Abortion is a moral, religious and health issue. Why is it in the middle of the political arena?
What happened to the separation of state and church? Why is this issue being used as a smokescreen blinding those who can make a difference in our economy. Jobs, food on the table and keeping our homes should all have equal footing. Blocking and avoiding the solutions are killing this country.
Because it is a moral, religious, and health issue.
Isn't that why everything is in the middle of the political arena?
I agree, it's a distraction from politicians failing to discuss issues and finding pragmatic solutions to broken governmental responsibilities.
Like keeping a balanced budget. Scaling back a legal and penal system growing out of control mostly due to victimless crimes and institutionalized racism. Running government agencies and programs (Post Office for example) at cost. Changing educational curriculum at all levels to match the demands and future growth of the economy.
We need more math and science? Then why aren't they teaching more math and science in school? Why not teach HTML and other basic computer programming languages in grade-school? How about cutting out some of those repetitive history and social studies classes and start including more applied sciences? Especially focusing on human and environmental health? We want to be leaders in the hi-tech future? Then where's the foundation for a high-tech workforce? Too many schools are still working off the same curriculum taught for decades past. Too many colleges are providing courses, and allowing students to earn degrees in fields, that are no longer economically viable. And now they're charging twice as much as a decade ago to do so!
The list goes on and on.
Plus, in most cases that would prompt a woman to decide to undergo an abortion, a majority of Americans already agree that she should have this right. Just one example: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-537243.html
Abortion is not a major issue for most Americans. We want and have the right. We need to start finding nation builders (for our own country) and problem fixers to run for office. Not misguided Bible preachers and old men who would deny access to scientific knowledge in the classroom while at the same time allow technology fueled by scientific advancements to pollute our neighborhoods, poison our foods, drug our population, build enough weapons to blow up the Earth a hundreds of times over, and then charge us higher taxes to pay for it all.
They don't want us to pay attention to degradation. They don't want to fix anything. So they talk about abortion... as if that's really the big problem holding our country down, creating mass poverty, and every year knocking the average American's income back a few percentage points.
These are all moral and health issues... politicians use religion to brainwash as many citizens as possible to avoid real reform (wow, it happens here too!).
Not all politicians of course, but enough...
Thank you for answering. You clearly laid it out for us. Is anybody listening. It's a smokescreen. Look past it at what's truly important.
So let me get this straight: a majority of Americans encourage a woman to kill her child in the womb, but carrying weapons in this country is frowned upon by a good percentage because somebody could get hurt?
'a majority of Americans encourage a woman to kill her child in the womb' - what you said I what I said above are not even equivalent.
I think topics, such as abortion, is such a heated issue with many that so many people have their own opionions about it and want to let it be known. You get the same response when someone mentions gun control and anything having to do with being gay.
A mixed issue, and being part of religion is why the greater effect on politics. It is up to the individual and also if it can be prevented then there are other options.Abortion shouldn't be part politics just on the religious side. It is been dragged to the political side to be the main focus instead of looking into other problems in the country one tends to go in the way of abortions.
Politics, in the sense of making choices, belongs in morality. Abortion has value in terms of dollars or budgeting of government funds. Abortions entail medications that impinge on personal finance and government health programs.
It is being used because it is such a sensitive subject. It affects the rights of women everywhere... knowing this, politicians will put pressure on both sides. Typically Republicans take "pro-life" and Democrats side with "Pro-Choice", but when it is debated, they get media time. That time in the paper will either reinforce their voter base or destroy it. It's the ultimate gamble for them. They focus on it because it is easier to answer questions that have no gray area.
For the same reasons that slavery was in the middle of the political arena. Defining people as sub-human, pre-human, unborn does not make it so!
Great answer, even President Obama admits that its a myth that religious beliefs don't inform our politics!
Thank you. That's a different perspective. You've added a great new voice to this conversation. Dee
Because there was a time when one religious group denied others the right to have an abortion and a woman to control her own body. As soon as you have one group of people, be they majority or minority, dictating to another group of people about what they can and cannot do, it becomes political.
Yes and this country was built by people who were escaping religious persecution. Imagine that. Thanks for your input.
BUT AN ABORTION IS NOT A WOMAN CONTROLLING HER BODY! IT IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT HER BODY! IT IS HER CHILD'S BODY.
Because it is a pet issue for those who want to take America "back in time" to an imagined era of piety and traditional values. They won't soon stop trying to impose their vision on the rest of us, by argument or by fiat.
There are some anti-abortion activists out there who are both thoughtful and sincere in their concerns, which means that they have a clue that for women this is more than an abstract issue, more than a political football. But as far as I can tell, they are comparatively few. For most, the welfare of mothers, children and families stops being a consideration pretty much at the same second that the risk of an abortion taking place does.
