[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Bombadil]

Meanwhile over in hypocrisy land..

Murphy, a Republican who co-sponsored a 20-week abortion ban that passed in the House Tuesday, allegedly asked his lover to terminate her pregnancy, according to text message records acquired by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Shannon Edwards, 32, whom Murphy recently admitted to having an affair with, messaged the 65-year-old congressman after an anti-abortion statement was posted on his office’s Facebook account in January.

"And you have zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week when we thought that was one of the options," allegedly wrote Edwards in a text exchange that was a part of a number of documents obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

"After discussions with my family and staff, I have come to the decision that I will not seek reelection to Congress at the end of my current term," Murphy said in a statement Wednesday evening. "In the coming weeks I will take personal time to seek help as my family and I continue to work through our personal difficulties and seek healing. I ask you to respect our privacy during this time."

.."I ask you to respect our privacy during this time"..

Lol.

[The Black Forrest]

Meanwhile over in hypocrisy land..

Murphy, a Republican who co-sponsored a 20-week abortion ban that passed in the House Tuesday, allegedly asked his lover to terminate her pregnancy, according to text message records acquired by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Shannon Edwards, 32, whom Murphy recently admitted to having an affair with, messaged the 65-year-old congressman after an anti-abortion statement was posted on his office’s Facebook account in January.

"And you have zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week when we thought that was one of the options," allegedly wrote Edwards in a text exchange that was a part of a number of documents obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

"After discussions with my family and staff, I have come to the decision that I will not seek reelection to Congress at the end of my current term," Murphy said in a statement Wednesday evening. "In the coming weeks I will take personal time to seek help as my family and I continue to work through our personal difficulties and seek healing. I ask you to respect our privacy during this time."

.."I ask you to respect our privacy during this time"..

Lol.

Think about the children!

Probably supported trump.

[Genivaria]

Meanwhile over in hypocrisy land..

Murphy, a Republican who co-sponsored a 20-week abortion ban that passed in the House Tuesday, allegedly asked his lover to terminate her pregnancy, according to text message records acquired by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Shannon Edwards, 32, whom Murphy recently admitted to having an affair with, messaged the 65-year-old congressman after an anti-abortion statement was posted on his office’s Facebook account in January.

"And you have zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week when we thought that was one of the options," allegedly wrote Edwards in a text exchange that was a part of a number of documents obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

"After discussions with my family and staff, I have come to the decision that I will not seek reelection to Congress at the end of my current term," Murphy said in a statement Wednesday evening. "In the coming weeks I will take personal time to seek help as my family and I continue to work through our personal difficulties and seek healing. I ask you to respect our privacy during this time."

.."I ask you to respect our privacy during this time"..

Lol.

He's a pro-birth extremist, this is kind've typical at this point.

[Kowani]

Meanwhile over in hypocrisy land..

Murphy, a Republican who co-sponsored a 20-week abortion ban that passed in the House Tuesday, allegedly asked his lover to terminate her pregnancy, according to text message records acquired by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Shannon Edwards, 32, whom Murphy recently admitted to having an affair with, messaged the 65-year-old congressman after an anti-abortion statement was posted on his office’s Facebook account in January.

"And you have zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week when we thought that was one of the options," allegedly wrote Edwards in a text exchange that was a part of a number of documents obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

"After discussions with my family and staff, I have come to the decision that I will not seek reelection to Congress at the end of my current term," Murphy said in a statement Wednesday evening. "In the coming weeks I will take personal time to seek help as my family and I continue to work through our personal difficulties and seek healing. I ask you to respect our privacy during this time."

.."I ask you to respect our privacy during this time"..

Lol.

Shock and alarm.

[Gormwood]

Meanwhile over in hypocrisy land..

Murphy, a Republican who co-sponsored a 20-week abortion ban that passed in the House Tuesday, allegedly asked his lover to terminate her pregnancy, according to text message records acquired by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Shannon Edwards, 32, whom Murphy recently admitted to having an affair with, messaged the 65-year-old congressman after an anti-abortion statement was posted on his office’s Facebook account in January.

