Posted on 11/18/2008 2:42:29 PM PST by Hawk720
Frustrated by the failure to overturn Roe v. Wade, a growing number of antiabortion pastors, conservative academics and activists are setting aside efforts to outlaw abortion and instead are focusing on building social programs and developing other assistance for pregnant women to reduce the number of abortions.
Some of the activists are actually working with abortion rights advocates to push for legislation in Congress that would provide pregnant women with health care, child care and money for education -- services that could encourage them to continue their pregnancies.
Their efforts, they said, reflect the political reality that legal challenges to abortion rights will not be successful, especially after Barack Obama's victory this month in the presidential election and the defeat of several ballot measures that would have restricted access to abortions. Although the activists insist that they are not retreating from their belief that abortion is immoral and should be outlawed, they argue that a more practical alternative is to try to reduce abortions through other means.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Abortion is the most successful human project in the hatred of women and African Americans.
Abortion was conceived as a means to exterminate the weak and the “weeds” or humanity.
Hearts and minds was always the way to go. If you change enough hearts and minds, then the opposition when it comes time to legislate will be minimal. IMHO, it’s been a mistake to seek legislation first. A classic example of putting the cart before the horse.
Welcome to the 1990s, WaPo.
Most of the pro-choice activists have blocked every single effort to do this. Wonder what changed their minds?
Well, we got the partial-birth abortion procedure banned. It should never have been a form of "abortion" in the first place.
And really if you change enough hearts and minds it really doesn’t even have to be legislated. It’s a better world if people just don’t seek abortions whether or not they’re legal.
>Abortion was conceived as a means to exterminate the weak and the “weeds” or humanity.
It says nothing about degenerates as are found in CA or Congress.
Do y’all feel that way about other forms of murder?
Hogwash from WaPo. More attempts at implying that conservatism is dying. The opposite is true...our resolve only grows stronger.
Less abortions have always been better. But no abortions has always been the goal.
Murder is murder.
I know this is a horrible idea, but if Republicans are pro-life and democrats are pro-death and give birth to little democrats, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that we would want as many of them to actually have abortions.
I agree. The battle over abortion belongs in the pulpit and in the community.
That it would be a better world if they just didn’t happen even without the force of law? Yes.
The world is always a better place when people choose good behavior without external threat. Who’s the better person, the one that doesn’t steal because he doesn’t want to go to jail or the one that doesn’t steal because it’s wrong?
How about legislation that makes it illegal to coerce, threaten, or bully a pregnant woman into an abortion? We could call it a hate crime. Many abortions take place under coercion from the baby’s father.
I don’t believe in luck, but if I did, I’d say “Good luck with that.”
People have been killing people since Genesis.
Didn’t say it was achievable. Was just answering a question.
Because increasing subsidies to out of wedlock births will resukt in more of them. Why marrry if you are financially better off without it. What needs to be pushed is MARRIAGE and identification of fathers and making them support the children they beget.
He intends to leave his multibillion dollar fortune to a foundation established for the purpose of maximizing abortion here and abroad.
Not likely he intends to cooperate in anything with people opposed to abortion.
And pushing adoption as a truly unselfish act in the whole thing.
Many Pro-Abortion people state, “Mothers can’t afford to raise a child so she should be allowed to choose.”
To that argument I always say how much we would like to adopt a baby but they are costly and scarce because of abortion.
Them “birth or abortion”
Us “birth then adoption”
When has more government spending been the right answer for anything?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.