Dems give abortion foes space --let's try this again

[davidinalameda]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/02/07/MNGU8B751L1.DTL

Kristen Day, who describes herself as "pro-life," said she and other Democrats opposed to abortion have endured a long, cold winter in a party that proudly proclaims its pro-choice credentials.

But lately, Day has perceived a thaw -- and said some unlikely allies may get the credit: Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John Kerry, who was the party's 2004 presidential candidate, and even Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has been all but anointed as the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

"For the past -- how many years? -- pro-life Democrats have been literally afraid to speak out, and the issue wasn't talked about in our party, '' said Day, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Democrats for Life in America. "But it's an exciting time that the conversations have been happening. All the major Democrats are talking about inclusion for pro-life Democrats.''

[Malva Zebrina]

1. Does thatmean that pro-life Democrats are for changing

or eliminating Roe vs WAde? What the hell does that mean?

Fine if someone wants to call themself pro-life, but why enter it into the realm of politics at all unless they are interested in eliminating abortion, or rvw from the country?

Makes no sense. I suspect they are in the league to abolish all abortion, legally, from the laws of the country.

As such, they are forcing pregnancy or forcing back alley abortions on women, intead of leaving open the option that any woman who chooses abortion absolutely DESERVES a clean and safe environment for the procedure.

So I don't get this at all from the so called "pro-life" Democrats.

[dsc]

4. One in four of our votes

come from people who wish to have major restrictions on abortion (limit it to rape, incest, life of mother or limit timeframes). That means Kerry would have lost 63 to 36 if he hadn't had those votes.

[Malva Zebrina]

12. and that is more important than clean and safe enviro ments for women

who do not have the same idea that "pro-life" means sanctification of a blob of cells?

How many women would die because of that tyranny of the religious believers over those who do not believe the same? Because it is poliltical in nature, that means women must die because they are the target of those with religious beliefs?

That is nonsense.

[double_helix]

46. I'm a swing voter and want those restrictions

IMO, abortion is immoral and despicable, not a clean way to live, not a nice thing.

As an atheist, my opposition to a culture of abortion has to do with ethics and universal human values.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton, abortion should be "safe, legal and rare". In other words, a neccessary evil with major restrictions - not a lifestyle, not something socially acceptable.

[Djinn]

52. so it's immoral and despicable and

"not a clean way to live" (how many people how abortions as a way of life???) yet you think it should be legal.

THAT's the bit I don't get, I honestly can't think of anything I think of as immoral or despicable (murder, kiddie porn, bestiality) that I would be OK with it being legal and rare?

[donheld]

61. Should i have to go by what others deside is "immoral?"

who gets to chose whose morals we live by? Christian churches? Jerry Falwell? William Jefferson Clinton? Democratic Underground? Free Republic? You? Me?

May we trust each other to decide this for themselves?



BTW is it possible to be Pro-choice and pro-life at the same time?

[double_helix]

62. We decide as a group.

The democratic process allows us to arrive at a set of morals. Each of us tries to convince others of our subjective morality, then we take it into the voting booth. Through this objective process, we arrive at objective conclusions - an objective set of morals.

This is different from "imposing" values on people, which is when a minority view is undemocratically imposed on a majority.

[northamericancitizen]

66. "An objective set of morale" I dig that

[Djinn]

83. if I am forced to give birth because of YOUR morals

then that IS imposing - it's not like "society imposes it's will on you in that you can't kill someone as well" because me not being able to kill someone doesn't IMPINGE on my rights - forcing me to be a farm animal DOES

[double_helix]

100. So. I'm "forced" to do lots of things because of other's morals,

like pay taxes for things I don't agree with. I'm "forced" to wear a seat-belt when I drive a car, forced to obey all kinds of rules - we all are.

All law is morality.

No one is forcing you to be a "farm animal" because no one forced you to have sex. "Safe, legal, rare" allows abortion in the event of rape.

And if a strong majority did decide to "force" you to be a "farm animal" - because it thought it was the morally/ethically correct thing - you would have to obey the law or face the consequences - just like anyone else.

Of course you could argue "tyranny of the majority" - which is why I would never advocate for complete outlaw of abortion.

[Djinn]

127. so it's not immoral to murder the child of a rapist?

if abortion is immoral then it's immoral in the case of rape too - can you not see the glaring inconsistency there?

BTW you are NOT "forced" to wear a seatbelt or pay taxes, you CAN refuse to do all of those things, obviously there are consequences but you can't just refuse to give birth, if you've been denied access to abortion - you can't cross your legs and hold your breath, so once again your argument is totally irrelevant.

[Book Lover]

128. Pregnancy is not a punishment for sex

Sex is not a sin; pregnancy is not a punishment.

[Lindacooks]

91. Oh, you mean like the 2000 SCOTUS decision that put chimpy in the WH?

[Kipepeo]

102. Except to outlaw abortion IS to impose your views

quite literally on another person.

[double_helix]

103. No, because I alone can't outlaw or restrict anything. /eom

[Kipepeo]

104. LOL

I mean in general. If our government were to outlaw abortion they would be forcing one view/opinion on all women, and very literally. Those who work to outlaw abortion, instead of working to make it less necessary, are working to impose their view on every woman's body.

[double_helix]

107. Sex is a woman's choice. Those who oppose abortion

don't believe abortion to be the "choice" of a woman: it takes a man and a woman to make a child, and what about the right of the life growing inside the mother ? I agree with the pro-life position, except for very early term, rape, incest or health of mother.

Right now, the government is forcing one view on everyone: that abortion is morally equivalent to having the child, that there is nothing wrong with abortion.

I don't agree with that view.

As long as a majority thinks something should be illegal/restricted, it will be. That isn't "imposing one's views" -- that is democracy.

Of course the majority should always consider the feelings of the minority, which is why I don't advocate for the complete outlaw of abortion.

[Kipepeo]

108. Okay, you lost me

when you implied that for a woman, consent to sex is consent to becoming a parent. I guess we should just tell all people who cant' afford a child financially or emotionally to beg off sex, because it would make a small part of the population very happy.

When a government respects a woman's right to make medical decisions for her own body, they are not imposing their view on said woman's body, and that is what is important to me. As far as legal rights go in regards to a woman's BODY, you can either choose to give them to the woman herself or to someone else. Period.