"And you have zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week when we thought that was one of the options," allegedly wrote Edwards in a text exchange that was a part of a number of documents obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

"After discussions with my family and staff, I have come to the decision that I will not seek reelection to Congress at the end of my current term," Murphy said in a statement Wednesday evening. "In the coming weeks I will take personal time to seek help as my family and I continue to work through our personal difficulties and seek healing. I ask you to respect our privacy during this time."

.."I ask you to respect our privacy during this time"..

Lol.

He's a pro-birth extremist, this is kind've typical at this point.

Pro-life Republicans urge mistresses to abort, Family Values Republicans are on the downlow. Next we'll find out Republicans wanting to cut off welfare panhandle.

[Jebslund]

For someone who prattles on about wisdom as much as you do, you sure don't share much of it.

There is no point in hiring someone for a full time business position if their labor cost is more than whatever income they manage to generate, some of it has to be taken as profit for a business. The harsh truth is that if someone is working poor, their business activity simply doesn't generate a lot of income relative to their cost. It doesn't take a lot of skill to flip a burger and it is easily automated. Something that is low skill but high turnover, of course isn't going to pay well. It is something to give unemployed people their first job but not something to actually raise a family off of. Its inherently something someone only does for a year or less ideally, or until they find something better.

You need a job done? Pay the person you're hiring to do it enough to live off of or do the job yourself. The simple truth is that most companies just want to cheap out on pay, not that they can't afford to or that the money isn't being generated.

The reason a lot of CEOs are exorbitantly rich is because they're not paid on a fixed salary basis like a typical lower level worker would be. They're paid in stock options instead, so if they own a ton of company shares by default; if the larger business is doing well- the net effect is that they earn millions over the course of just a year if not less time over someone who had to buy all of their shares with their own capital over quite a long period.

Bullshit.

Stock options may contribute to their net worth, but they do, in fact, also get fixed salaries. In order to be making liquid capital off of stocks, they'd have to be selling stocks, not just holding them.

The theory goes that CEOs and executive types within corporations should be paid in stock because broadly speaking, if they make good high level decisions, and any positive results are reflected in a higher share price, that it provides people at that level the incentive to do their jobs well, as opposed to leaving for a rival business that'll pay them more or give them more fringe benefits than they can get staying put.

Again, unless you're also selling stocks, being paid in stocks does fuck all to put food on the table.

A rich person being rich, enables them to make large capital purchases and transactions for micromanaging a large firm and etc. If rich people aren't allowed to stay rich, they're aren't able to do all of this to as much of an extent. You'd need to accept that if your vision was the law of the land, that it'd be a worse situation for small business overall and would favor larger corporations to their expense.

Yes, yes, yes, paying employees fairly would put all the rich in the poorhouse. I also went to the moon for breakfast yesterday.

Did you know there's functionally little difference between 100 million and 101 million? That, when you make $100-million a year, a $2-million drop in income still leaves you with 98% of your previous income? And yet that two million could be split among 200 people and still leave each with 100 grand. Hell, for half that 100k per person, you could be paying 400 people 50k more a year. Shaving another 2 million off leaves the rich person still making 96% of his income while allowing him to give 800 people a $50K salary bump.

Now let's halve that again. 1600 people would be able to be making 25k more a year. That 25k bump at my last job would have had me making over 50K per year.

Sometimes businesses that're only starting out, can't afford a ton of things and that includes paying everyone a "living wage" as you call it.

A business that is just starting out probably isn't hiring people, either, until the business makes enough to start expanding. You don't start a business with an army of employees, after all. There's also things called loans that small business owners can get until they start making enough to manage, but either way, that's still no excuse to not be paying living wages. If you can't afford to pay a living wage, you can't afford to hire. I don't get to pay half price on a car just because it would make my life easier and I can't afford to pay full price yet.

A year or two out, either the business model is a bad idea or has bad execution and it'll fail and close up shop, or it will eventually become successful, but needs to be left the hell alone by government in order for this to happen. I'd be loathe to discourage entrepreneurship and risk taking to the extent that your proposal would do this.

