Pro-life Dopers, a few questions

Or, rather comments.

I’m pretty rabidly pro-life myself, which has caused something of a crisis of conscience for me, especially since I’m Catholic, and several Catholic leaders have denounce Kerry for being pro-choice.

Bush, OTOH, is anti-abortion. I refuse to say he’s “pro-life” because he obviously doesn’t value the lives of people who have already been born, especially if they’re Iraqi lives. To me, being pro-life extends beyond just being anti-abortion. To be truly pro-life, one must be pro policies that are favorable to sustaining life for those who have already been born, as well as protecting the lives of the unborn.

This is where my libertarian streak waxes thin to the point of invisibility, BTW.

My question is, even though Kerry favors legal abortion, wouldn’t a vote for Kerry be more of a pro-life (and anti-abortion) vote than a vote for Bush?

My reasoning is this: Probably the biggest reason women (adult women, anyway, teen pregnancey is a whole ‘nother can o’ worms) have abortions is economic pressures. A woman, particularly an unmarried woman, finds herself unexpectedly pregnant.

If she is working at a low-wage job at which she is barely able to support herself, especially if that job is not secure, and in an economic environment where good-paying jobs are scarce and becoming scarcer, and help from the social welfare system is difficult or well-nigh impossible to get, she may feel that she will not be able to support her child and therefore opt for an abortion.

If she is in an economic climate in which the job she currently has is secure, assistance is available to help her feed, clothe and shelter her child, and opportunities for her to better her situation by getting an education/learning new skills so she can find higher-paying work, she would be more inclined to carry the child to term.
I believe that Kerry will bring about economic policies that will make it easier for the poor to lift themselves out of poverty. Fewer people in poverty will mean that fewer women will opt to abort if they do become pregnant, because they will be better able to to support their children.

Any thoughts?

Well, one of Bush’s first acts was to cut funding to Planned Parenthood - if Kerry reestablished such funding, or put funding into sex education (that taught contraception), wouldn’t that reduce unwanted pregnancies?

Well, on a moral level, I’m not crazy about the “if you can’t be good, be careful” approach, but on a practical level, I know that people aren’t going to not have premarital sex just because I think it’s wrong. So, yeah, that’s a sensible approach. Although, I would like to see abstinence taught and highly encouraged (giving good, solid practical reasons for it, not just moralizing) as the best of all possible methods of birth control. In any case, prevention of unmarried girls and women getting pregnant in the first place is preferable them getting pregnant and having abortions afterward. Preventing the pregnancy also helps women avoid falling into poverty because they are more likely to finish school and even go on to vo-tech school or college, which means that they would be better able to support and care for children they may have down the road, which brings us back to that sustaining life thing again.

For a different reason, and from a purely pragmatic standpoint, I’d say yes.

Not because an elected Kerry would cut down on the number of abortions via economic or other means, but because no president is, in my opinion, going to be able to cut down on the number of abortions even if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

So, I’d say that Bush, who is pro-death penalty and pro-War in Iraq leads to a net loss of life. A second four-year Bush term will have, I think, precisely the same effect on abortion numbers as the first four-year Bush term.

[quote}I’m pretty rabidly pro-life myself, which has caused something of a crisis of conscience for me, especially since I’m Catholic, and several Catholic leaders have denounce Kerry for being pro-choice[/quote]

Surely Catholic leaders have denounced Bush for being pro-unjust war, as well. I know the Pope has. Why is it okay to defy the Vatican in some ways but not in others?