrate on the woman.

Who apparently doesn't have a vote....:(

[ToomuchStuff]

I understand the rape/incest angle quite well. One grandfather was treated much different because he was bore out of a rape, and a failed attempt at abortion. So being unwanted, he was beaten as a child and that went down the line. I am not going to go into more, as it is too personal, but I cannot understand anyone, wanting to force an unloved or unwanted child into this world, when we have so many thrown away as is.
I've seen a lot of crime towards and by kids. From a strictly financial point, Freakenomics had an interested hypothesis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw

[jp1]

I'd be curious to know what Mourdock's view is regarding war. Since he's against abortion, even in situations where violence caused the pregnancy, it would seem logical, at least to me, that he should be against war in pretty much all circumstances as well. Either all life is sacred and to be protected, or it isn't. And surely in his mind President Truman must've been an especially evil human, in light of all the innocent residents of Japan whose lives he decided to take when he made the decisions to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[puglogic]

I'd be curious to know what Mourdock's view is regarding war. Since he's against abortion, even in situations where violence caused the pregnancy, it would seem logical, at least to me, that he should be against war in pretty much all circumstances as well. Either all life is sacred and to be protected, or it isn't. And surely in his mind President Truman must've been an especially evil human, in light of all the innocent residents of Japan whose lives he decided to take when he made the decisions to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

JP, sending you my best wishes for an exceptionally beautiful day today, for this comment.

[Gregg]

Either all life is sacred and to be protected, or it isn't.

Agreed (and I'll vote for "is").

[peggy]

Of course where republican positions are on abortion, rape, fertilized egg and it's '14th amendment rights' (Ryan) etc..there is the rather sticky conundrum of whether it's a girl fetus or a boy fetus. I mean, if that fertilized egg happens to be female, and we have already determined that females don't have right over their own bodies, then I guess abortion would be ok, right? Who speaks for the female fetus if the female forced to carry that female fetus can't even speak for herself, much less the female fetus who, by being female, is denied the rights of her own body? Perhaps the republican right can consult with the Taliban, who I'm sure have an answer to this.:(
Oh what tangled webs we weave,
When females, other girls conceive!

[puglogic]

Agreed (and I'll vote for "is").

Makes for an interesting conversation about gun control and property protection/make my day laws too, doesn't it? Evidently a human life is worth less than the flat screen TV someone might be stealing from you. And if one feels their person is being threatened, then you have to make that judgment call of whether your life is worth more than theirs, correct?

I think if you compared the demographics of the make-my-day-law crowd with the anti-abortion crowd, you'd get a lot of crossover in the U.S.

I have a relative who preaches (literally) that it's only INNOCENT life the anti-abortion crowd is concerned with. So if only an innocent life is to be preserved at all costs, who gets to decide what's innocent? If it's the Catholic church that's to be believed, well, then, we're all conceived carrying a heavy burden of sin already. So much for that.

Gets a little messy, I'd say.

It's purely a political issue. There's no compassion involved in these things - do you really think the sign-waver at Planned Parenthood gives a damn about the women he's shouting at? He's concerned about that poor innocent little cuddly baby-to-be, who may grow up to be Trayvon Martin and deserve to be shot. At what age did that poor embryo cross the line between preserve-at-all-costs and the enemy who needed killin'?

I did hear (from hiding in the kitchen) Colbert's great riff on Team Rape last night, and it was quite funny...thought of you, Peggy. Again, purely political, but very sharp.

[freein05]

I would guess that if a man had to carry an unwanted baby in his scrotum and pass the baby through his penis he would feel differently.

[peggy]

I would guess that if a man had to carry an unwanted baby in his scrotum and pass the baby through his penis he would feel differently.

+1 :laff::laff:

[bae]

Seems to me there is a significant moral difference between initiating the use of force unprovoked, and using force in legitimate self defense.

[Gregg]

Makes for an interesting conversation about gun control and property protection/make my day laws too, doesn't it? Evidently a human life is worth less than the flat screen TV someone might be stealing from you. And if one feels their person is being threatened, then you have to make that judgment call of whether your life is worth more than theirs, correct?