In other words, their stance is an 'idol of the mind'--a fervently held belief that is self-validating and absolute, existing for them in isolation from its real-world consequences.
For some, this issue is a plank in conscious project to undo the separation of church and state in America and create a Christian theocracy. This movement has been labeled (controversially, I will admit) "Dominionism":
For such folks, anything that is 'religious' is automatically also going to be 'political' because they consider themselves called to create God's Kingdom on Earth, and 'kingdom' definitely retains its full political meaning, though perhaps at one remove (since the Dominionists will still be needed to interpret God's political will for the unenlightened such as you and I.)
Some of the recent (and now, semi-failed) 'leading lights' of the Republican right have been associated with this strain of thought--Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman, Rick Perry and so on:
I'm not sure how deep or accurate this characterization is, honestly. But all these politicians do share a devotion to ideology over demonstrable fact. In my opinion, this is extremely marked in matters of economics and environment.
And you see it in Mr. Romney's campaign. As a Mormon, he comes from a different theological place, but seems to reach many of the same conclusions: he will restore prosperity by cutting taxes and increasing military spending, so much so that the budget will somehow balance itself with only a few small, painless cuts in discretionary spending. And even though the oil market is totally globalized, we'll somehow drill our way to cheap fossil fuels--and burn them all, harmlessly.
Social services are always the first areas of government spending that are reduced at any level of government. When the Federal Government begins to reduce funding to social programs, this leads to States reducing social program funding as well, all in the name of trimmed down government spending. It is easy to cut these programs because the majority of the people receiving these services do not vote and their voices are not heard until some other politician uses the plight of these people as their political platform. Using the moral approach keeps people focused on specific areas of spending that they feel is morally objectionable so when cuts are made for every social program in the name of morality no one questions the changes. If the Romney campaign were to win and they have the opportunity to eliminate planned parent hood and government funded abortions, they are not going to stop there, they are going to reduce or eliminate funding for all services especially for those people in Medicaid. This happened during the last Bush administration in the State of Ohio where services where cut by as much as fifty percent with no advanced warning. Recipients were just simply denied services with only an explanation that they had already used their allotted funding for the year already. I especially like the part of the bill that Ryan proposed that says that invitro fertilization should not be covered by government funds because it is immoral, while it is morally acceptable to force a rape victim to keep a baby that was the product of rape.
You have made some great points. Thank you for your input.
Yes, it is in social services where the topic of abortion comes in. When factored in as budget item it becomes a political issue.
We humans are not the logical creatures we like to think we are. Politicians know that emotion often drives voters' decisions, so they use those kinds of issues to whip up support or to demonize the other side. It's unfortunate because without these emotional divisions we might get a lot more done.
I think that abortion has landed in the middle of political debate because of the effort to fund it with taxpayer money. I am not sure why political figures think that THE issue a woman considers is birth control and abortion. I am far, far more interested in national security, balanced budget, and jobs.
Politicians do not like to talk about intimate relationship (especially when they are caught cheating with their wives). They most emphatically do not like talking about women’s reproductive needs. Indeed, they dislike talking about contraception so much that every time the issue arises, a determined group in Congress changes the subject to abortion. Abortion, as we know from the health care debate, is about having the right values. Contraception is about women’s real needs.
As you pointed out, abortion is a matter that should be addressed by a woman and her physician. Unfortunately, politicians have discovered that they can gain some traction by using abortion as a platform to garner votes. Those who believe that a collection of 64 undifferentiated cells constitutes a person push their own moral agendas in the public forum and therefore seek politicians who share their views, or at least insist they do.This makes for the nasty exchanges we see during election cycles, which pushes genuine issues to the rear and compromises women's health by threats to defund Planned Parenthood, for example, and restricting the availability of Plan B. It's almost like the old journalism credo: if it bleeds it leads. With respect to public funding, current law prohibits direct funding of abortion services, but even if it didn't my income tax form doesn't allow me to pick and choose which programs I want to support. For all I know, all my taxes go to feed underprivileged school kids.
Because the politicins all want to be seen to be moral, religioyus and healthy. Abortion is also a PERSONAL issue, but they don't seem to care about that.
I often think that our leaders want to infuse us with their own personal beliefs and dogma. These are not the pressing issues of a nation: education, health and personal well being for it's citizens as well as bringing business to this country and note the environment's decay from mankind's rubble ARE the main topics at hand.
All else is a wast of blessed time: much of which we don't have...
Sadly the political arena has become victim to the mass of minorities who have become so vocal as to create a wave of reaction, rightly creating debate. Scared politicians are led by spin, they abandon moral values, encourage the free fall into 'anything goes'. It is up to them what they propose, and it is up to me what I accept. I will not become numb to morality, to child abuse, to the cheapness of life.
My stance on abortion has just three points.