It's not democracy to reduce a whole class of people to second class-citizenship. That's called tyranny.

[double_helix]

110. Both men and women have to be responsible for their behavior.

For both, consent to sex comes with the understanding that parenthood may result, and should both be responsible financially and otherwise.

I don't believe anyone has absolute right over their own body. I can't make a "medical decision" to sell my body parts.

I don't believe it's a woman's "right" to abort. What about the right's of the father and the unborn ? It is they who have become the second class citizens, along with the women themselves, who are lead to believe by the cultural elite that abortion is ok.

IMO, the pro-choice position is selfish, elitist and immoral. Unless Dems moderate to the "safe, legal and rare" Clinton position, I will be unlikely to support the party in the future.

ps. Looking back, it's amazing how sane Clinton was for a Democrat, and how easy it was to support him. His thinking was definitely not like most on the left, who control the party now.

[mairceridwen]

113. Fathers can have rights

When they become fathers. Even pregnant women are not considered mothers, but "expecting mothers".

Even the courts upheld that people have absolute right over their own bodies. The laws that prevent selling body parts have more to do with coersion and commerce than bodily integrity.

I don't care if you think of it as a cell-cluster or a baby, reproductive rights are
about autonomy and the protection of bodily integrity and the so-called rights of a fetus do not trump those of the mother. In McFall v. Shimp, Shimp's bodily
integrity was legally protected to the extent that he was permitted to refuse a procedure
(a bone marrow extraction and donation) that could have prevented his cousin's death from aplastic anemia. (McFall died two weeks after the ruling). Now, we can argue that for Shimp to refuse to provide his cousin with lifesaving tissue is morally questionable, if not repugnant, to some but his body is his own and that is not subject to legislation. I don't
see the issue of abortion as that much different.

No government, no man, has any say in what I do with my body. It's about protecting individual autonomy and bodily integrity. Any society that doesn't recognize that
is a society that FORCES women to bear children and that is wrong. Even if fetus rights were justifiable they cannot trump the rights of the mother,

By the way, I realize my example would justify even a third trimester abortion and that isn't even something I can get my head around, much less defend such a thing. However, practically speaking, if EVERY woman had access to a safe, legal, inexpensive abortion in her first trimester we probably wouldn't even have to think about third trimester abortions except in sudden, rare instances of a woman's life being at stake.


(legal example is from Susan Bordo's book, Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body)

[Djinn]

129. sigh

For both, consent to sex comes with the understanding that parenthood may result, and should both be responsible financially and otherwise.

which is why most people who don't want kids use some form of contraception - however the world isn't perfect and sometimes shit happens - and if a pergnancy does occur and they do not want a child they can do the responsible thing (financially and otherwise) to seek a termination

I don't believe anyone has absolute right over their own body. I can't make a "medical decision" to sell my body parts.

admit I'm not au fait with US laws regarding this but the US does allow "private adoptions" that are basically baby selling so I'm not completely sure that you couldn't do just that.

I don't believe it's a woman's "right" to abort. What about the right's of the father and the unborn ? It is they who have become the second class citizens, along with the women themselves, who are lead to believe by the cultural elite that abortion is ok.

unfortunately you can not give someone the right to dictate what someone does with their body so there goes the idea that a man has a determining say in this - you can not give full human rights to both mother and FETUS so we make a choice and give them to the living breathing person.

IMO, the pro-choice position is selfish, elitist and immoral. Unless Dems moderate to the "safe, legal and rare" Clinton position, I will be unlikely to support the party in the future.

don't let the door hit your arse on the way out will you - many people probably feel that gay rights are "selfish, elitist and immoral" lets get rid of them to, and hey those "other" religious are a bit weird lets ban them - doesn't matter that that impinges on individuals rights and we're supposed to be the progressives.

what's with all this "cultural elite" crap, do you honestly think there's been some kind of push from the "elites" to make poor women have abortions for fun??? people on the lower end of the socio-economic scale have ALWAYS had abortions - unfotrunately they used to bleed to death, or die from septic poisoning. THAT's much more "moral"

[mairceridwen]

112. we don't live in a democracy

America has never been on. It is a constitutional republic, representative democracy at best

our constitution protects us against tyranny of the majority.

In any case, there are some "truths we take to be self evident" (yeah, butchered the quote),

You don't get to vote on RIGHTS. Reproductive rights are about maintaining autonomy and bodily integrity. No one should be able to vote on what I do with MY body. What society should do, is maintain healthy and responsible options (access to save first term abortion, access to sex education and birth control, and so forth)


The government is not *forcing* a pro-choice view. You can choose NOT to have an abortion. You can CHOOSE to adopt a child. You can CHOOSE. In an anti-choice world, there is actual force. I am FORCED to bear a child.

[Kipepeo]

101. Who has ever advocated abortion as a LIFESTYLE?

Give me a break. I don't mean to offend, but it sounds like you are absorbing more about the pro-choice position from Republicans than from Democrats. Democrats never go around demanding support for the 'abortion lifestyle.'

It just shows how effective the Republicans have been at framing the issue if that is how the pro-choice Democratic position is perceived.

Pro-choice stands for one thing only: allowing every woman to make medical decisions for her own body, be she pregnant or not. Protecting that right is of utmost importance to me since it is continually under attack by those who *say* they want to eliminate abortion but who don't actually support any programs that would make abortion less necessary.

[Itsthetruth]

88. Nice Logic

Using that logic one could say that had John Kerry campaigned much harder in support of the Iraq war he would have picked up a few million more pro-war Republican voters and won the election!

Can't really say he didn't try.

After all, he had anti-war Democrats in the bag so what did he have to lose by parading around harder with his chest full of medals in support of the war?

[Nobody]

115. But isn't that still a choice on someone's part?

Except it isn't the woman's part. Someone else is making a choice on whether or not abortion is allowed. Someone who doesn't have to live or die by that choice.

Here are some questions about allowing abortion for certain reasons acceptable to the pro-choice-as-long-as-you-decide-what-I'd-decide people.

Let's assume that abortion was illegal except in certain cercumstances.