I think if you compared the demographics of the make-my-day-law crowd with the anti-abortion crowd, you'd get a lot of crossover in the U.S.

I have a relative who preaches (literally) that it's only INNOCENT life the anti-abortion crowd is concerned with. So if only an innocent life is to be preserved at all costs, who gets to decide what's innocent? If it's the Catholic church that's to be believed, well, then, we're all conceived carrying a heavy burden of sin already. So much for that.

Gets a little messy, I'd say.

It's purely a political issue. There's no compassion involved in these things - do you really think the sign-waver at Planned Parenthood gives a damn about the women he's shouting at? He's concerned about that poor innocent little cuddly baby-to-be, who may grow up to be Trayvon Martin and deserve to be shot. At what age did that poor embryo cross the line between preserve-at-all-costs and the enemy who needed killin'?

I did hear (from hiding in the kitchen) Colbert's great riff on Team Rape last night, and it was quite funny...thought of you, Peggy. Again, purely political, but very sharp.

Kind of a Pandora's Box post there pug. All your points are relevant and worth discussing, I'm just not sure this is the place. A couple quick thoughts that come to mind are along the lines of can you consider life sacred and still take it? I eat meat so even though I am not the butcher I am responsible for taking multiple lives in most weeks. While I claim to feel that life is sacred (and I don't see why that should be limited to human life) there is certainly room to argue that I am a hypocrite because of that practice.

Re: guns. As you already know I consider a gun nothing more than a very efficient tool. Any tool can do harm if the person using it is untrained or has malicious intent. Two of my dearest friends were killed by gunfire in September so I've had a real chance (and reason) to reflect quite deeply on this. All roads lead me to the conclusion that the guns themselves are not the problem, it is the condition of the lives and communities of the people carrying the guns that causes the problems. How we address that is more or less a constant part of the conversation here.

For me personally, I don't believe I would ever inflict harm on someone trying to take my flat screen TV, whether I had the legal right to do so or not. I would do so without hesitation if that same person were threatening my wife or daughter, but I assure you it would not make my day.

The thought of innocent life is a philosophical debate that has gone on for thousands of years. As you mentioned, the Catholic Church's doctrines (among others) haven't exactly helped ease that debate. The thought of standing up for someone who can't stand up for themselves is what leads a lot of us to feel abortion is more than just a procedure. I've said before that I am not qualified to make that kind of moral decision for someone else. I just don't have that kind of clarity so I only make that choice in my own life; others need to decide for themselves. Some people have beliefs strong enough or deep enough to feel they can see the truth. I can't see it, but I also don't have any proof that those people are wrong.

You're obviously right about abortion becoming a political issue. That's too bad. It takes all the humanity out of the most intensely human debate we could have. I can't tell you how to correct that. Wish I could.

[puglogic]

Put very eloquently, as usual. As you well know, Gregg, I have no solutions. I'm rarely found out here trying to change minds. Push back and open them, maybe. But not change them. Whine a little from time to time :)

I'm also one of those who is anti-abortion but pro-choice. I find the practice barbaric in many ways, as I have a deep respect for that wild miracle that creates life in the first place. It knocks me down, amazes me daily. I think a second trimester abortion (or beyond) is among the most sickening things I can imagine. But that does not make me line up behind the so-called "pro-life" crowd, which -- as you can tell -- I find utterly hypocritical.

And I am not anti-gun. I own guns and know how to use them. Well. Anti-assault-weapon, anti-armor-piercing-bullets, anti-no-background-checks, anti-NRA-political-pressure, yes. But I am in agreement with you on gun ownership. It's a tool. A deadly tool, but still a tool. But they can have my car, my TV, my lawn mower every single time. They're just things, you know? Now, threaten the lives of my husband or family and I will drill you cleanly, without a moment's regret. What does that make me?

I loved this:


For me personally, I don't believe I would ever inflict harm on someone trying to take my flat screen TV, whether I had the legal right to do so or not. I would do so without hesitation if that same person were threatening my wife or daughter, but I assure you it would not make my day.

[freein05]

Very well put Gregg. I feel the same way but you said it better then I could.

