Today, GOProud came out in favor of an end to taxpayer funding of abortion. Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia explains:
It doesn’t matter where one stands on the question of abortion; we believe that the use of taxpayer funds to provide abortions is a fiscal issue. There is no question, that in these times of out of control deficit spending and growing mountains of debt, it is unconscionable that one penny of federal taxpayer dollars would be spent on abortion.
For the longest time, I’ve wondered why gay groups have joined the various “abortion rights” groups opposing any and all restrictions on the practice. Indeed, HRC’s current president Joe Solmonese worked most recently for EMILY’s list, a group dedicated to electing Democratic women committed to keeping abortion legal.
So beholden are folks like Joe to being part of the coalition of left-wing groups that they refuse to see how reaching beyond that narrow coalition can help gays. Shouldn’t gay people want to reduce the number of abortions as that would increase the number of babies available for adoption, making it easier for gay people to become parents?
Such outreach would also put some pro-lifers on the spot, testing their commitment to human life. Would they rather a baby be aborted or have the mother carry the child to term, only to have the infant adopted by a loving gay (or lesbian) couple? Perhaps, that would not be their ideal (with them preferring adoption by a straight married couple), but at least the baby would have the chance to live and be raised by caring parents hoping for progeny.
It would be nice if gay groups could think outside the box. They might then find that alliances with left-wing gay groups aren’t the only way to make t things better for gay people.
Nice to see GOProud daring to oppose the received wisdom of our community “leaders.”
Kermit Gosnell would be another good reason to oppose public financing of abortion.
Statistically, the Gay community already has the lowest abortion rate in the country.
You cant get much more conservative that that. 🙂
.
Ain’t it peculiar how the unsubstantiated Todd Palin affair rumor is getting more MFM attention than the Philadelphia Baby Butcher story?
Anything to protect The Agenda, I guess.
I strongly agree with you, Daniel, about reduced and controlled abortion-rates in America. Reduce it as much as possible. Here is also my take on this:
LESS/NO abortions means MORE gay and straight fetuses being born into our beautiful World WITHOUT murderous discrimination from FemiNazi parents.
LESS/NO abortions means gay and lesbian adults would have MORE potential adult partners to date in the future. Who knows? That one great lover of yours may have almost been aborted at birth, but God saved their lives.
LESS/NO abortions means gay and lesbian people would have MORE family members and friends who would love and understand them as human beings. Thank God my siblings and cousins were not aborted at birth.
I don’t care about gay and lesbian couples adopting children as long as its in a healthy and caring environment. As for adoption discrimination: If a caring gay or lesbian couple are discriminated against at a hospital/adoption agency then they can take the time to search for other friendly adoption agencies. Or privately adopt children from people in your own family and friends who are willing and able to give their child(ren) to you. (Note: No U.S. State has a law against the private adoption of children by same-sex couples.)
Rush has said several times that the day after the ‘gay gene’ is discovered the Gay Left will become Pro-Life.
Rush is absolutely right. I have never understood how a belief that the gay gene is out there reconciles with the left’s pro-abortion mindset.
@5: I would agree to that. The Leftist-ideology
Abortion against gays,
Islamic supremacy against gays,
Illegal migration and the War on Drugs that affects gays,
Gun control against gays,
Leftist social balkanization, forced multiculturalism, and political correctness that ends up affecting gays and biting them on the butt…
…Marriage between men/women who could pro-create children. Maybe some of those Married heterosexual couples would be willing and able to let a gay couple adopt their child perhaps.
Those main social issues should WAKE UP every single gay man, lesbian woman, bisexual, and trans-gender American citizen in this country. It is spiritually about human life and survival – just simply staying ALIVE! Nobody wants to be beaten and murdered.
There are some strong social conservatives who understand these common concerns from gay people and are willing and able to help.
GOProud needs to make a truce with the social conservatives. These common concerns could help create allies. We have Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin supporting gay people. Lets see if the fag-hags(?) at Concerned Women for America could join GOProud over this =]
What a sneaky and dishonest way for GOProud to sign onto the Christianist agenda. The only cheaper way than taxpayer funded abortions to reduce government spending is taxpayer funded contraception. Practically anyone who qualified for a taxpayer funded abortion would, in the alternative, qualify for taxpayer funded prenatal care and delivery at a government funded hospital (several times more expensive than an abortion), and the baby would qualify for years of welfare, food stamps, subsidized child care, child tax credit, government preschool, parenting classes, housing assistance and countless other forms of government spending costing more per month than an abortion. GOProud’s naked sophistry is reminiscent of Michael Steele’s argument that gays should be denied marriage rights just because the government might lose some tax revenue if they were allowed to file as married couples – never mind that stable families are the best way to reduce government spending on welfare-type expenditures, along with contraception and family planning.