No, self-regulation has never and will never work. Greed leads people to look for shortcuts and cheats, which forces otherwise honest people to either use the same shortcuts and cheats or go out of business, as consumer greed is such that most customers don't care about the business's practices as long as they get to save money and the problems can be swept under the rug. Hell, look at the cell phone market.

All that said, wages and regulation aren't the subject of this thread, so we may wish to get back to the topic of abortion.

[Cappuccina]

Meanwhile over in hypocrisy land..

Murphy, a Republican who co-sponsored a 20-week abortion ban that passed in the House Tuesday, allegedly asked his lover to terminate her pregnancy, according to text message records acquired by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Shannon Edwards, 32, whom Murphy recently admitted to having an affair with, messaged the 65-year-old congressman after an anti-abortion statement was posted on his office’s Facebook account in January.

"And you have zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week when we thought that was one of the options," allegedly wrote Edwards in a text exchange that was a part of a number of documents obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

"After discussions with my family and staff, I have come to the decision that I will not seek reelection to Congress at the end of my current term," Murphy said in a statement Wednesday evening. "In the coming weeks I will take personal time to seek help as my family and I continue to work through our personal difficulties and seek healing. I ask you to respect our privacy during this time."

.."I ask you to respect our privacy during this time"..

Lol.

He's a pro-birth extremist, this is kind've typical at this point.

Pro...birth?

Anyways... politicians aren't known for honesty, not surprising really.

[Luna Amore]

Agreed.

I should point out that I'm not doubting that there are decent religious or moral reasons to be opposed to abortion, it's just that many advocates seem focused on saving themselves than saving other people - as if the act of a ban is their job done, wash their hands and never mind the consequences. I'd have a lot more sympathy (and this comes back round to the current poll a little, I suppose) if anti-abortion bills came with a lot of funding and psychological support services - and it'd need more than a token little gesture - for those with unexpected/unwanted pregnancies or where the partner has chosen to desert. Because I'm sure that compassion and support for those who are impacted by your Good Christian Decisions™ would be theologically quite sound also, certainly moreso than riding off into the sunset and letting people deal with the consequences of your political decisions. Such is the hollowness of the "supply-side Jesus" synthesis.

Because they are different conversations. Whether or not family services should be government funded does not hinge on whether or not abortion is legal.

Put yourself in the mindset of someone who views a fetus as a full-fledged person -- or -- apply your logic to any other group and it becomes obvious in my opinion:

I should point out that I'm not doubting that there are decent religious or moral reasons to be opposed to euthanising the elderly, it's just that many advocates seem focused on saving themselves than saving other people - as if the act of a ban is their job done, wash their hands and never mind the consequences. I'd have a lot more sympathy (and this comes back round to the current poll a little, I suppose) if anti-euthanasia bills came with a lot of funding and nursing support services - and it'd need more than a token little gesture - for those with unwanted elderly or where the family has chosen to desert. Because I'm sure that compassion and support for those who are impacted by your Good Christian Decisions™ would be theologically quite sound also, certainly moreso than riding off into the sunset and letting people deal with the consequences of your political decisions. Such is the hollowness of the "supply-side Jesus" synthesis.

Or to put it another way, not wanting you to kill a dependant doesn't imply I am now responsible for their care. There may be (and I think are) good arguments for that care being government funded, but someone's opposition to what they see as murder is not one of them.

[Jebslund]

Or to put it another way, not wanting you to kill a dependant doesn't imply I am now responsible for their care. There may be (and I think are) good arguments for that care being government funded, but someone's opposition to what they see as murder is not one of them.

Or to put it another way, creating a situation where an unexpected, unintended situation cannot be dealt with in a manner that does not create undue hardship does not imply that I should try to put resources in place for easing said hardship. There may be (and I think are) good arguments for that hardship being eased through government funding, but someone's desire to ban something they don't like and then pat themselves on the back for having done their Good Deed^TM is not one of them.

[Luna Amore]

Or to put it another way, not wanting you to kill a dependant doesn't imply I am now responsible for their care. There may be (and I think are) good arguments for that care being government funded, but someone's opposition to what they see as murder is not one of them.