Rape/Incest: How would this exception kick in when the woman's medical records are not public property? How about her police reports? She isn't going to give a stranger access to this extremely personal information. Rape is very traumatizing and many woman don't report it because they're afraid -yes, even today in 2005 embarrassingly enough- that they won't be believed. So you can't go by a police report or lack thereof. And why should any of this information be made public?

Life of mother: At what chance of risk is it acceptable to abort? 5%? 10%? Suppose a board of abortion approvers determines that the risk is acceptable to them even though it isn't acceptable for the woman or her husband or her already existing children? What if the abortion is denied despite all that and let's also assume that the woman dies. Who gets sued? For how much? And once again, is anyone going to want to release their medical records to the public?

How is it determined that these exceptions kick in? Does a board of abortion approvers have to sign an affadavit that the woman is aborting for acceptable reasons? How does one become a member of such a board? How unanimous does such a decision have to be?

Making any exception at all is being in favor of choice. Except that the choice is not that of the woman, it is that of someone who wants to judge her and tell her that unless she aborts for the so-called "right" reasons, she will not be allowed to abort. And that is why I favor no restrictions.

Here's a radical thought: Let's trust a woman to think this through and weigh ALL of the options with acccurate information and make the choice herself. And let's as a society not heap judgement on her because she did things we wouldn't do or chose things we wouldn't choose.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

121. dsc, I think your numbers are overstated

You are assuming these are single issue voters.
Still, it is a good point, that we have to find a way to accomodate these people.

[noamnety]

6. It means they don't understand the concept of framing

All the dems policies are pro-life. (But not anti-choice)

All the policies result in less abortions, for a number of reasons. Some anti-choice people appear to be trying to distort that discussion to imply that we are interested in changing the platform, which is not the case. If they understood the platform, they wouldn't be using the phrase "pro-life" when they actually mean "mandatory birth."

[lazarus]

2. I'm pro-life

and I'm pro-choice. Amazing how that can work, isn't it? :shrug:

[Clark2008]

8. Isn't it?

As a Catholic, I won't be getting an abortion, I won't tell someone I know and love to get one, either - but I can separate my religion from politics and realize the rest of the freakin' world doesn't practice my religion and my not hold my beliefs.
Pro-choice IS choosing to be pro-life for myself and let others make their own choice.
Simple as that.

[TexasSissy]

3. Well, pro-choice is part of the party platform. What she is referring

to is a common ground of WANTING abortion to be rare, and working toward that end. But in the end, it's a woman's choice.

In the past, some Dems have been afraid of voicing support for urging that abortion be rare, a last resort, while protecting choice. But I think it's a valid position. A good position. I agree with it, as I would think many do....as long as in the end, choice is protected (in the first few months, I think it is?).

[Djinn]

14. I honestly don't get the "rare" thing

if one beleives abortion isn't killing a person then I don't see why one would have a problem with millions being performed everyday.

If you DO think it's killing then surely you don't want it to be rare you want it banned??

I'm honestly not trying to flame here, personally I beleive abortion should be free (or atleast very affordable to ALL) and available when a woman wants it but I really have trouble with the rare concept.

It's also like the rape/incest argument, if abortion is killing then it's STILL killing if the father of the "victim" is a rapist, since when do we kill the children of criminals???

[lazarus]

16. it's called pragmatism

More harm would result from banned abortions than from rare abortions.

[Djinn]

24. but surely if you beleive it's murder

then every rare abortion is a case of murder - doesn't get more harmful than that surely??

[lazarus]

25. black and white

are not the colours of my world.

And, yes, it does get more harmful. For fun, let's assume there are no shades of gray in this debate, which is what you seem to want.

There would still be more harm caused, economically and to women's health, by banned abortion than the few "murders" done with rare murders.

If you don't think that banned abortion would cause a massive amount of harm why are you against banning it?

[Djinn]

38. Of course I think it'd cause harm

to ban abortion - but if I belived abortion was MURDER I couldn't advocate it under any circumstances, just like I don't advocate any murder under any circumstance (NB killing and murder aren't the same thing)

It kinda is black and white though surely it either is WRONG to abort because you are killing a human or your not killing a human in which case it's not anyone but the women in questions business because it involves nothing more than HER body.

where is the grey? this is the bit I just don't get? how can abortion be kind of wrong or kind of undesirable?

[lazarus]

58. The grey

is when we start talking about probability versus certainty.

I'm not certain that abortion (esp. in the first trimester) is murder. I am certain that banning abortion would cause great damage to our society and to individuals.

IF abortion is murder, it should be outlawed. And you would, if you respect the law at all, agree with me. (Actually, no law banning abortion would be necessary, as murder is already illegal.)

That's not where the debate should be in the abortion issue. The debate shouldn't be whether to ban abortion, it should be when life begins. Roe v Wade struck a compromise that I think is fair, adding more restrictions as certainty grows. We can take this to bizarre extremes on both ends of the spectrum if we want, but I don't think that's productive.

Compromise is necessary, if only because we don't know for sure, and we can't know.

[Lindacooks]

94. I don't know about that.

I think the debate should be about privacy and a woman's right to control her destiny, not about when life begins.

And the 'restrictions' that have been added to Roe v Wade have not been about when life begins, but about the anti-choicers trying to get rid of it without being able to overturn it.

I hardly think that a 24 hour waiting period after being 'informed' (i.e. lectured to) has anything to do with when life begins. And considering that many abortion clinics have been shut down and it can be a significant trip to get to one for many women, this 'waiting period' has become prohibitive.

This all comes down to misogyny. Many, many people think that women just can't be trusted to do the right thing - that they go skipping happily into clinics (oh boy, I get to have an abortion today!) When the exact opposite is true. Every woman I know who has had an abortion (and those who did not) has thought long and hard about it and came to the decision best for HER. NOT you.

[lazarus]

124. I would thank you

not to call me misogynistic.

I'm not talking about the restrictions added after Roe, but the restrictions within Roe.

And you seem to miss a point here, something a lot of people miss: IF, and that's a big IF, abortion is the taking of a life, then "privacy" doesn't enter into the debate at all.

If it's not such a big deal, why do women have to "think long and hard about it"? If it is such a big deal, why? Because it might just possibly be taking a life?

