BlogHer - pro-choice - Comments

whew!

ebradley — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:13:34 -0600

you are very, very intelligent. it's actually impressive how well written you are. so, before we get into a 20 paragraph text war, please know that i don't mean to offend or accuse. i'm honestly just very passionate about the issue. i also am completely open to hearing why you are, though it's pretty much all right there in your blog! anyway, at the risk of being too wordy and losing your attention, let's agree to be friendly in our discussion for the sake of learning something. please let's also check the sarcasm at the subject line...there's no need. besides, it loses it's meaning in "text" anyway...

have you ever seen and actual abortion video? even at 8 weeks it's brutal. (i'll assume you have) it's bloody, it's disturbing and even for the pro-choice, it's uncomfortable to see. since you're better than i at explaining your passion, help me to understand how the evidence of an actual abortion, either by photos or video is justifiable for absolutely any reason. it's nothing less than slaughter. can you disagree with that? it goes beyond being ready to have a baby. beyond finances. beyond convenience. beyond putting "rights on a woman's body". it's ripping apart flesh, crushing bones, burning insides. how can we look away? how is it that the arguement is about rebellion? it seems to me that we look away from the horror that it is and justify it by saying the slaying of a life is worth protecting my "rights".

The poor logic of the pro life

Poobah — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:02:56 -0600

Pro-Life, Pro-Choice & the Meaning of Words

How words and language is used shapes the outcome of a
logical argument.
To get to a logically consistent, and intellectually
honest conclusion, one must use words that have a clear and
unambiguous meaning.
Often lawmakers do not do this. Hence we have very bad
laws that defy logic and common sense, and as a result to a great
deal of harm to individuals and to society as a whole. The only
people benefiting from these laws are prejudiced individuals who
are immune to logic. For example, most drug laws, and almost all
laws pertaining to marijuana are of this type. A more recent
example of the destructive use of language --- calling something
by a different name --- is Credit Default Swaps. These were a
form of insurance. In this case the financial institutions
instead of saying that X is B, said said that X is NOT B. By
calling something that was insurance by a different name, NOT
insurance, they managed to avoid appropriate regulation, and to
eventually create the economic mess in which we find ourselves.
Any definition that includes within itself the use of the
word that it is defining, is automatically suspect, and probably
invalid. There are many ways of defining a vegetable for example,
but you will seldom if ever see a vegetable defined as something
that comes from or is a vegetable
When it comes to human, on the other hand, that concept is
--- well complicated ---. It seems that all definitions contain
the word human, or some synonym such as people. That is, it is
not trivially easy to find a meaningful definition. Here is one
such definition from Kenneth Burke:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_man.
I am sure that there are others.
When defining a human without using the term human in the
definition one is always defining an adult human. Any other
definition would be unable to distinguish a very young child from
a pathologically hairless primate.
Historically, any definition that does not use the word
human as part of the definition will not define a child except as
some sort of potential human. In fact, historically, the killing
of a child was a crime of property since children and women were
in fact property, not equivalent to any form of homicide.

The point of the above is to point out what is far from
obvious. That is, that without a circular definition, or the kind
of legal fictions in which our representatives, acting as self
ordained gods indulge, one can not logically say that a fetus or a
child is the same thing as a fully realized human being. I used
the term god in the sense that the bible does when referring to an
entity that creates reality by the power of the word. It is
unfortunate that our “public servants” often see themselves as
some form of god, able to define reality by the power of their
written word.

Many who are pro-life cite the laws that state that if a man
harms a woman in such a way as to cause here to abort her fetus,
then he is guilty of a form of homicide. They then go on to claim
that it is a hypocrisy to then allow the woman to terminate the
pregnancy. This line of reasoning is false for the following:

