I am not sure I understand the author's point. Is he saying that a woman should get an abortion, and repeat as necessary, until that woman is in a stable relationship? The author fails to address any sort of impact abortion often has on a woman's future relationships. How many relationships are in fact destabilized because of a woman's past abortion? If abortion is such a "huge" decision that Democrats say it is, then isn't ironic that they only ever mention the repurcussions of one of the choices the mother could make; that of to keep the child? I believe that is a "huge" omission on their part.

What relationships are destabilized because of a past abortion? How many women actually tell their future partners that they had an abortion five or ten years before? It's not as if getting an abortion is public knowledge.

What's even more destabilizing to a woman's future relationships? Another man's kid. Most men don't want anything to do with raising another man's kid.

No, that isn't ironic, it would be ironic if Democrats were fighting to keep abortion legal while at the same time only mentioning how bad it is.

Abortion legal - women have a choice to abort or not. If they choose abortion, they can research the repurcussions.

Abortion illegal - women are required to carry baby the to term. They have no choice and won't have to bother researching anything.

Read the GOP platform <link>

Republicans don't care about the repurcussions of abortions or a woman's possible future relationships:

We assert the rights of families in all international programs and will not fund organizations involved in abortion. We strongly support the long-held policy of the Republican Party known as the "Mexico City policy," which prohibits federal monies from being given to non-governmental organizations that provide abortions or actively promote abortion as a method offamily planning in other countries. We reject any treaty or agreement that would violate those values. That includes the UN convention on women’s rights, signed in the last months of the Carter Administration, and the UN convention on the rights of the child.

(I suppose it's ok to give money to other countries' governmental organizations though, so that they get to decide who's babies to abort and who to give preventative birth control to)

You are confusing the point I am trying to make. I am just showing the inconsistency in the Democrats position; that they talk up the benefits of having an abortion and hide the ball on the negative impact of abortion on women, relationships, men, future children, society etc.

The Republican's party platform need not come up here. They assert that human life begins at the moment of conception and that the life should be protected from that moment on. Yes, this may be just rhetoric, but it is much easier for them to make a cogent argument against abortion starting with that premise. Since, if you are dealing with another human being who has a legal right to live, the "choice" argument has no where to stand. In other words, the choice to end the child's life is a choice to commit murder.

I got your point, you'd like the Democrats to argue against their own policies.

"Since, if you are dealing with another human being who has a legal right to live"... Most Democrats don't believe that. You do realize that don't you?

Wake up. You're going to hell.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15

There is a very good book by Sarah Hrdy called "Mother Nature" that explains the science of infantacide and abortion (Hrdy was studying monkeys but does delve into sociobiology of humans)

Hrdy's point is that emotions aside, having children is a cost/benefit calculation. To put it bluntly, women will discard a pregnancy when the costs are too high in the present, but often with the intention to try again when circumstances are better.

A seventeen year-old woman who keeps a child is setting herself (and her child) up for a lifetime of poverty and if she also has a shotgun wedding she is setting herself up for a failed marriage. Poverty and divorce are not two things that keep a family stable, so an accidentally-pregnant seventeen year old must make the calculation of whether her extended family support system is sturdy enough to help her avoid poverty. She might also consider whether her chances of having another baby in better circumstances are so very slim that this may be her only chance.

But if she has been indoctrinated with anti-abortion propaganda she might feel like poverty is a just punishment for her sin of premarital sex. That's just a cultural phenomenon, though, not a manifestation of human nature.

I don't like to get in to proof text quote offs but you need to check yourself Frazzle.

Psalm 106: 37-43

AmyB:

A seventeen year-old woman who keeps a child is setting herself (and her child) up for a lifetime of poverty and if she also has a shotgun wedding she is setting herself up for a failed marriage. Poverty and divorce are not two things that keep a family stable, so an accidentally-pregnant seventeen year old must make the calculation of whether her extended family support system is sturdy enough to help her avoid poverty. She might also consider whether her chances of having another baby in better circumstances are so very slim that this may be her only chance.

I would add to this that it doesn't have to be a 17 year old facing a life time of poverty. If ANY parents don't want a/nother kid, it could lead to major problems in the family. Without even realizing it, they could resent the child for the rest of their lives. It could lead to divorce, which would be especially bad if other children are involved. It could cause an additional strain on financial resources, which is one of the major reasons people get divorced or have violent marriages. An unwanted pregnancy could DEFINITELY destabilize a family.