It's not because one's destiny is at stake. The same thing could be said when deciding whether to use birth control, and I've never had to "think long and hard" about that.

Finally, a point that people also always miss. I stated at the beginning of this that I'm pro-choice. So quit saying I'm trying to decide anything for you, okay?

[Malva Zebrina]

20. By insisting it should be "rare" that implies that

those who do have an abortion, are wicked.

It is "rare" or that is the current most popular propagandist meme attached to the religious interpretation and the one taken by those who seek to cajole the pro-life people into giving one their vote, that would rule over women's lives, because it is only if you are raped, or the victim of incest or some other horror, rather than a mistake or the enjoyment of sex on the part of a woman. However, rape, or incest given a pass by the pro-life fanatics, is inconsistent with the pro-life religous stance.

If it is labeled as "rare"(or that it should be "rare" to be approved of) or if those who would seek to impose pregnancy upon a woman, it implicitly suggests that other pregnancies are to be suffered through on the part of the woman who neither wants it,who does NOT want to be a mother, who abhors the thought of motherhood, nor desires to put her body through pregnancy for nine months for her OWN reasons that are no one else's business.

[bperci108]

51. Not necessarily....

That would be a jump to a conclusion that doesn't follow.

My understanding of "rare" is that the pregnancy should have been avoided in the first place if possible, not as an afterthought if conception wasn't the intent. IOW-excercising some personal responsibility both before and after. (And I realize that accidents do indeed happen, I'm not talking about that.)

The problem with the issue of abortion is that the debate inspires such strong emotions from either POV that radicals now man the ramparts on both sides.

It's seems it's become either "Ban them all" or "No restrictions whatsoever".

Neither will work.

No matter what is ultimately decided (re: beginning of life, etc) someone is going to be pissed with the outcome.

Universally available contraception and honest, accurate sex education for every child in the US would help, but the radical right doesn't like that either...which is sickeningly ironic.

[LisaLL]

117. adoption should be rare too

I think taking abortion out of context and singling it out as the only option that should be rare is misleading. All of the options that stem from unintended pregnancy should be rare bc unintended pregnancies should be rare.

I prefer to argue the rareness/wrongness issue this way. It is honest and complete:

When a woman is faced with a pregnancy and does not have the means to raise a child, there is something wrong with every option:

There is something wrong when a women has to give her baby away to strangers in adoption. There is something wrong when a women has to raise her children in poverty. There is something wrong when a woman has to take food from her children's mouths to feed a new baby. And there is something wrong when a woman has to have an abortion.

We should be working towards making *all* of these things rare because we have empathy and compassion for women and their families.

[cags]

27. I agree

If you think its a perfectly fine thing to do, why would you care if its rare or not, unless deep down you think theres something not right with it.

[retnavyliberal]

95. Because the real damage done

is done to the mind of the girl getting the procedure. We can be as cavalier as we want to be, however to that person, it would be her baby she has to get rid of. I have known women that morn the day of an abortion every year. I would say that is why I want it rarely done.

[cags]

99. But its not a baby, right?

[Djinn]

130. and then there's the millions of women

who feel nothing but relief. some people feel bad after sex - lets ban that too. People's emotions like their bodies are their own business and it's up to THEM to deal with them

[retnavyliberal]

133. No one was saying ban

we were talking about how it should be rare.

[Djinn]

136. they shouldn't be performed as often as is neccesary

just like any other surgery, appendectomies, heart bypasses, amputations - nobody EVER describes them as things that should be rare, people just assume they should be done when needed - like abortion.

I just see "rare" as being a code word, meaning distasteful, immoral, disturbing...I know that's not what everyone who uses the term means but I just find it a bit of a dog whistle word

[retnavyliberal]

138. I personally would like

my heart bypasses and amputations as rare as possible.

We can be as clinical as we want to be, but reality is there are feelings involved here just like a miscarriage. To most people, it is not just a blob. We that are pro choice just do not believe it is a viable life yet.

[Djinn]

141. I don't CARE if it's viable or a "life"

the woman is - ergo she gets granted full human rights including the right to make decisions about her own body

[iverglas]

137. and then the real colours fly ...

Because the real damage done is done to the mind of the girl getting the procedure.

Not only do you have the utterly appalling presumption to speak for a woman you do not know and know nothing about ... YOU CALL HER A GIRL.

Me, I don't need to know anything more.


Too bad our anti-castrationist friend, who objected to my calling a snot-nosed little boy telling grown women how to live their lives exactly what he was, isn't around to give you a piece of his mind, though ...

[retnavyliberal]

139. Wow, I did not mean to offend...

and I am not being mean or angry. I am simply giving my point of view and sharing personal experiences. The person i was talking about was a girl when she had the procedure and it was her right and should be her right to do it. I just do not think we need to be cold about it.

You may want to consider relaxation techniques.

[Kipepeo]

109. It's funny, I see you posting in several places this same question

yet it doesn't seem to give you pause that people see nothing inherently "wrong" with heart surgery or a colostomy either, but also want to see those become more rare.

Just wondering, but why do you seem to think people must have some difference in reasoning there (between their feelings for one medical procedure and those same feelings for another and another)? I'll be the first to raise my hand and say I don't. :shrug:

And no, deep down I don't think there's anything wrong with a colostomy, but I still want to see it become more rare. And that's the honest truth from deep, DEEP down.

[cags]

123. The procedures are not comparable

Abortion is one of the safest procedures there is. Comparing it to life threatening surgeries is not even a logical assumption in my mind.

Thats why I don't accept that as an argument. Doctors have compared abortion to a tonsillectomy. No one is on a crusade to make tonsillectomies rare.

One poster suggested the "rare" statement to be a political compromise rather than saying something is wrong with abortion and that I see as more of reasonable explanation than "We want heart surgeries rare too" argument.

[LisaLL]

118. see "adoptions should also be rare" post

nt

[TexasSissy]

76. One can think it is unhealthy w/o thinking it is murder.

I think, personally, it does a number on a woman's head. That's first.

Second, it is not killing a person, but it is destroying an embryo or fetus.

Third, it is emotionally trying on a woman, and maybe the guy.

I believe, as do many others, that it should be rare. But legal.