In order to object to dying beyond a very pr imitative
reflexive level exhibited by almost reproducing systems, such a
system must have a concept of death. Any human not yet a capable
of language has no such concept and thus can not object.
The reason that we have laws pertaining to homicide is the
assumption that nobody wants to die. But this presumes an entity
capable of wanting and objecting to dying, either now or sometime
in the future.
The question: Would objected to being aborted? is not
really a question of the same sort as, would have objected to
being killed last week. Many people can make a coherent argument
about the lack of meaning of the first, and yet almost everybody
will say that, yes they would have objected to being killed last
week.
Laws, to have meaning, have to relate to parties who have
an interest in the situation. That is why many lawsuits are
dismissed because the people involved have no standing.
An entity that does not have a comprehension of death can
not have standing in relative law. Person A, can object to a
stranger being killed, because the person doing the killing, may
later kill person A. Laws against all forms of homicide are
relevant to all people who can feel threatened by that. However,
in the case of a mother and fetus, the only entity with standing
is the mother. In a similar manner, a person with severe
neurological deficits and indicating little if any brain activity
has no standing, though his/her family does.
Because of this, it is not logically inconsistent to have
a law that says that it is homicide to cause the termination of a
pregnancy against the mothers will since she is the only one with
standing in the case.

In fact, in reality, a person or what we normally call a human
is NOT a child, and neither one is a fetus. As a society we may or
may not give them the same or similar rights or responsibilities.
Indeed, in different states, the offspring of humans indeed have
rights and responsibilities that vary from state to state for a
given age. But let me restate. When we refer to humans, we are
seldom referring to children or to fetuses. Likewise, when we
refer to children or fetuses, we are NOT referring to humans but
to potential humans.

In addition to the above logic we know the following:

The nature of the adult at age, say 21, indeed even its vary
existence depends on many things. While people who claim to be
pro-life attribute some sort of specialness or sacredness to a
fertilized egg, any basic search will turn up the fact that the
rate of spontaneous abortions, AFTER pregnancy is confirmed,
varies from 12 to 20 percent. Various estimates of spontaneous
abortions that occur before pregnancy is confirmed range up to
twice that. That is, nature concludes that 20% or more of
fertilized eggs are not in any way viable and thus implantation
does not take place, or if it does, it does not last for more than
a couple of weeks.

The point of all of this is to offer clear and convincing
evidence that a fertilized egg is NOT a human. It is, at most a
blueprint for what might, under the right circumstances, with a
little bit of luck, become a human being. Often, 10 to twenty
percent of the time in fact, the fertilized egg does not become a
human but is expelled by the body. Sometimes the badness of the
fertilized egg is not recognized, and what develops is some entity
that will not survive after birth, or if it does survive, will
require very expensive lifelong care.

And here is a good time to note the degree to which those who
torture language by calling a fertilized egg a human, torture it
more by saying that “God does not make mistakes” If a
fertilized egg that is rejected by the mother, or a blob of flesh
without a brain or is in some other way can not survive outside of
the mother is not a mistake, then exactly what is a mistake?

A person can call a fertilized a human on the grounds that it
comes from a human. But lots of things come from humans that are
not human. And of course calling something human because it comes
from a human is a circular definition, which we noted above is a
logical fallacy similar to circular reasoning.

In conclusion, those who put forth the argument of right to
life have no logic, no facts, no biblical scholarship* no biology
and no compassion on their side. They simply want what they want
and are willing to use the power of the state, which includes
killing, to get it.

One final thought on the misuse of words. Fully grown oak trees
are valuable things. Imagine that you had a contract for the
delivery of a dozen Oak trees to your sawmill, and the person to
whom you paid money for those trees showed up with a dozen
seedlings. Or better yet, a bag of Acorns. And then to add insult
to injury stated that under law that all three of these are the
same so that he kept the terms of the contract.

I have no problem with people wanting to give different things
the same legal protections. Peta, for example, wants to give
primates the same legal rights as people in many circumstances.
But they do not do this by telling the lie that primates are the
same as people. Even though evidence would show that, by many
measures, many primates are smarter than many people. This
argument is not about if a fetus should have the same rights as a
30 year old adult human. It is about the factual and logical lies
that the Pro life people cling to that a fetus is the same as an
adult human.

* True believing zealots, immune to logic and reason cite some
of the following

http://www.ccel.us/BiblePassages.html

to prove that a fetus is human. I would like for one of them to
take any of the statements on the above page and apply it to a
spontaneous abortion. Especially a late term spontaneous abortion.
That would surely make for an interesting paper. But these are the
same people who still insist that, according to the bible, some
day in the past, the sun stood still in the sky. This biblical
statement was used for hundreds of years to punish people who put
forth the idea that the earth actually moved about the relatively
stationary sun. It only took the Catholic church 400 years to
admit that error.