Or to put it another way, creating a situation where an unexpected, unintended situation cannot be dealt with in a manner that does not create undue hardship does not imply that I should try to put resources in place for easing said hardship. There may be (and I think are) good arguments for that hardship being eased through government funding, but someone's desire to ban something they don't like and then pat themselves on the back for having done their Good Deed^TM is not one of them.

I mean, besides the death of the baby. This is the perspective of the other side. Ignoring that doesn't make a discussion easier.

After a certain point, it becomes clear some of you don't actually want to have a discussion. If you do, go back and actually consider what I posted instead of racing to the snarky quip.

[Genivaria]

He's a pro-birth extremist, this is kind've typical at this point.

Pro...birth?

Anyways... politicians aren't known for honesty, not surprising really.

Yes.
Pro-birth not pro-life.

[Jebslund]

Or to put it another way, creating a situation where an unexpected, unintended situation cannot be dealt with in a manner that does not create undue hardship does not imply that I should try to put resources in place for easing said hardship. There may be (and I think are) good arguments for that hardship being eased through government funding, but someone's desire to ban something they don't like and then pat themselves on the back for having done their Good Deed^TM is not one of them.

I mean, besides the death of the baby. This is the perspective of the other side. Ignoring that doesn't make a discussion easier.

After a certain point, it becomes clear some of you don't actually want to have a discussion. If you do, go back and actually consider what I posted instead of racing to the snarky quip.

The perspective of the death of a bundle of cells that isn't even *capable* of having a perspective until 24 weeks in, by which point the vast majority of women have already made a decision? That's a bit like asking me to consider the destruction of a pile of rocks a hardship.

As to wanting to have a discussion, first off, Luna, be direct. Second, no, I do want to have a discussion. I can and will, however, snark at arguments from the side yelling "take responsibility!" that insist that only the people whose actions they don't approve of ought to take responsibility. It seems to me that if you're going to force someone to birth a child, it's your responsibility to see to the consequences thereof, rather than simply washing your hands of the matter and patting yourself on the back for a job half-done. If you don't want to make sure that child will get the best care feasible, don't butt in when the mother wants to take an action that will render it a moot point before it would ever know the difference.

[NeoOasis]

Pro...birth?

Anyways... politicians aren't known for honesty, not surprising really.

A lot of Republicans are all for the birth of the child, but fall dramatically short in providing after birth care. Issues such as maternity leave, healthcare for children, and education fall very low on the list of pro-lifers. At this point it almost appears as if they only care about the birth, and stop caring immediately afterwards. So pro-birth seems more apt than pro-life... especially considering many people who oppose abortions support capital punishment.

[New haven america]

Or to put it another way, creating a situation where an unexpected, unintended situation cannot be dealt with in a manner that does not create undue hardship does not imply that I should try to put resources in place for easing said hardship. There may be (and I think are) good arguments for that hardship being eased through government funding, but someone's desire to ban something they don't like and then pat themselves on the back for having done their Good Deed^TM is not one of them.

I mean, besides the death of the baby. This is the perspective of the other side. Ignoring that doesn't make a discussion easier.

After a certain point, it becomes clear some of you don't actually want to have a discussion. If you do, go back and actually consider what I posted instead of racing to the snarky quip.

It's nice to know the site has a mod who seems to be ok with both rape and incest.

[Gormwood]

A lot of Republicans are all for the birth of the child, but fall dramatically short in providing after birth care. Issues such as maternity leave, healthcare for children, and education fall very low on the list of pro-lifers. At this point it almost appears as if they only care about the birth, and stop caring immediately afterwards. So pro-birth seems more apt than pro-life... especially considering many people who oppose abortions support capital punishment.

Fetus fetishism seems more approximate. Protect the unborn, but once they come out they're welfare parasites entirely on their own.

[The Free Joy State]

I mean, besides the death of the baby. This is the perspective of the other side. Ignoring that doesn't make a discussion easier.

After a certain point, it becomes clear some of you don't actually want to have a discussion. If you do, go back and actually consider what I posted instead of racing to the snarky quip.