[Heddi]

82. I look at it in the same way that

Heart surgery should be rare. Cancer should be rare.

I am completely 100% pro-choice. I think that by saying that it should be "rare" is saying that there are very "fixable" problems we face with regards to unplanned pregnancies. By fixing the problem that we, as a country, have towards sexuality (esp. female sexuality) we can reduce the number of unplanned or unwanted pregnancies, therefore reducing the number of abortions through things such as:

1) Universal medical care for all citizens
2) Free and unrestricted birth control for all women who are of childbearing age
3) Reduction of poverty through social programs
4) Better sex education through REAL sex education, not this mamby-pamby "Abstinence Only" bullshit
5) Reduction of poverty through free education from birth til death. Free post-secondary education.
6) Reduction of poverty through living wage paid to anyone who works


Those are just a few of the very simple corrections that can be made in our society to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. Reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies will, no doubt, reduce the number of abortions.

I am a firm believer in absolute freedom when it comes to abortion access. I believe that a woman has the absolute right to choose to have an abortion at any time during her pregnancy--HOWEVER, I think that women would be much better served if we could try to correct some of the issues they face which make abortions often the only viable option that they have.

That isn't to say that I want to RESTRICT abortions in any way, but I think that women (and men, and children, and old people) are better served when we deal with the real life issues that millions of people in this country face. Reducing poverty will go MILLIONS of miles towards not only reducing the number of abortions, but also reducing the number of people who live in poverty. The number of people who must drop out of school at 13 or 14 years old so they can work so that their family can have a roof over their heads. To give people a reason to have hope towards the future, rather than never being able to see past the dim streets of an inner-city ghetto.

There are many things that should be reduced, through education and prevention. REduction doesn't not necessarily mean restriction. I wish that fewer people got lung cancer, but I personally don't believe in banning tobacco products. I wish that fewer people had issues with alcoholism, but I would never wish to restrict or ban alcohol sales. I would love for there to be a need for fewer abortions, but I would rather die than ever suggest that abortion rights be limited, restricted, or gotten-rid of all together.

[noamnety]

5. LOL at the Cato guy

"many activists still don't understand what there is about abortion not to like."

I love when the Cato dudes speak for us. :D

[Cocoa]

7. good to see Howard Dean in that group

and did they really hiss Tim Roemer? If that's true, then that's appalling and we have to move away from that.

[meow2u3]

9. If we're the party of inclusion, we'd better live up to our claim

A hard-line pro-choice stand, despite it's being on the Democratic platform, is political suicide for Dems. For one, it makes us Dems look like the very intolerant, bigoted hypocrites we accuse Repunks of being. It gave them ammunition and us minority party status. In other words, it's the abortion issue, stupid!

It's about time the Democratic leadership realized it. They're just waking up to the fact that a large number of Democrats on the grassroots, if not the silenced majority, don't like the idea of abortion on demand, under the banner of women's choice. I know because I'm one of them--a woman, as a matter of fact.

I don't know about you, but I resent being intimidated from making an argument in favor of a pro-woman, pro-life stand. I resent being branded a misogynist or a self-hater because I disagree with the party line on abortion/choice. I resent being labeled conservative or right-wing because of one issue. Damn right, it's about time my voice would be heard!!!

contrary to popular belief, most pro-life Dems hold a consistent life ethic; they're literally pro-life, not just anti-abortion. We're also anti-war, anti-death penalty, and pro-economic justice.

[iverglas]

11. I'd suggest you learn to live with it

Not being a USAmerican, I'm not a Democrat, so I can only speak from what I hope Democrats do.

I don't know about you, but I resent being intimidated from making an argument in favor of a pro-woman, pro-life stand. I resent being branded a misogynist or a self-hater because I disagree with the party line on abortion/choice. I resent being labeled conservative or right-wing because of one issue.

All I could say, were I a Democrat doing all that nasty labelling, would be: tough shit.

Maybe you could join up with some folks who resent being called racists because they disagree with the party line on segregation. Maybe you could work all that resentment up into something that will somehow exempt you from having to defend an indefensible position.

Why engage in rational, sincere, honest debate of one's policy positions when one can engage in demagoguery instead?

I'm a wonderful person, and I resent being treated so nastily by people who find my politics repugnant, and my resentment trumps your reasoned defence of rights.

Maybe it will work. I can only wish you much bad luck in the undertaking.

[Malva Zebrina]

13. Abortion on demand should be available to every woman

and every woman who chooses it should be able to demand her right to her health, and a clean and safe environment for that procedure.

[Yupster]

33. What does abortion on demand mean?

Does it mean a perfectly healthy woman should be able to abort a perfectly healthy fetus in the ninth month of pregnancy is she chooses to?

[Djinn]

39. yep

fact is the number of women who'd want to do that is so small as to be statistically insignificant (why on earth would you think hey I'll get all the gross pregnancy side effects for months and risk my employment just to have the fun of a late abortion)

Until born it's a fetus - not a person. Not sure about US laws but I think they're the same as Australia in the case of miscarriages or still births - they are NOT given birth or death certificates because they are not considered by law or by the vast majority of the medical profession to have ever lived.

Until born - it is the WOMAN's body nothing more

[Yupster]

45. That's a pretty radical position

I wonder if a candidate that publicly advocated that position would ever win a state?

[JetCityLiberal]

47. No It isn't a radical position

but far too many men feel the need to call it that. Too many men cannot/will not give up controlling a woman.

This male need to control women makes this male sick.

JetCityLiberal

[Djinn]

48. I couldn't give a flying

whether it'd win election, first of all because I'm not in the US (where I live a candidate coming out and saying I'd like to ban/restrict abortion wouldn't get that far) but mostly because a politicans endorsement does not mean something is right or wrong.

People opposing Hitler and Mussolini didn't get far once upon a time, for me beliefs are about beliefs not votes.

That said - how is it radical.

At what point do YOU beleive a fetus stops being "abortable" and if you have a cut-off you are presumably conmfortable with forcing women beyond that cut-off to give birth?