A little footnote here on the MISuse of the word proof or
prove. EVIDENCE IS NOT PROOF. Evidence is evidence.

If you would like to comment, please send me an Email

Feel free to post links to this, or just take it, in its
entirety and put it in your site with attribution.

I could be wrong about any of this. I am open to logic and
facts that refute any of the above. Please be aware that name
calling is the technique used by people who have neither logic nor
facts on their side. Any editorial contributions are welcome.

A section on consequences. Has anyone thought that if an
abortion is some form of manslaughter, then every spontaneous
abortion must be investigated as a possible homicide? And should
we have some regulation that every woman who travels outside the
country must take a pregnancy test so that her other mommy, the
state, can be sure that she is not leaving the country to commit
murder?

my take on life

babyamg7 — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 02:54:18 -0600

well Ive spent about an hour reading what everyone has to say and i agree and disagree with so much of it ....here's what i have to say ...i think the baby is a baby .....when lacy Peterson was murdered the whole country thought of her and her baby ..not her and her ball of cells .....he took 2 lives ...hers and her unborn baby's .....so why is it a baby when someone wants it? but a ball of cells when an inconvenience ........and when pro-choicers say its not a life because it cannot live without its mother? i don't understand that either? because an newborn infant cannot survive without someone Else's dependency ....so in a pro-choicers view it should be OK to kill children until they can care for themselves because there mother chose not to take care of them .... I'm pro-life ....i don't believe in the death penalty in any circumstance...i don't believe in embryonic stem cell research i think no one should have the power to take away a humans life/soul ....i am a firm believer in a woman's choice ..i chose to do what i want when i want but i don't chose to be a prostitute or steal or sell drugs or murder because its wrong and you go to jail for these kind of things .....so just because we believe in choice doesn't mean we get the right to chose to murder .....and i agree that more should be done to educate so unwanted pregnancy's accrue way less often i have two daughters they are just baby's now but as there mother and teacher i will try my hardest to raise them as my mother raised me ..very strictly lol my mom raised me to believe in god and to try my hardest to be moral ...i saved my self for marriage and for the respect and strength of myself and my husband .....so it can be taught and im no saint either when i was first married i took birth control but when i googled is birth control abortive i was in shock to know it was i also asked my doctor and he confirmed that if you believe life begins at conception it is abortive so i flushed my pills very sadly and now i have 2 daughters at 22 and my 1st was planned but if i would have been taking my pills i wouldn't have my unplanned beautiful 1yr old marykate who i love and adore.........anymore people just except immoral things because they think its normal ...but its not ....and I'm not saying that if a woman gets an abortion she will be dammed to hell because i truly believe in my heart that most woman who get abortions don't fully understand what they are aborting and as fare as the rape issue goes its very rare but if it happened to me i would keep it because that child would be half of mine and if it was to hard to keep there are millions of woman out there dieing to chose your baby for adoption...also if i had to make the choice of my life or my baby's i would chose my baby's it would be selfish to live 22 years and chose not to give them a day ....and as far the abort because there was something wrong with the baby i don't think that's right either there has been so many cases where doctors have been proven wrong and if there was something wrong with my child it would still be mine and giving to me for a reason

I'm a firm believer that life happens for a reason even though at times we cant understand what that reason is ....someday we will

I'm sure there's alot of people who don't like my take on life... but its mine

i may live in a fairytale world but i BELIEVE in good

Believing that life begins

Toto — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:37:50 -0500

Believing that life begins at conception is NOT a religious belief, therefore not all people that are against abortion base that belief on religion or God.

There are many pro-life atheists out there, here is just one woman's beliefs on the issue http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/Parliament/8383/atheist.html

John McCain is very Pro-Life.

Toto — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:26:07 -0500

McCain has always been Pro-Life. There seems to be a lot of misinformation on this thread about what it means to be pro-life. Implying that people who are pro-life don't give attention and care to children and mothers is just an ignorant statement. I'm pro-life and we work within the pro-life movement for ALL life. We believe that defending human life doesn't end after birth, it applies over the entire course of life, from conception to natural death.

I'm Roman Catholic and I've been involved with our mission team for the last four years. Every year we travel to Nicaragua to work with the poor. Our work includes building houses, as well as, working with a local Church and 2 schools to help the children. We work closely with the Nuns who have taken the orphaned children in off of the streets to take care of and educate.