It's nice to know the site has a mod who seems to be ok with both rape and incest.

While I am pro-choice -- and I want to repeat that firmly once again -- I'm pretty sure I've not seen Luna say anything that suggests being "okay" with rape.

We can argue strongly against our political opponents without slurring them.

[Bombadil]

I mean, besides the death of the baby. This is the perspective of the other side. Ignoring that doesn't make a discussion easier.

After a certain point, it becomes clear some of you don't actually want to have a discussion. If you do, go back and actually consider what I posted instead of racing to the snarky quip.

It's nice to know the site has a mod who seems to be ok with both rape and incest.

Bit of a stretch..

..having said that I did see an argument that banning abortion helps to uncover incest and paedophilia because the evidence can't be quietly aborted.

I'm sure we'll see rates plummet in Alabama.

[Liriena]

Fetuses only have a personal identity insofar as we anthropomorphize them in the same way that we sometimes anthropomorphize pets, plants or inanimate objects. It's a mainly emotional process, something we project onto a being or object that has no ability to assert an identity of its own and in its own terms. It's a self-serving simulacrum of empathy, not an actual human bond. And to prioritize that over the life and freedom of real people who do have an identity of their own and the ability to assert it... it is that same self-serving simulacrum talen to its most selfish and destructive extreme. It's an act of authoritarianism done in the service of protecting an imaginary friend.

[New haven america]

It's nice to know the site has a mod who seems to be ok with both rape and incest.

While I am pro-choice -- and I want to repeat that firmly once again -- I'm pretty sure I've not seen Luna say anything that suggests being "okay" with rape.

We can argue strongly against our political opponents without slurring them.

They replied to posts that were discussing Alabama's new abortion law, which bans it in cases of incest and rape, saying that we need to look at "The Other Side" (Pro-life, which is their own side...) and why they decided to do this.

So either they're ok with rape and incest (Which I don't think they are, least I hope they aren't), or they're fine with laws like this getting passed so long as they win more ground... I honestly can't decide which is worse. Either that, or they just picked a really shitty post to reply to, in which case, I'll take back what I said.

[Luna Amore]

Pro...birth?

Anyways... politicians aren't known for honesty, not surprising really.

A lot of Republicans are all for the birth of the child, but fall dramatically short in providing after birth care. Issues such as maternity leave, healthcare for children, and education fall very low on the list of pro-lifers. At this point it almost appears as if they only care about the birth, and stop caring immediately afterwards. So pro-birth seems more apt than pro-life... especially considering many people who oppose abortions support capital punishment.

I agree with the criticism of the Republicans, being a "pro-lifer" myself, I find that the mainstream conservative position is terribly narrow in scope.

Though, I don't see how support for capital punishment is damning, that's a completely different argument.

[Gormwood]

I agree with the criticism of the Republicans, being a "pro-lifer" myself, I find that the mainstream conservative position is terribly narrow in scope.

Though, I don't see how support for capital punishment is damning, that's a completely different argument.

"Life for some, Death for others" sounds like a cheesy movie line, even a song from The Producers. Not to mention lacking in consistency coming from self-proclaimed "pro-lifers".

[Alouite]

While I am pro-choice -- and I want to repeat that firmly once again -- I'm pretty sure I've not seen Luna say anything that suggests being "okay" with rape.

We can argue strongly against our political opponents without slurring them.

They replied to posts that were discussing Alabama's new abortion law, which bans it in cases of incest and rape, saying that we need to look at "The Other Side" (Pro-life, which is their own side...) and why they decided to do this.

So either they're ok with rape and incest (Which I don't think they are, least I hope they aren't), or they're fine with laws like this getting passed so long as they win more ground... I honestly can't decide which is worse. Either that, or they just picked a really shitty post to reply to, in which case, I'll take back what I said.