Why would a fetus a few days "younger" than your cut-off be suitable to terminate but not one a few days "older"

I'm more than happy to state loudly that I support free, available abortion to any woman that wants one at any time, I just wish other people would be more honest about saying:

"after a certain point or depending on who the parents are, I beleive in forcing women to give birth"

or

"after a certain point or depending on who the parents are I support the right to choose but think you are morally questionable"

[Yupster]

54. I think abortion is a very gray area

Most people don't agree with either extreme on the issue.

No one could get elected saying they support elective abortions of healthy fetuses two days before birth. That abortion on demand position is too radical for most people.

The same the other way. No one can get elected saying you can't have an abortion even if the woman will die in the next hour if she doesn't have an abortion.

There are radicals on either extreme, but most people are somewhere in the middle, which is where I am.

Abortion should be legal, but with restrictions.

Where should the date be? It should be a compromise. I would think fetal viability is a reasonable one for healthy mothers and fetuses, but it is up to the people to decide. But taking either extreme position will be rejected by most people.

[iverglas]

73. ah, framing that question

No one could get elected saying they support elective abortions of healthy fetuses two days before birth.

How many people could get elected saying they support the commission of adultery every day of the week with a different partner each time?

Funny ... that isn't the issue.

The issue, as a matter of public policy, would be whether it should be illegal to commit adultery every day of the week with a different partner each time. Nobody has to "support" the doing of it. We are all simply asked to keep our noses in our own business by opposing the outlawing of it.

Nobody's asking politicians to "support" "elective abortions of healthy fetuses two days before birth". They are simply asked to keep their noses out of women's business.

In Canada, we have NO LAWS concerning abortion. We also don't have women running around aborting nine-month fetuses. Amazing. (Of course, we also have universal health care plans that cover the cost of abortion, which might tend to facilitate the choice being exercised at the earliest possible stage of pregnancy.)

And when the issue comes up in political campaigns, as it occasionally does, we don't have pro-choice politicians saying that they "support elective abortions of healthy fetuses two days before birth". Some of them even say that John Kerry-ish thing about not really approving of abortion. But what they do say is that they support a woman's right to choose, and that that right is guaranteed by our constitutional protection of the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

There are radicals on either extreme, but most people are somewhere in the middle, which is where I am.

Funny, this tendency of everyone to define him/herself as being "in the middle".

What's the "middle" when it comes to, oh, racial segregation? You could always say something like one of our late Prime Ministers up here said about conscription during WWII: "Segregation if necessary, but not necessarily segregation." Would that cover it? Or how about no segregation until the end of high school, but after that it's okay? That's kinda "in the middle" between those two extremes, I'd think.

Where do you get the notion that there IS a "middle" when it comes to other people's fundamental rights?

There are fundamental rights, and sometimes there is justification for interfering in the exercise of those rights.

You "in the middle on abortion" folks never do seem to get around to offering up any justification for the interference you propose. You just cite your personal ick factor. *I* don't think it's right. But *I* will go along with it so far -- but only so far. So *I* am in the middle.

Big fucking deal. You're in the middle between someone who advocates not denying the exercise with rights without justification and someone who advocates oppressing other people with no justification at all. Congratulations.

[Djinn]

84. but you can't say

"I am happy for a women to be forced to give birth against her will"

because THAT is the upshot, in certain circumstances and at certain stages of pregnancy you beleive a women should be forced to give birth.

I'm not standing for election so whether people support MY position is irrelevant, this is just what I beleive and I make that decision on what I feel is right not popular - as I said I'm not a politican

[Djinn]

17. so what would you prefer

the fact is, if you do not beleive in abortion on demand then you beleive in some situations in forcing a women to have birth - that's a logical consequence.

What is a pro-woman/pro-life stand (please don't take this as antagonistic I am honestly curious) because I can only see one of the other, if there are restrictions on abortion then some women will have to give birth against their will I just can't see that as in anyway pro-woman

[Crowdance]

19. Funny. How does forced pregnancy get sold as "pro-woman?"

You might want to volunteer, but I'll not volunteer my daughters. No, you can't make this party anti-choice and expect to win elections. Most women, and some men, I'd wager, will be going elsewhere. BTW, women die when abortion is illegal, so your "consistent life ethic" is a subterfuge.

[meow2u3]

42. Don't put words in my mouth

What makes you so sure a consistent life ethic automatically translates into forced pregnancy? I never said that; I was implying that we should, for the most part, prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Don't even think of implying I'm a freeper just because I disagree with you. Your namecalling makes you no better than they are.

So quit jumping to conclusions. It only makes you sound like an extremist with your hard-line pro-choice views. It's people like you who actively try to silence dissent when it comes to abortion/choice.

[Djinn]

44. no-one is jumping to anything

there is no such thing as "hardline pro-choice" you simply either ARE pro-choice or you aren't.

If you beleive in choice then you beleive women should have the choice, if you put proviso's on it (eg only in cases of rape or in the first trimester) then you are only pro-choice for SOME not all.

The desire to prevent unwanted pregnancies is a completely seperate issue.

Work as hard as possible to prevent (cheap/free contraception) but how does that change whether one beleives a woman should be able to get an abortion if and when chooses.

It's simple do you beleive abortion should be legal DESPITE the situation or do you think it should be ILLEGAL in some circumstances.

[Yupster]

55. I don't agree with that

I am pro-free speech, but I believe there are reasonable limits to it like threatening someone.

I believe in the second amendment, but I am for reasonable gun controll laws.

I can be pro-choice on abortion and believe there can be reasonable restrictions on the right.

There are very few absolute rights. Almost all have reasonable restrictions on them.

[northamericancitizen]

68. "There are few absolute rights" So true.

[iverglas]

74. and that's all just blah blah

I am pro-free speech, but I believe there are reasonable limits to it like threatening someone.
I believe in the second amendment, but I am for reasonable gun controll laws.
I can be pro-choice on abortion and believe there can be reasonable restrictions on the right.

... until you tell us WHAT those "reasonable restrictions on (the exercise of) the right" to an abortion is, and WHY those restrictions are "reasonable".

The issue, fyi, is not whether restrictions are "reasonable". It is whether they are JUSTIFIED, according to the rules for justifying interferences in the exercise of a right that are generally applied in a society.

Those rules tend to be referred to as the rules of constitutional scrutiny -- what the courts consider when they inquire into whether legislation that interferes in the exercise of rights is valid.