Instead of bashing pro-life people, how about sharing your stories about what kind of service work each of you are doing to better the life of a child.

I simply say pro-abortion

shellie — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:17:42 -0500

I simply say pro-abortion and anti-abortion.

(I'm pro-abortion.)

"Late term abortion" as bull

shellie — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:08:54 -0500

"Late term abortion" as bull crap? Thanks, I thought I'd heard that only in very serious medical cases would something like that be done. Do you have a cite handy?

But didn't Obama himself use that term, talking to a rightwing group this summer? Saying that under certain reasoning about the law, "We can prevent some late-term abortions."

Absolute Inspiration

rssll — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:41:21 -0500

I have an assignment in class; the topic is to be controversial, and I am prochoice, as well. I read your views, and I am gratefull that the freedoms we have today allows us (women) to be able to speak out.

I was recently invited to attend a community prayer vidual. surrounding a clinic, in our community. These are dear close friends that invited me. I kindly had to inform them that I do not support their views on this subject. Like you, I believe that it is not our duty to cast judgement, only provide guidance. We absolutly need the option of choice to remain available for those that feel this is their only choice. Otherwise, we could face a harsher and more devastating reality. Leaving the option open allows those women to make a decision. Their own decision with the availability of some guidance. Reverting back to old ways, back street abortions, will only create more back street murders, and loosing these women forever.

Respectful Dialog

Maria Niles — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:57:59 -0500

Meleata,

The goal here at BlogHer is to have respectful dialog. That doesn't mean we can't disagree or do not argue our points of view forcefully. However, shouting (all caps) and calling those who disagree with your point of view criminals is hardly respectful.

I hope that you will read the post and comments rather than simply react to the title and open yourself to understanding where many of us who are pro-choice are coming from and then come back and see if we can find some common ground.

And if you are commenting that I (and others) would consider it a great feat for society when women are supported, educated and empowered so that they never have unwanted pregnancies, their lives are never endangered and are never in a position where they feel they must consider abortion then yes, you are correct, I will be very proud when that day arrives.

Pro-Choice is not

miteegirl — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:06:44 -0500

Pro-Choice is not necessarily Pro-Abortion, Meleata. You can be Pro-Choice (legislatively) and Anti-Abortion (morally and in practice.)

I don't get it

Meleata — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:53:59 -0500

Why do you Pro Choice people make it out like you're accomplishing such a great feat for society? Why in the world are you proud of such a thing? I truly don't get it. IT'S MURDER. IT'S MURDER OF THE COMPLETELY INNOCENT. IT'S MURDER OF A HUMAN BEING.

Semantics debate (Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life)

JeffAHayes — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:25:15 -0500

I JUST NOW got an email that there was "a response" to a posting I made way back before it was clear whether Obama or Clinton was going to win the primaries, lol... Came to see and there have been SO MANY POSTINGS since then I have NOWHERE NEAR the time to read and/or decipher which posting is the one in question, BUT I see the issue of the term "Pro-Life" has come up, and A BUNCH of the overwhelmingly "Pro-Choice" members of this group (myself included) don't like that term and think there ought to be another term for it and some don't seem to understand why there isn't.

I'm not sure if this has been hit yet, but it's simple. NOBODY understand SPIN better than the RELIGIOUS WRONG (right vs. wrong, get it?)

It's up to THE REST OF US to start using our OWN euphemisms to DESCRIBE THEM! They chose terms like "Moral Majority" of which they are NEITHER (most of their leaders have been proven IMMORAL -- consider that their co-founder was, infact, the afore-mentioned FRANK KEATING, of the infamous "Keating Five" fame, the head of Lincoln Federal Savings and Loan, the LARGEST S&L that had to be bailed out during the Reagan Administration's $500 Billion S&L bailout AFTER John McCain and four other prominent Senators BARELY escaped federal charges for giving him political favors).

They CHOSE "Pro-Life" because they COULD and they KNEW that if they called the clearly ANTI-ABORTION position "Pro-Life," it would frame their position as totally MORAL and ETHICAL and ABOVE REPROACH automatically in the simple minds of many who can't or won't think beyond such terms to the very difficult choices and circumstances that face many women and families.