So, anyway, now that GOProud opposes taxpayer funded abortion ostensibly as a budget balancing issue, what is its stance on taxpayer funded prenatal care and delivery? Back alley births with no doctors present? Or unlimited government funding costing way more than an abortion? Which Christianist group are they going to ask for their answer?
For 37 years, Abortion has been the litmus test for American politics. Every nominee to the Supreme Court has had their personal belief toward abortion weighed – those who are conservative are nailed to the cross of Stare Decisis.
For the majority of those years, the GLBT community has been tied to Progressivism as embodied by the Democrat Party. Part and parcel of that tie is automatic adherence to, and promotion of, Abortion.
For those years, I thought the GLBT community’s support for abortion was more an attack-by-proxy on Christianity.
Anytime the rights of a helpless person are violated, everyone loses. There is no one more helpless and unable to defend themselves than an unborn human being. As a gay man, who depends on the support of the straight community to live a more free life, I am proud to stand up for the rights of someone whose on connection to me is that they are human.
“On”=only….grrr
>>>There is no question, that in these times of out of control deficit spending and growing mountains of debt, it is unconscionable that one penny of federal taxpayer dollars would be spent on abortion.
Uh-huh. Where would the Pentagon get the federal taxpayer dollars to spend on the cluster bombs and land mines the “pro-lifers” like to watch go boom on CNN when we invade small countries? If this country did public executions in stadiums, the “pro-lifers” would make sure those events outsold NASCAR.
The “pro-life” movement consists of angry, white men (like some of you apparently) who want to control women’s uteruses because the Bible tells them they can.
Wake me when you’re ready to send your sister to Mexico or Haiti or to a back alley for an abortion performed by some whacko-for-profit with a wire hanger.
Besides, pro-choice women are the gay community’s tightest allies. Check out any poll that is broken down by gender.
>>>>>Shouldn’t gay people want to reduce the number of abortions as that would increase the number of babies available for adoption, making it easier for gay people to become parents?
Those anti-gay amendments and laws against gay adoption were passed by your “pro-life” allies. They’re never going to back down, because they’re convinced their immortal soul depends on it.
The gay gene argument is a really great point. i am going to use it when i go trolling on the gay liberal sites and the subject comes up.
Can you quote a passage?
Arkansas overturned Act I almost a year ago. However, unless you are legally married, two cohabiting people of the same gender in Utah cannot adopt a child. A single person can, but their partner cannot become a legal guardian. Please correct me if I’m wrong on this.
The only anger I’ve detected in this thread so far is (possibly) Tot’s use of the word “fag-hag,” which was pretty mild anger at worst. Did I miss something?
I was reeeeeallllylooking forward to hearing Keef Olberdouche’s take on all this, but lo and behold, the colossal prick was fired tonight….
Sucks to be a liberal these days, I guess.
Hi Dan,
I like the idea, but a couple of potential flies in the ointment. Freakanomics had a really interesting and compelling chapter in which they showed that one reason for why crime fell in the 90’s was that there was abortion on demand in the 70s and 80s that cut the number of unwanted pregnancies and unwanted (?) children, and hence, cut the number of aimless and disaffected youth who might commit such crimes. Ugly implications of a study that many on both left and right really disliked. If true, abortions appear to provide a social good far beyond the costs to the individual. As such, an argument can be made to subsidize the practice, to take advantage of the positive externality.
Second uncomfortable point: Would that those unwanted pregnancies had come to fruition and found loving homes, but I don’t think it was going to happen. Today, the statistics tell us that in matters of adoption, race does play a role. There are long wait lists to adopt white children, while there is an opposite situation for African-American children, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/us/17adopt.html, visited 21 Jan 2011. “More than 45,000 black children were waiting to be adopted from foster care in 2004.” Though worthy of consideration, I am unsure that your proposal would be able to clear the barrier of racial politics in this country.
Just something to complexify the question at hand.
well, Eric, thanks for nullifying post #16
So, philatilist77, calling yourself GOP Proud = Christianism, trying to figure out what your comment has to do with the post to which it’s attached. Seems you’re more eager to attack GOProud than to consider its ideas and our own.
Maybe of those costs would be taken care of by the gay people who adopt, that is, unless you believe that gay parents couldn’t support the child.