Gregg said:

"I've said before that I am not qualified to make that kind of moral decision for someone else. I just don't have that kind of clarity so I only make that choice in my own life; others need to decide for themselves. Some people have beliefs strong enough or deep enough to feel they can see the truth. I can't see it, but I also don't have any proof that those people are wrong."

[mtnlaurel]

I advocate women having access to safe and legal abortion and will vote accordingly.

I would much prefer to live in a country where abortion is safe and legal and all of us that believe in the sacredness of life at the moment of conception are pouring their energy into supporting women as they bring sacred life to term.
Let's accept that abortion is legal and the woman carrying the child has control over her body and let's do everything possible to stop unwanted pregnancies to begin with or provide support for the mother as she carries the child to term and if she chooses to, help facilitate finding a loving childless couple to adopt the child.

The reason it is a big deal this election cycle is that we are on the precipice of turning back the hands of time on Women's Issues by decades if the far-right-wing-hijacked GOP continues in power.

[peggy]

I advocate women having access to safe and legal abortions and will vote accordingly.

I would much prefer to live in a country where abortion is safe and legal and all of us that believe in the sacredness of life at the moment of conception are pouring their energy into supporting women as they bring sacred life to term.
Let's accept that abortion is legal and the woman carrying the child has control over her body and let's do everything possible to stop unwanted pregnancies to begin with or provide support for the mother as she carries the child to term and if she chooses to, help facilitate finding a loving childless couple to adopt the child.

The reason it is a big deal this election cycle is that we are on the precipice of turning back the hands of time on Women's Issues by decades if the far-right-wing-hijacked GOP continues in power.

+1

[Aqua Blue]

I advocate women having access to safe and legal abortion and will vote accordingly.

I would much prefer to live in a country where abortion is safe and legal and all of us that believe in the sacredness of life at the moment of conception are pouring their energy into supporting women as they bring sacred life to term.
Let's accept that abortion is legal and the woman carrying the child has control over her body and let's do everything possible to stop unwanted pregnancies to begin with or provide support for the mother as she carries the child to term and if she chooses to, help facilitate finding a loving childless couple to adopt the child.

The reason it is a big deal this election cycle is that we are on the precipice of turning back the hands of time on Women's Issues by decades if the far-right-wing-hijacked GOP continues in power.

1+. I almost see the Republicans saying "Well the Democrats are pro abortion and pro gay rights. There is this whole group of people who are anti these things. If we act like we are on that side we could get all of their votes. Then we could have our agenda of protecting the wealthy and wars....Having been raised in a fundamental christian enviroment I find them mostly very short sighted. I doubt they have the interest to really care for the woman in crisis. JMUO

[ApatheticNoMore]

I almost see the Republicans saying "Well the Democrats are pro abortion and pro gay rights. There is this whole group of people who are anti these things. If we act like we are on that side we could get all of their votes. Then we could have our agenda of protecting the wealthy and wars....

The wars and the plutocracy are sure to continue. Though it might be a kinder gentler war and plutocracy or a more naked sort (although I'm not sure, the Dems don't exactly wage kinder gentler war, *maybe* on the plutocracy though).

Not kinder gentler war from the Dems:
"Having spoken with dozens of officials across both administrations,I am convinced that those serving under President Bush were actually much more conscious and thoughtful about the long-term implications of targeted killings than those serving under Obama.”
http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2012/10/24/institutionalizing-americas-targeted-killing-program/ (click to find out why)

On issues that' don't affect the profits of the powers that be, parties are free to take stands. It's not even just that the parties are bad, though I think an argument can be made for that. It's really just systematic: too much money in politcs.

Anyway, ever very single time I see this topic:

Why has abortion become so hot in this election cycle?

I want to make the crack:

To avoid talking about the climate!

Cause it makes me smile every time, gallows humor that it is.

Really though I can understand why someone would be opposed to abortion but trying to legistlate it is never likely to work. It's when they start going after birth control and so on that I'm really like wtf is that? They imagine they will create a good society that way, and they surely never will.

[San Onofre Guy]

I do find it interesting how Republicans want government to get out of our personal issues.....except on what a woman can and cannot do with her body, and who can love whom etc