Do I "support abortion" or "favor abortion?" OF COURSE NOT! I think ANY medical procedure should be a last resort. I think ANY WOMAN who repeatedly uses abortions as a substitute for sensible contraception ought to be somehow punished or sanctioned (along with her MALE PARTNER(S)! But I also realizes that accidents happen, along with rapes, incest, and various medical problems, and a woman and her doctor need to have the right to make the ultimate decision about her OWN body and health decisions...

We need COMPROMISE. The Pro-Choice side is more amenable to compromise than the "Pro-Life" side, which for the most part would rather see a woman die than have a totally unviable third-term fetus, likely to be born dead, or near death, aborted, due to some strict religious dogma.

And taking this issue to the point that stem-cell research can't proceed using test-tube embryos that are going to be discarded is the MOST RIDICULOUS THING I think I've seen since "Colored Water Fountains" here in the South.

That, ALONE, is reason enough to NOT elect John McCain in November. The overwhelming promise of stem-cell research (I know there are NOW other ways of creating them, but they're more complicated) may cure MANY terrible diseases! The BUSH administration has STOOD IN THE WAY of SO MUCH SCIENCE to satisfy the KOOKY CONTINGENT of the Republican Party over the last 8 years. He's only FINALLY taking Global Climate Change seriously now that the National Security Agency has deemed it a National Security Issue because they've determined that several of the countries likely to be innundated by flooding as the seas rise will create destabilization in areas of potential conflict that COULD even lead to nuclear conflicts with countries like India and Pakistan... All of 110,000,000-population Bangladesh (formerly called East-Pakistan after it was broken off as a part of India after the British Empire gave up India after WW II) would be under water with just a couple meters of sea level rise.

But the upcoming election is in REAL TROUBLE NOW. Sadly, the American electorate, on the MASS SCALE, is VERY simple-minded. They see this "cute" Sarah Palin, this "Hockey Mom" from Alaska who looks COMPLETELY NON-THREATENING, and A LOT of women who WERE pro-Obama have suddenly switched to McCain based just "on a feeling," without learning ANYTHING about Palin, who is SO FAR TO THE RIGHT she makes Dan Quayle (the last such cynical V.P. choice) seem like a liberal.

This woman's idea of "hunting" is shooting wolves from a HELICOPTER, for starters! She "claims" she said "no thanks" to the $400 million "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, although she both CAMPAIGNED FOR GOVERNOR IN FAVOR of that, and ONCE SHE WAS governor, although she didn't BUILD the bridge, she still TOOK the money, and used it for other things!

So... I have an Idea... Let's start A NEW NAME MOVEMENT... Between now and election day, let's all who plan to vote Obama call ourselves PRO-AMERICA, and label the McCain supporters (who also support continued WAR IN IRAQ) PRO-DEATH...

After all, it DOES seem to be all about Semantics, huh? Who would YOU vote for... the PRO-AMERICA Candidate, or the PRO-DEATH candidate (ANTI-LIFE is another option, if you prefer).

Thoughts???

Jeff Hayes

Spartanburg, SC

Rethink your reproductive rights

over_gulf — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:49:48 -0500

You are stumped because your looking at it all wrong. Try looking at it from another perspective.

"what happens to these

birthmom — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:43:28 -0500

"what happens to these children? Not those of us who were
'oops babies' and were okay because we had families who pulled it
together somewhat and limped it along...I mean those other kids. The
ones who get left crying in cribs for hours because their parent went
out to score another hit. The ones who get slapped around and far
worse because they have parents who can't deal with them? The ones who
start prostituting and selling drugs because there's no food in the
house and they're hungry?"

In response...THEY CAN BE ADOPTED INTO LOVING FAMILIES perfectly capable and willing to love them and provide all the resources and opportunities a child deserves. As a rape victim and having an unplanned pregnancy and no means to support my child I was shown the abudance of opportnities there are available for girls in my similar situation. I had no idea the choices that I had, until visiting the local adoption agency. You can provide your child with the most loving family and pick every last detail, if you choose to. No one can understand how amazing it feels to take something tragic and make it into something wonderful, until they have been their themselves. Don't deny young girls/mothers this right because the other option of abortion was just "too easy" for them to avoid. I was tempted to go this route myself, but I am a stronger woman today because I didn't. I would of prefered their of been no option for me and giving life was the only way, because your first impulse reaction could be to end a life. The thought alone is to close to this realization that my daughter would not exist today.