What is the nature of your animus against gay people, assuming we’re incapable of supporting ourselves and raising adopted children?
Actually, I like seeing the gay and lesbian community as exemplified by Auntie Dogma and philatilist77 making it clear what they support.
Remember that. The gay and lesbian community sees nothing wrong with this behavior. In fact, they DEMAND Federal funding for clinics and doctors that deliver a baby live, then sever its spinal cord with scissors, and if you oppose them, you are an evil “Christianist”.
And why is this necessary? Because gays and lesbians, like “pro-choice” women, refuse to take any responsibility whatsoever for their behavior. Both sides depend on the government allowing them to destroy lives and take money from others to protect their own promiscuity.
The quote above from GOProud was cold and not something that would make this pro-life BLACK WOMAN–did you get that, Auntie D?–rush to embrace an alliance with GOProud.
Federally funded abortions should end only because America is drowning in debt and broke? So, if America had no debt and was awash in cash federally funded abortions would be ok? Is that GOProud’s position? Why the effort to reduce the issue of abortion down to nothing but a question of money? Is that the only way to make opposition to abortion palatable to gays? Convince gays being pro-life is all about money, not morality, so they can oppose abortion yet still keep their distance from those pesky social conservatives who are pro-life for moral, not fiscal, reasons. Oh, and there’s another reason for gays to be pro-life: IT’S GOOD FOR GAYS!!!!
Never mind saving defenseless babies, stopping or reducing abortions will mean more babies for gays to adopt, more lovers for gays to, er, enjoy, and more friends and family to support gays. It’s all about the gays. That’ll really resonate with pro-lifers. Come on, people, you’ve got to come up with something better than that!
Christianist? To me a “Christianist” is a person who recognizes, respects, and defends the Christian heritage of America and the West, even if he or she isn’t personally Christian. I hate to see the word has now become a slur. Damn, dirty liberals!
Oh noes! How many people have been born into the world without a doctor present? Jest sayin’.
Wake me when liberal women give a rotten damn about women in the world who have to be subjected to stoning or female genital mutilation.
Say, can anybody explain to the class why liberals love to heavily push abortion on BLACKS?
To quote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the purpose of abortion is to keep down “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Good on GOProud.
So let’s see, the two issues they have taken positions on since telling Republicans not to get involved in social issues were on DADT and abortion funding. Both social issues. Funny how that works.
Well let me explain it to you Dan.
Lots of social conservatives have very archaic views about sex and gender roles, and that tends to repulse different kinds of people that don’t fit inside their traditional/idyllic fantasies about human relationships. Gays and womens’ rights advocates are natural allies because they’re looked upon with scorn by these puritans who can’t seem to get it through their head that what works for them doesn’t necessarily work for everyone else.
Also, I don’t know of any group or abortion rights advocate that goes around saying there ought to be no restrictions on how abortions are performed.
That’s completely ridiculous and you know it. Gays should generally oppose abortion because it provides more adoption opportunities? There are already thousands of kids waiting to be adopted all over the world, it’s not like there’s a shortage. I mean what are you on?
That is such a desperate, flailing reach of an argument that again, completely dismisses the widespread disdain that Republicans and the conservative movement has had for homosexuals over the past few decades.
Well let me explain it to you Dan.
Lots of social conservatives have very archaic views about sex and gender roles, and that tends to repulse different kinds of people that don’t fit inside their traditional/idyllic fantasies about human relationships. Gays and womens’ rights advocates are natural allies because they’re looked upon with scorn by these puritans who can’t seem to get it through their head that what works for them doesn’t necessarily work for everyone else.
Also, I don’t know of any group or abortion rights advocate that goes around saying there ought to be no restrictions on how abortions are performed.
That’s completely ridiculous and you know it. Gays should generally oppose abortion because it provides more adoption opportunities? There are already thousands of kids waiting to be adopted all over the world, it’s not like there’s a shortage. I mean what are you on?
That is such a desperate, flailing reach of an argument that again, completely dismisses the widespread disdain that Republicans and the conservative movement has had for homosexuals over the past few decades.
Gays and womens’ rights advocates are natural allies because they’re looked upon with scorn by these puritans who can’t seem to get it through their head that what works for them doesn’t necessarily work for everyone else.
Yes, Levi, we know “progressives” like yourself are just upset that you can’t go around snipping the spinal cords of these inconvenient babies and that those women that your abortionist friend Gosnell maimed and killed wouldn’t go away quietly.