1. Keep it legal. It's the only way to keep it safe. Overturning Roe v. Wade will only take us back to women seeking out shady characters calling themselves "doctors" and receiving a butcher's treatment. So, keep it legal. Keep it safe. And keep women alive.
2. Please consider adoption as an alternative. If a pregnancy is the result of two consenting adults getting together and neither party wants the baby, they should think about giving life to the child, and that child should have a life with parents that do want it and will love it. That life should not have to be extinguished because of irresponsibility. ... Yes, rape, incestuous molestation and other sexual assaults are horrid crimes, and no woman or girl should have to endure further residual pain and torment due to such crimes.
3. Government, at any level, should not be subsidizing the funding for abortion. It is unfair to responsible taxpayers to pay for something in which they morally disagree. If a woman wants to end a pregnancy, she may do so, but I shouldn't have to pay for it. I didn't pay for the courtship. I didn't pay for the conjugation. I shouldn't have to pay for the consequences. When it is a result of a crime, then the offender should pay for it. If the offender was not caught, then insurance companies should have to include it in their coverage, but only if that woman or couple wish to choose it an option to her or their coverage by paying the premiums and any applicable deductibles.
In the end, the woman should continue to have the freedom of choice, but where is the freedom of choice for the taxpayers not wanting to pay for any abortion? I have yet to meet someone willing to answer that question in such a way where there is compromise. There has to be a compromise where both sides are free from an imposition they do not want.
As I recall, abortion really hasn't been discussed in any of the Presidential debates. Even though it is a very hot topic and people are very passionate about how they believe, whether it be Pro-life or Pro-choice. What has brought this subject up is the Republican Richard Mourdock talking about the case of rape and abortion. Of course Romney has refused to answer any questions when it comes to the matter. I think the reason being is he is afraid to even touch this subject so close to the election.
Because politicians like to pull out the subjects that wind people up. And the religous right has decided they speak for everyone. Also people confuse the issue. The subject is LEGAL ABORTION. Abortion it is not something you can legislate the only choice here is the procedure going to be safe and legal, or do we make criminals out of women and endanger their lives with back alley procedure. Women will continue to have abortions whether they are legal or not.
Thank you. My Mother became a nurse in 1960. Many women died and became infertile. That's the harsh reality. It will be done no matter what.
If you are interested in a good book on the subject and have not read The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power, and the Future of the World by Michelle Goldberg it puts into perspective. Really Interesting.
By prefacing the question of "Why is it in the middle of the political arena?" with defining 'abortion as a moral, religious and health issue', you have already prejudiced the responses and the bias in the question. Although you may view it as a 'moral, religious and health issue', there are other viewpoints. Some view the issue as a personal one that is between a woman and her doctor. Others view it as an important moral and social issue that impacts the nation as a whole. There are even some that view abortion as murder and violation of God's law which carries with it subsequent curses and consequences. For those with that viewpoint, abortion is something that impacts everyone and needs to be dealt with in order to remove the national curses.
Although you did not directly ask the question of "Why has abortion become one of the central issues in politics and other issues pushed aside?", that seems to be more of what you are seeking based on your clarification. For some people, the saving of life is a primary concern. The opposition views their personal privacy as a primary concern. When the views are so polarized, there is little room for compromise or cooperation.
There have been other issues that have been very polarizing that did not present easy political solutions. Issues such as dueling, assisted suicide, slavery (involuntary servitude), same sex marriage, etc. Some issues are not easily resolved by policy. When the viewpoints are highly polarized, they are contentious and not easily solved. Some politicians know this and use it to their advantage. By stirring up the issue of abortion, they do not have to deal with jobs, food on the table, failing education systems, the overwhelmingly large number of people in prison or crumbling infrastructure. Their opposition also knows this and hides behind the smokescreen so that the only thing that matters is their record on abortion and the people do not see that behind the curtain is a lack of jobs, poor schools, overcrowded prisons, etc. All their party is concerned about is where they stood on protecting/attacking abortion. It is sad that politicians play such games, but the reality is that they do. The abortion debate is a convenient issue to get the people emotionally engaged so that they do not evaluate their other failed policies or who their policies have hurt.
I posed this question in a way that it would illicit different opinions and not be offensive. In your focusing on how I asked you did what the politicals do. And was the critique important? It may have blocked the quality of your answer reaching out.
no it not. its a personal issue that people want to make a political religious, or moral issue. Republican could have outlaw abortion but didn't to use for politic, so after that I just leave the woman who chose this to deal with God on this. if I ever have a chance to vote on it I would outlaw abortion for what I believe but I have no right to tell another what to do so until it come to a vote. do you thing Miss.
Because people will vote based solely on a candidate's position on this issue. I'd be hard pressed to name another that does that. And it is an issue that doesn't directly affect most people, so it is easy to be fanatical about it.