There are very few absolute rights. Almost all have reasonable restrictions on them.

Nope. Rights is rights; it is meaningless to call them "absolute" rights or anything else.

The exercise of all rights is properly subject to interference where the interference is justifiable.

I keep waiting for somebody to JUSTIFY compelling women to assume risks to their life, and to their physical and mental security, that those women do not wish to assume.

And then, if anybody ever did that, I'd be waiting for the explanation of how due process and equal protection of the law are going to be guaranteed, so that no woman ever dies -- because she was forced to continue a pregnancy she did not want -- without a fair hearing and that sort of thing.

What charge will be brought against a pregnant woman, that she can be found guilty of and sentenced to submit to continuation of a pregnancy that -- surprise! -- kills her when she dies of an unforeseen and unpreventable stroke ... or post-partum haemorrhage ... or any of the many other ways that pregnancy and delivery can kill and disable women.

I wait and I wait and I wait ... and all I ever hear is "I don't like it" ...

[Djinn]

85. no you can't

If you are PRO-CHOICE then you CAN NOT advoctae forcing a women to give birth because she's "perfectly healthy" or because her pregnancy has passed an arbitrary mark that makes YOU uncomfortable.

Incidentally I'm 100% pro free speech saying to someone "I'm going to kill you" or "all (insert religious group here) are evil" shouldn't be illegal - very little point only agreeing with free speech that you approve of or agree with - that's NOT free speech it's freedom to say what I allow you to say.

ALso the examples you cite do not result IN A WOMAN BEING FORCED TO GIVE BIRTH, not one person who supports cuting-off abortions at a certain point can ever bring themselves to admit that after that point they are forcing someone to do something with their bodies that they don't want to do

[entanglement]

96. Agree 100%

Great post.

[Crowdance]

67. You make your position less tenable with each post

i've not called a single name; you are the one doing so. "People like me" are, in fact, eager to point out that your position is wrong. You assume a morality for your position that is not there. Your position is a hypocrisy. Oh, dear, I've gone and called your position a name...

[jab105]

69. I agree with you...the hard line stance on abortion is my biggest

problem with the Democratic party...my mother is a Republican ONLY because of the abortion issue...her mother once told her that if abortion had been legal when she was born, my mother would have been aborted...leaves an impression, I gotta say...

I'm all for pro-choice, I just think the choice should be made before the woman gets pregnant...I'm completely supportive of birth control and sex education...but honestly, if left to nature, that baby would become a person...

I'm vegetarian, pro-animal, pro-environment, anti-war, pro-guncontrol...against the death penalty, completely supportive of welfare/medicare (specially since it HELPS the children that the Republicans are trying to protect only unitl they get born)...but this one issue is a big deal for me...cause of my mom, but also because of how I feel myself...

But, I'm intimidated by the hard stance that many here take on abortion...I'm a woman, and if I'm pregnant, I don't consider the baby MY body, but a body within my body...thats why I'd try to take such good care of it...

Please don't yell at me here, these are sincere feelings...at this point, the CHOICE shouldnt have to be made after the egg has been fertilized (though rape/harm to mother I understand...because it is a grey issue, not balck and white there)...it's really my one sticking point with the democratic party...

[iverglas]

75. magical thinking

at this point, the CHOICE shouldnt have to be made after the egg has been fertilized

And yet, the damned funny thing is ... IT DOES have to be made then.

THERE ARE women and girls who are pregnant and who do not want to be. Your wishful thinking (what the French call pious wishes, interestingly) just doesn't change that.

Hell, nobody should ever have to choose between cardiac surgery (it's risky, and just think of what good all the money spent on it could be used for elsewhere) and an early death. Because everybody should have lived active lives and eaten only healthful foods. But damn, some of us don't. Shall we prohibit cardiac surgery?

I'm vegetarian, pro-animal, pro-environment, anti-war, pro-guncontrol...against the death penalty, completely supportive of welfare/medicare (specially since it HELPS the children that the Republicans are trying to protect only unitl they get born)...but this one issue is a big deal for me...cause of my mom, but also because of how I feel myself...

What you apparently feel is self-righteous.

You also apparently feel that "how I feel myself" is a good reason to deny other people rights, to compel other people to do things that put their lives and health at risk when they do not wish to.

If you could only explain why "how I feel myself" JUSTIFIES doing that to other people, we might get somewhere.

my mother is a Republican ONLY because of the abortion issue...her mother once told her that if abortion had been legal when she was born, my mother would have been aborted...leaves an impression, I gotta say...

Yup, a big clear one. Which is: that your mother is either totally irrational or less than totally honest. And that you've apparently decided to follow in her footsteps.

If my mother hadn't miscarried her first pregnancy, I would never have been conceived. Do you see me marching around with signs demanding that all first pregnancies be terminated, so that people like me get a chance to be born? Well, no. I'm not irrational.

And if I claimed to be voting for the party that did demand that, a party that also happened to advocate doing just about everything one could think of to oppress and exploit and harm people everywhere in the world, simply because I agreed with its pregnancy-termination policy even though I oppose oppression and exploitation and the harming of other people, well, I'd expect somebody to question my sanity, or my honesty.

[jab105]

81. Your response is that same attitude that kept me from becoming a democrat

when I was young...I agree with democrats so strongly on other issues, that I vote against my own wishes on abortion...but I know many people (I was raised Baptist) that agree with me on democratic/liberal issues...but wont vote democratic because of the abortion issue...

The choice is to have sex, if you choose to have sex, you are taking the risk of getting pregnant...you KNOW the risk that you are taking...and you can do quite a bit to minimize the risk, and you can minimize that risk significantly, birth control/condoms/etc...I use these...they work...thats why sexual education is so important...but, you know the risk...

I don't feel self-righteous, I care about things...umm, most liberals do...in any other situation, I would assume that you would be agreeing with me on the other issues instead of making fun of me for saying it...I dont like being attacked on this, because I see it as being consistent...I was trying to explain to you where I was coming from...I have vegan friends, I worked at a vegan restaurant for years...the most caring people in the world, would never dream of eating eggs, even though they aren't fertilized, but who strongly support abortion...this is hard for me to put together in my mind...this is (I believe) why Kucinich was anti-abortion...it is consistent with his vegetarian stance to me MUCH more than being pro-choice is...I think he caved in, and its a shame to me...