Gosnell shows what a sick bunch of demented perverts you and your fellow “womens’ rights” advocates are, given that you covered up the deaths of women rather than out one of your abortionist allies for killing them. We won’t get into the whole sick fetish you and your abortionist ally Gosnell have for keeping human body parts around, or how you like to deliver babies prematurely and kill them.
The best part about your moralizing little rant here is that the course of action you recommend – a complete ban on any and all abortions nationwide – would create thousands of Kermit Gosnells overnight. You stupidly think that this horrific story bolsters your argument when it does the exact opposite. An America where abortion is illegal would have one of these places in every town.
You don’t solve this problem by banning it – you solve it by providing people with healthcare, you solve it by teaching realistic sex education, you solve it by ending the drug war, and you solve it by targeting poverty.
Or, you know, you can just stand in a parking lot waving hideous signs at scared, confused teenage girls.
Is it wrong to view abortion as a purely moral issue and oppose it on the grounds that it is immoral? I realize by looking at it that way I’m putting myself on the same page with people who think homosexuality is immoral and would ban that. But do I compromise my own belief system to save my own skin? Whats wrong with calling something immoral and wanting it to be illegal? Lots of things are illegal because they’re immoral and most people are on board with it such as rape, murder and stealing.
The best part about your moralizing little rant here is that the course of action you recommend – a complete ban on any and all abortions nationwide – would create thousands of Kermit Gosnells overnight.
And when you demanded absolute legalization, Levi, you claimed there would never be any Kermit Gosnells.
What has been shown, Levi, is that you and your fellow “womens’ rights” advocates are just plain sociopathic murderers. I cannot imagine the mindset someone would have to be in to do as you do and support cutting the spinal cords of living, struggling, crying babies.
But what do you care? They’re inconvenient. You support and endorse murdering human beings who are inconvenient to you. That’s why Sarah Palin’s death panels statement ran absolutely true with people; they are fully aware that “progressives” like yourself have no problem whatsoever with snipping the spinal cords of helpless and defenseless babies because they’re “inconvenient”.
I would take it further, I think being pro-life is being pro-gay. The thing is that we gays don’t come from a different dimension through this membrane, we come from other human beings through birth.
Imagine all of those babies that were aborted that could have been gay and members of our community. They could have provided much needed diversity or even could have been somebody’s lover/partner/spouse. But we will never know.
The other reason why I don’t support abortion is because “planned parenthood” was started by Nazi Germany with its origins in eugenics here in the US. Hitler loved eugenics and planned parenthood because he used it in order to produce offspring of his liking. While the “unwanted” were kept away from reproducing and inflicted abortion on those “unwanted” that ended up pregnant.
Today is the same thing, planned parenthood is all about aborting the “unwanted” since it tends to cater a lot to the black, immigrant, and poor communities, and liberals even admit that.
What a shame, and a disregard for life.
Or, you know, you can just stand in a parking lot waving hideous signs at scared, confused teenage girls.
And this is where Levi’s lies get completely and totally exposed.
Levi whines and cries and says that he has to protect “teenage girls”, fact of the matter is, girls aged 17 or less account for just 6.4% of abortions performed. The overwhelming majority (57%) are women in their twenties.
And you know that whole rape and health of the mother thing? Turns out that that was cited as a reason for abortion in barely 7% of cases for health, and 1% for rape.
Know what else happens when they get into the abortion clinic, Levi? They get lied to by your fellow “progressives”.
Oh, and as far as the “scared teenager”? Teenagers aren’t allowed to consent to medical procedures — other than abortion, which the Obama Party and “progressives” will tell you how to get around so that you can hide your statutory rape.
Again, another similarity between “womens’ rights” groups and gays and lesbians — both support child sex, statutory rape, and covering it up and hiding it from parents.
And you want to see something really insane? Levi’s fellow “progressive” Amanda Marcotte is whining and crying that pro-lifers are responsible for the horrors that she and her fellow “womens’ rights” advocates created.
Marcotte and Levi are both sociopaths who blame society for making them cut babies’ spinal cords. It gets to be completely crazy.
I don’t think there is any genetic basis to determine sexual orientation. Its more developmental and the way some people’s brain is wired (right hemisphere vs. left), but these developments are natural and some say they start in the womb, so maybe in theory we can develop a way to determine the sexual orientation of a baby, but I doubt it would be through genetic means, but maybe brain wave activity or hormonal chemistry.