Politicians from both parties have been trying to legislate moral issues for years, abortion, birth control, creationism, intelligent design, adultery and the list goes on and religious groups have attempted to influence decisions on alcohol consumption and sales, cigarettes, various entertainment activities.
The common denominator is that governing groups, such as Congress and state Legislators, and religious groups, like Churches or religious groups not affiliated with a particular church are all composed of people and people have opinions on everything, regardless of which side of the public good vs private action line that is hard to define and often become very blurry.
Thanks for your input Larry. The problem for me seems to be that the lines blurr too easily right now. Dee
When issues are at the forefront at various times, including presidential elections, the lines are extremely blurred and that is intentional on the part of the politicians and the religious groups--all in an effort to promote a message & candidat
It's not a smokescreen, it's jsut that a person's stance on abortion reveals a lot about a person's moral character. Pro-lifers generally value life higher, seeking out ways to avoid unnescisary violence and death. Pro-choicers generally have a more flexible view of life.
I'm not sure where your concern about abortion issues overshadowing economic and other issues is coming from, many in our country couldn't care less about the topic. There are plenty of people who are "single issue voters," but whether abortion is their single issue, or if it's war or economy, doesn't matter. Single issue voters cause major problems ina democratic system. A politician that is aligned with your single issue could be the worst possible thing for our country.
Morality, religion and health will always be the reasons as to why politics keep getting hot especially during any elections in the world.They affect each person personally on some level and therefore makes them issues that always have to be addressed.
Abortion is a very simple issue. Either it is legal, therefore performed by doctors, in clinics, with a proper follow up and care, or is is performed in back alleys with coat hangers by self proclaimed "specialists". In any case, it will be performed when wanted, we know that from history. It absolutely is a health issue, and a moral issue for some. But it should never be a religious or political issue, these two entities have entered the debate only for the sake of self benefit and abortion has become a marketing tool used equally by religious and political people
What a stupid thing to say..it's a moral issue but not a political or religious issue! Oh and murder will be done whether their is a law against it or not so maybe we should just legalize murder while we're at it..using your logic!
Politics is the art of running the affairs, including behavioral, within civil institutions, including religious segments of society. Religion, by definition, involves morality. Abortion, therefore, is a subset of both. Also, Religious = Political
I am going to help CA illegalize murder by voting YES on Prop 34 and finally getting rid of the death penalty
I don't think you can truly say it's a "simple issue". While it will happen legal or not. I don't see it's place in the middle of a political discussion that should be covering so much more. Not just a few polarizing and inflamamatory issues.
First, the only time that someone's viewpoint can have an impact, is if it doesn't agree with someone elses. A mutual respect of those viewpoints would take that off the table. Unfortunately, mutual respect can only be achieved by giving up control and reaching compromise, which is also very rare.
Why are men trying to make those decisions? Respect of women? Doubt it!
Many men have been in relationships where the woman, against his will, had an abortion. Legally, the man has no say in that decision. Many of these men have become anti-abortion activists. Many of these men do this because imposing their will on all women gives them a feeling they have some degree of control. Therefore, sort of avenging their lack of control in the past personal relationship at the expense of today's women.
As a man, I wouldn't want the responsibility of making that decision. I'm not sure where it belongs, but not on someone's political campaign platform.
I think it's in the middle of the political arena because it's a hot button topic. Anything that has two sides and makes people angry when you speak about it will be a political issue.
by tonybeck 9 years ago
Why does politics only seem to attract people that want to lord over us all and enslave us?Government handouts and other forms of "free" money are anti-human as they serve to demoralize the populace, make us lazy and not motivated to achieve anything other than sitting on our asses. ...
by SolutionC 7 years ago
Why do politicians think we are all dumb?Do we really need more laws? More government control? More Government Spending? So tired of Nanny State politics from all sides let the police protect & serve not tax motorists, Let industry compete on a level playing field. And most of all make...
by Credence2 8 months ago
Background articlehttps://news.yahoo.com/trump-admits-ask … 51988.htmlYour thoughts?
by Credence2 6 years ago
This fellow has such a screwed reasoning system, check out this articlehttp://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 … c#commentsDoes he really believe that the indiscretions of a former President almost 20 years ago is a point in logic to attack the accusations from the left and center that the...
by Scott Belford 3 years ago
In both the Federalist Papers AND the Constitutional Convention, it is extremely clear the distaste most of those involved in creating today's America had for democracy, which they saw as mob rule which allows "emotion" rather than "reason" to drive important decisions.Friday's...
by Cat R 8 years ago
What is the reason for our country's gigantic amount of debt?What do you think causes the most 'damage'?- Illegal Immigrants and the loss of taxes/amount of money paid to them for welfare type programs (that are not covered by the taxes they pay since they don't pay taxes)?- The money spend on...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|