[GPSCC-chat] Consistent Life Ethic: ban the bomb, not the baby?

[Edward]

It's not so much about whether this issue belongs to the left or the right but about making serious advances in womyn's rights. Nearly four decades after this debate started, are we really that much closer in providing a society in which womyn do not have to choose abortions?

I think this is a great opportunity to attract many disillusioned voters by connecting progressive causes such as truly universal health coverage, paid maternity and paternity leave, etc. with the idea that we can create a society where 10 years later, having an abortion would not be something women consider, because there is very little reason to.

More often than not, womyn "choose" to have abortions because they see no other alternative. As a result, abortion has in a twisted way kept down the increasing rate of poverty in the United States (i.e. most abortions are by poor womyn) without addressing the root causes of poverty and has also had a disproportionate effect on communities of color (i.e. abortions are by far the leading cause of death among African Americans). While technically, the choice to keep the baby or not exists, society has already made the decision for many womyn before they even get to the doors of Planned Parenthood.

Just because abortions are legal, does not mean that womyn have a choice and I think the Green Party in Illinois may be on to something here, something that needs discussion in other state parties.

-edward


--- On Sun, 4/25/10, sosfbay-discuss-request at cagreens.org <sosfbay-discuss-request at cagreens.org> wrote:
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:16:50 -0700
From: "Eric A. Meece" <eameece at sfo.com>
To: <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Consistent Life Ethic: ban the bomb, not the
    baby?
Message-ID: <58F2BCFFDC5E482D8A5AEEA688459EBB at eameecePC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

I thought the "morning after pill" should have solved a lot of this problem. But like you say, the right-wing wants the issue.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Brian Good 
  To: the_alliance47 at yahoo.com ; sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org 
  Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 4:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Consistent Life Ethic: ban the bomb, not the baby?




     Personally, having been through an unwanted-pregnancy scare and vicariously
  experienced another friend's abortion I consider abortion very nasty stuff.  Of course 
  technology could solve the problem.  Extract the embryo from the mother who doesn't 
  want it and grow it in an artificial womb for someone who does want it.  But that would 
  be too simple, and it would remove the primary source of indignation that fuels poor
  red-staters' support of the Republicans' agenda that is antithetical to their own
  actual interests.

    




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:36:30 -0700
  From: the_alliance47 at yahoo.com
  To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
  Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Consistent Life Ethic: ban the bomb, not the baby?

        The following is taken directly from the Illinois Green Party 2008 platform. Thoughts?



        ...many in the Green Party oppose the practice of abortion, motivated by a ?consistent ethic of life? (a commitment to the protection of life on the planet, which is threatened in today's world by war, poverty, environmental degradation, racism, capital punishment, abortion and euthanasia). The Ten Key Values of the Green Party are certainly consistent with this philosophy. We want to protect life, especially human life, and enhance the quality of that life.

        We acknowledge that people on both sides of the abortion "divide" are motivated by deeply held principles. We should not let the abortion issue divide people of good will, but should promote a unified struggle to create conditions that will make abortion increasingly unnecessary and rare.

        We also acknowledge that people on each side of the abortion "divide" don?t always agree with each other, and that there are complex sub-issues. While no reasonable person can deny that the human embryo and fetus are living, reasonable people can disagree as to the point at which the embryo or fetus becomes sufficiently developed to be a "person" protected by law.



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20100425/50747ca2/attachment.html>