Highly doubtful. These groups are funded by the same interests that want Americans to keep infighting, so they can continue to loot our country, devalue its currency, and take away our natural rights little by little. The political elite will continue its distractions so the American people will be more bothered by those distraction than the inherent evil that is being committed by these elitists.
Maybe that’s because abortion is HIDEOUS.
Libs want to kill the messenger so as to not hear the message they do not like.
Jim DeMint just called–he totally agrees, but you all disgust him too much to be in the same room with you, so he sends his best wishes.
[Citation Needed]
Hate-filled, ugly bitches?
Not anywhere NEAR as bad as suggesting infanticide is better than lots of children up for adoption like you said.
How many trillions of dollars have we spent on healthcare, teaching “realistic” sex education, targeting poverty etc.? How many more do we have to spend before we admit that liberals are full of shit and have no interest in actually helping anybody? How much more do we waste before we realize that liberal plans are a waste of time, money and human lives?
How many more people have to die for the failure that is American liberalism? How many more have to be liquidated as they’re dragged “kicking and screaming” into the glorious Socialist Utopia?
Got any estimates on that, Levi?
Say Levi, couldn’t we just call the Tuscon massacre an “Extremely Late-term Abortion” and rejoice?
Like, the idea that people should not be having sex with anyone they aren’t willing to make a lifelong commitment to.
Like the idea that men should commit to the women they impregnate and become responsible fathers to the children they create.
Like, the idea that men and women should commit to raising together the children they produce.
Like, the idea that a baby is a thing to be loved and cherished and not, in the words of the president, something one is “punished with.”
Like the idea that kids do best in families where there are committed mothers and fathers who set aside their desires for self-gratification in order to raise good kids instead.
Crazy, crazy, insane ideas like that are the antithesis of everything the Faustian left stands for. (Immediate gratification of all sexual urges with no consequences.)
Should we really be surprised that Levi celebrates the murder of innocents? The less people around, the less people he can denounce as ‘stupid’ and the easier it is for him to drag us kicking and screaming into his future.
From MArgaret Sanger to Stalin to Ginsburg to Levi, the left sees mass murder as a means to an end.
Seane-Anna, while AE does raise a valid point about social agendas, we should celebrate this statement from GOProud. The ends here match, fulfilling the promise that Abortion truly be ‘safe, legal, and rare‘. The Left has delivered 1 of the three, and doesn’t care about the other two. You and I can disagree with ‘teh gheys’ on changing the definition of marriage (just as I’m sure you don’t agree with me on the creation of ‘Fred’) but we should encourage any allies where we agree. Win this victory, and sort out the rest later.
Given that Levi’s on record that ‘Arabians’ can’t handle democracy, I’m sure he’s fine with 2/3rds of black pregnancies ending in abortion. His idol Stalin would be proud.
Livewire, what’s “Fred”? I missed that.
My shorthand for creation of a legal construct through the Legislative branch that recognizes same sex partnerships as a ‘seperate but equal’ institution to marriage. It started as a throw away comment of mine “Call it Fred, call it what ever you want, but don’t call it marriage” but it’s a nice shorthand to avoid any confusion with ‘civil unions’.
Not only future gays, I’m astounded that liberals can’t see that they’re killing off future liberal voters. When all the hippies die off, who’s gonna be left? The undocumented democrats that’ve flooded the country?
“It doesn’t matter where one stands on the question of abortion; we believe that the use of taxpayer funds to provide abortions is a fiscal issue.”
Replace the word abortion with the word slavery, and see how that sounds. Yes, it matters that unborn disabled and female babies are more vulnerable to abortions. They’re targets (without protections).
Still, I’m happy that GOProud is waking up on this issue, and credit where credit is due. All of us need to recognize that we can’t separate social issues from taxation. History is clear.
Because they have a mutual vested interest in maintaining that licit sexual behavior should have nothing whatsoever to do with reproduction?
@18: Cas, There have been some serious questions about the whole Freakomics books, especially because he develops correlations from existing data. There is no prove of causation. A bigger concern is that this research is always difficult from the large numbers of confounding factors as well as the fact people lie. Using basically mathematical speculations to argue anything is kinda dangerous. Fun to read and think about, but I don’t think his studies really prove anything.
Otherwise, it’s nice to see more evidence of the bloodthirstiness and moral degeneracy of the left in the comments here. Sorry, I forgot that the left doesn’t believe in morals….all power comes from the barrel of a gun, right?
Hi Kevin,
Its a fair issue to raise about Freakonomics. The jury is still out. The fact that the study ticked off folks on the left and right, also says something–it hit a nerve for both sides.