I believe everything happens for a reason, and no pregnancy is unwanted. And there are parents who are capable to raise and love every child. I am going to be rude here and just have to say... We are women, let's give life and shut up about it..or else be a guy! I'm sorry, but we should feel honored to be able to give life and be thankful for all the millions of families praying for children to adopt everyday, from EVERY situation.

The problem you see in your line of work, is like I see everyday too. And I agree it is because of uncapable parents. But these are just as much the parents that "plan" pregnancies as those who do not. Off topic, I think because it's cheaper to be pregnant than to not be... is why most families who shouldn't be procreating are. I had no idea how everything is free when you are pregnant, until I was! I was able to get free insurance and medical for 3 months after the birth. Staying pregnant seems a pretty easy way to avoid paying bills, that's all. That has to play some part.

Also, in response to your post....I had pre-ecampsia, gained 100 pds, and almost died. Pregnancy is easy, it's not hard, I had natural labor and I'm 25 and what is all this fuss about! I may be PMS'ing at the moment, but I'm just dang tired of reading about people supporting a woman's right to kill an unborn child! That's my daughter and maybe someone else's future son or daughter we are talking about, in my eyes at least.

Also, abstinence education at my highschool...only helped start families at age 16. Everyone had to go try what they just learned how to use....

If you want goverment to stay out of a woman's right to choose...then let's also have government stay out of a parent's right to choose what is taught to their own childern in school (and their children are "more living", I guess, So they are probably much more important too?)

Pro-choice

uberbrun — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:28:48 -0500

Abortion- Yes, there should be far fewer of these, I completely agree.
As the mother of a newborn I strongly defend the right of women who
have unplanned pregnancies to terminate them and have an abortion. I
love my son, he is amazing. I am a married first-time mother in a supportive
relationship with no real money worries and public health insurance.
With all that there are still many times I feel inadequate to support my
child. Now take someone who is underage or without physical, emotional
or financial help or without good mental or physical health herself.
Those women should be able to decide not to have a baby. Why?

Well,
what happens to these children? Not those of us who were
'oops babies' and were okay because we had families who pulled it
together somewhat and limped it along...I mean those other kids. The
ones who get left crying in cribs for hours because their parent went
out to score another hit. The ones who get slapped around and far
worse because they have parents who can't deal with them? The ones who
start prostituting and selling drugs because there's no food in the
house and they're hungry? Yeah - those are the kids I see everyday working in Children's Mental Health.
And they go looking for love
and acceptance and belonging because nobody at home provides that. And then what happens? They have babies they can't take care of. They join gangs because they feel like there is a place for them and that someone is looking out for them. It is a sick, sick circle.

-Having
said that abortion is horrible. I was asked to be a support person for a young woman who had one not too long ago. I held her hand while they started it
and stayed with her in recovery while she cried and drove her home
afterward. It was horrible. She will never forget it and neither will
I. But she shouldn't have to be pregnant (not easy) have a baby
(really hard) and possibly be a mother (if she chooses) because I wouldn't expect my 14 year-old child to do that and I wouldn't expect your daughters to either. Certianly there are a lot of young, middle class girls whose parents vote pro-life but are ashamed when their daughter becomes pregnant and send them off to "camp" or "grandma's for the summer." It happens. I am from the other camp. I never had one, I never found myself in the position of needing one. And I don't think I would have chosen to if I had been in that situation. But that's the thing with these hard choices, you never know what you would do until you are in that situation. I vote for a woman's right to choose because I was never there myself and I don't believe in imposing my views on other people. I don't think a room full of middle-aged, mostly Caucasian men should decide if our daughters and young women everywhere should have to carry each pregnancy to term.

-Prevention. Let's look at Sarah Palin,and my heart breaks for her daughter who has been splashed all over the media. But she illistrates the point that abstinance-based sex education
does not work. It doesn't even work when you reinforce it with a strong
family structure and a good upbringing. Teenagers have sex. Not all,
but most of them. We need better education for youth, access to contraception and the means for young women, particularly those without partners, to have access to public programs and support necessary to raise a child on their own if we really want more people to follow these pregnancies through to term.