That is some seriously shady stuff you are doing right there. Have some decency and respect for others rather than assuming that they have the worst intentions and then making a post insinuating they should be punished for being alright with rape and incest. Just because someone is opposed to your position on abortion and is a moderator with a pro-life perspective doesn't make them "ok with both rape and incest", that is obviously libelous garbage and you should know better than to throw terms like that around at people to damage their reputation just because you disagree with their politics.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I should point out that I'm not doubting that there are decent religious or moral reasons to be opposed to abortion, it's just that many advocates seem focused on saving themselves than saving other people - as if the act of a ban is their job done, wash their hands and never mind the consequences. I'd have a lot more sympathy (and this comes back round to the current poll a little, I suppose) if anti-abortion bills came with a lot of funding and psychological support services - and it'd need more than a token little gesture - for those with unexpected/unwanted pregnancies or where the partner has chosen to desert. Because I'm sure that compassion and support for those who are impacted by your Good Christian Decisions™ would be theologically quite sound also, certainly moreso than riding off into the sunset and letting people deal with the consequences of your political decisions. Such is the hollowness of the "supply-side Jesus" synthesis.

Because they are different conversations. Whether or not family services should be government funded does not hinge on whether or not abortion is legal.

Put yourself in the mindset of someone who views a fetus as a full-fledged person -- or -- apply your logic to any other group and it becomes obvious in my opinion:

I should point out that I'm not doubting that there are decent religious or moral reasons to be opposed to euthanising the elderly, it's just that many advocates seem focused on saving themselves than saving other people - as if the act of a ban is their job done, wash their hands and never mind the consequences. I'd have a lot more sympathy (and this comes back round to the current poll a little, I suppose) if anti-euthanasia bills came with a lot of funding and nursing support services - and it'd need more than a token little gesture - for those with unwanted elderly or where the family has chosen to desert. Because I'm sure that compassion and support for those who are impacted by your Good Christian Decisions™ would be theologically quite sound also, certainly moreso than riding off into the sunset and letting people deal with the consequences of your political decisions. Such is the hollowness of the "supply-side Jesus" synthesis.

Or to put it another way, not wanting you to kill a dependant doesn't imply I am now responsible for their care. There may be (and I think are) good arguments for that care being government funded, but someone's opposition to what they see as murder is not one of them.

The two cases don't hinge on quite the same logic. The conflation of an adult child not being able to cough up care fees for the elder (I presume this is what you're going for here, it's not terribly clear) and "euthanasia" is a bit wonky. There should be funding for elder care, of course. The direct analogy is complicated by the fact that the elderly, unlike children, have had some chance to raise funds for their own retirement (I don't think even libertarians would take child labour as far as the womb). People becoming old is a relatively predictable event in a way that rape-pregnancies, unexpected pregnancies or pregnancies where the father deserts are not. That said, if the elder has not put any money aside there may be cases where it's not only not the legal responsibility of their adult children to care for them but it's not their moral responsibility either. If the adult child is unable to support the elder, the decision falls to society and they need to ultimately decide whether to provide for the elder or "personal responsibility" means the person be left to die or be euthanised (and what a reflection on society it would be).

And so we arrive at responsibility flowing down to society as last resort, and the society having a responsibility to provide financial support to those in cases of genuine disadvantage at the very least - much as it did for abortion in my original post. Actually, hey, maybe this analogy can be made to work!

I think there is a quite intense and unavoidable hypocrisy in forcing people to bring a child to term when they cannot afford them or where there have been traumatic events involved and then refusing to fund up welfare, adoption and psychological services citing "personal responsibility" when it is a fully predictable outcome of the new policy that you introduced that many of the new parents won't be able to afford their children or will be traumatised and adoption centres will be stretched beyond their limit.

[USS Monitor]

..having said that I did see an argument that banning abortion helps to uncover incest and paedophilia because the evidence can't be quietly aborted.

Implying they wouldn't just go to some back-alley abortionist or use a coat-hanger or herbal medicine to try to do it themselves...

[Alouite]

..having said that I did see an argument that banning abortion helps to uncover incest and paedophilia because the evidence can't be quietly aborted.

Implying they wouldn't just go to some back-alley abortionist or use a coat-hanger or herbal medicine to try to do it themselves...

I think you will find that though some would do anything to abort, an abortion ban would successfully and significantly reduce the abortion rate.