“Otherwise, it’s nice to see more evidence of the bloodthirstiness and moral degeneracy of the left in the comments here. Sorry, I forgot that the left doesn’t believe in morals….all power comes from the barrel of a gun, right?”
I have no idea what you mean. You’ll have to break it on down for me, I’m afraid.
Obama releases a message on the 38th anniversary of Roe v Wade. The short version: “Suck it, pro-lifers!”
No.
Hardly. There is a world of difference between taking innocent life and relationships between consenting adults
you dont need to.
nothing
Everything that is illegal is such because it is theoretically regarded as immoral by at least a majority. But not everything that is immoral is illegal. Like liberalism for example. 😀
Boy, it looks like Dan’s post has brought some people’s ugliness!
Translation: Let’s just kill people before they’re born. Then government, which should have the responsibility for taking care of people (and will, in the socialist paradise), won’t have to bother with actually taking care of people.
Christianism, I find it interesting that you try to trap your listeners in a false dichotomy: either government funding for abortions, or it’s back to the alleys! Have you ever considered any of the other options:
– People who really want abortions, paying for them themselves. There’s a concept.
– People getting funding from their local State, if that is what their State believes in. (Federalism, again what a concept.)
– People like YOU founding a charity to pay for abortions (and then really paying for some of them), if you believe in abortion so much.
Rather than YOU IMPOSING YOUR RELGIOUS VIEWS on everybody else, by demanding that government force everybody else to positively cough up money to carry out your views on abortion.
Translation: Let’s just kill people before they’re born. After all, people commit crime, and if there are no people who might commit crimes then there will be no crime.
Seriously, Cas: Reporting study results is fine, but reporting them in an approving tone, is something else. Have you ever considered that taking such a utilitarian view of abortion might possibly be kind of… evil?
And even leaving that aside – even taking what you presented on its own terms – what made abortion become more prevalent since the 70s was that abortion became *legal* and somewhat more socially accepted. Not that it was federally funded. There is no need for federal funding of abortions, to achieve or maintain the ‘positives’ of widespread abortion that you have described.
Hi ILC, as per your comment about “approving tone” I am reporting that people on the left and right were outraged about this, for many of the reasons you and others have stated. I was pointing out one possibility, aware that the results are controversial. The story is tied up with race, and the implications are ugly. But then again, some of the rhetoric about the poor appears to me to be as hard-hearted as this study’s implications.
The far left gay/ lesbian community does more harm to the community as a whole than they do good. They are leftest sheep and cannot think for themselves.
Gay and lesbian folk who support abortion are the same people who think having or adopting a baby is along the same line as bringing home a puppy. Don’t want the puppy? To the pound! Don’t want the baby? To the garbage can!
Seriously, how many gay or lesbian couples do you know who have had or adopted children, but do not take their relationship with their partner or the healthy upbringing of that child seriously? I will bet you the answer is waaaay more than those who do. Having a child in the gay community is far too often an attention getter–a look what we did–look how equal we are!
I would like to see a serious discussion within our community that is less focussed on our rights in this area and more focussed on an honest look at how this “right” is affecting the children. Are they merely sacraficial lambs in many cases?
As a gay man myself, I’m a little bothered by the notion that we need some reason that’s serving to us to appose abortion. Seriously, I know what your trying to say, but the implication still comes out that we should only take an interest in the issue because we need kids to adopt, damnit! While I agree that in an ideal world without (as much) abortion, same sex couples would be a great group to care fore those “unwanted” children, the reasoning still sounds shallow to me. And to make it sound like this is just an issue of money is just as sad.
I can agree with the left on quite a few things, as well. I believe that more “realistic” sex ed needs to be taught to young people. I believe that morning after contraception does not count as abortion (it prevents the formation of the zygote, it doesn’t kill one already forming.) and is necessary in cases of rape and other forms of contraception failing. I also am willing to allow doctors to make the call in cases where an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. But beyond that, Murder, in my eyes, is still murder. Does that put me on the same “side” as some religious extremists that also hate me for who I am? Maybe, but they don’t exactly have a monopoly on morality, either.
FWIW I also disagree with capital punishment, and needless war. We as humans simply don’t have the right to decide who lives and who dies, whether it be unformed babies, convicted murders who are now incarcerated away from society, or foreign soldiers whom we shouldn’t be fighting with in the first place. Sure there are exceptions, when someone poses a clear and present danger to you and you must defend yourself.