Have you seen any of the undercover Planned Parenthood videos? For all the language about wanting to "reduce" abortions, aligning with Planned Parenthood makes that claim rather hallow.
What is it in the womb?
If it is a human being in the womb, why would we want to "stand up to" organizations that want human rights for all human beings?POSITION: The Affordable Care Act ensures that women have access to contraception in their health insurance plans, and the President has respected the principle of religious liberty. Democrats support evidence-based and age-appropriate sex education.
Education is a great thing. Everyone is in favor of that. I wonder if we could also have education on simple biology? Would that not contribute to this issue? Would it not help us understand exactly what is in the womb that is being "terminated"?POSITION: The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
There is talk here about "rights". Does the person in the womb have any rights? One would think, that of all people, the people who conceived the person in the womb would want to defend the rights of the small, voiceless, and powerless person in the womb that they brought into existence. Why is that not the case? And why would a government want to protect and support any decision that rips "rights" away from the smallest, weakest, and most vulnerable among us? What is it in the womb?POSITION: Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.
So if the decision is intensely personal, shouldn't the paying for it be intensely personal as well?
What is it in the womb?
We would certainly want the government to get involved if parents were "terminating" their six week old babies outside of the womb. What is the difference between that which lives in the womb and that which doesn't live in the womb and what meaningful difference can we cite that gives one a whole host of governmental protections and the other no "rights" at all?POSITION: We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.
Why should we care about reducing abortions? What's wrong with it? Why would we want to reduce abortion through education if it's not a child in the womb? If abortion is a simple medical procedure, akin to pulling a tooth, then why seek to reduce anything?POSITION: We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.
Why write the phrase, "a woman's decision to have a child..."? A child? Really? Is she having a child? Ok, great. We are all agreed that she is having a child. At what point does that thing that gets "terminated" in the womb become a "child"? And if we don't know, shouldn't we err on the side of caution? If you are hunting in the woods and you think there is a deer in the bushes but you are not sure (it could be a fellow hunter) do you let the bullets fly? Of course not. You err on the side of caution.
So what is it in the womb and how do you know? The answer to that question will define our understanding of this issue.