I'm not denying anyone else rights...I'm saying that actions have consequences...you know the risk, you are educated and get the protection...its very effective...when I hear that there are more than 1 million abortions a year in America, it blows my mind...at the same time, I think that the idiotic Republicans who want the babies born but wont do anything once they pop out to help insure that they become productive adults is moronic...

Why do you insult me to such an extent because I'm disagreeing with you on this issue? My mother is completely honest, and she feels very strongly on this issue...please don't insult that...

for the last four years, I've been working on her because I dont want her voting for Republicans...questioning all the bullshit that she hears in church about why to vote for Republicans...and she is agreeing...but abortion is her sticking point because many democrats are taking the same attitude that you are...I respect that you believe strongly in your opinion...but dont insult mine...it was personal...and it was brutally honest...and BTW, my mother didn't vote for Bush (just didn't vote) for president...

[Djinn]

87. the thing is

I'm not denying anyone else rights...I'm saying that actions have consequences...you know the risk, you are educated and get the protection...its very effective...

do you know what the consequences are if abortion is banned? we already know the risks - abortion is also very effective.

I assume iverglas had a problem with your mother's theory for the same reason I do - if you REALLY are willing to vote for a party that without any cause recently slaughtered 100,000 Iraqis because you're MORE concerned about aborted fetus' then your priorities are REALLY screwy - ESPECIALLY given the repukes would NEVER ban abortion because (a) they still want to be able to access them for their wives/affairs and daughters and (b) they'd loose the best wedge issue they'll ever get - maybe you could ask your mum what Bush has done to reduce/stop abortions given he's been in power for 4 years? or ask her what beloved Ronnie did because it is and always will be SWEET F ALL.

[Crowdance]

80. Sincere your feelings may be, and as such you should definitely

act on them when faced with a similar decision. My feelings, and my spiritual beliefs, --most sincere--I assure you--inform me that this is not a choice I would or should make for another human being. Don't assume that because you support the rights of animals, mother earth, etc., that you are in a better or more moral position to call the shots for another woman. You must leave that call to her.

Similarly, because making abortion illegal kills women, I would quickly abandon a party supporting such an immoral position. Morality has many facets.

[Djinn]

86. so it's OK to kill the child of a rapist?

if every fetus is really a person then why would it be morally OK to kill the child of a rapist?

On Edit - hope that didn't sound confrontational - it really is an honest question

[Mandate My Ass]

23. There is nothing "hard line" about choice

Women either have a choice or they don't. It is decidedly hard line to force one's subjective beliefs on others, and dictate that they face the dangers, expense and rigors of enforced unwanted pregnancy, death at the hands of a back alley abortionist, and/or if they survive and get caught, a murder conviction and jail. That, my dear, is hard line.

With that in mind, there is little evidence that zygote zealots respect life very much at all and women even less so. If you're intimidated from making a pro-birth argument, it's most likely because your argument falls apart like wet tissue paper when reasoning is applied to it. So you don't like abortion on demand? Well now, there's a good reason to deny half the citizens of this country their most basic Constitutional, reproductive and human rights, as well as their right to privacy.

As for your resentment of labels, you might not get labelled if you stop using language like:

"For one, it makes us Dems look like the very intolerant, bigoted hypocrites we accuse Repunks of being...In other words, it's the abortion issue, stupid."

Heal thyself. Please.:nopity:

[dsc]

28. The fact is pro choicers

call pro lifers names on this board with utter impunity. And that person didn't call anyone names she said the behavior makes it look like which is a big difference.

[Mandate My Ass]

29. Then perhaps you, or she, can explain how

defending a woman's right to choose makes one look like a hypocritical Republican. The insult was implicit, rather than forthrightly stated which is a thinly veiled attempt to apply the label without breaking the DU rules.

Oh, and the flames go both ways whenever this debate comes up, in case you haven't been paying attention.

[dsc]

31. When you boo and hiss

someone who is running for party chair (as was done to Romer). Incidently that is exactly what she mentioned from the post.

[Mandate My Ass]

32. StopThePendulum: "it's the abortion issue, stupid!"

Now there's an invitation to engage those with differing opinions and beliefs in a rational and reasoned dialogue of the issue at hand. :eyes:

[cags]

26. I agree with you, But you can't be intimidated unless you allow it.

I'm not intimidated by my positions, and have freely discussed them here. :yourock:

Thought I'd throw you some support, since our position is the minority here.

[lostnfound]

36. Well said. nt

[lostnfound]

37. Yep..work as a lefty on every single other issue

work against wars
work against poverty
work for civil rights like voting and equal opportunity
work for human rights like no torture and against the SOA
work against corporate control of government
work against CIA sponsored coups
work for education and equal pay
work for diversity
work for gay rights
work for separation of church and state (yes, that one too)
work for a clean environment
work against the death penalty


but if, after being subjected to years of prolife indoctrination, you struggle to see abortion as anything other than whether the law should allow the ending of a human life which has had its beginnings as surely as an oak tree starts with the sprout of an acorn

then (sarcasm coming: ) OBVIOUSLY, "You are an IDIOT!!" who needs to shut up or else get the heck out because you are obviously a narrow-minded rightwing misogynist hypocrite who has nothing to say of value on this clear and simple issue which we already have all figured out, thank you very much

Live and help live.

Well, personally I've changed my thinking alot, but it is still shocking how entrenched people are in their mindset, to the extent of not being able to recognize that there are sincere people of conscience who are (trapped?) on the other side of the debate.

[Djinn]

41. no problem with the other side

IF they're consistent. Abortion should either be LEGAL because it isn't killing (my opinion) or illegal because it is.

why should it be OK to "kill" a fetus if it's say 4 months "old" but not OK if it's 4.5 months "old"

why should it be OK to kill a fetus if it's biological father was a rapist, that's hardly the kid's fault.

If someone is of the belief that it's murder and they oppose ALL abortion based on that then more power to them - I don't agree but I respect that belief (if they're also against bombing defenceless nations and capital punishment as well)

I can not respect (actually it's more I can't understand) it's perfectly OK to have an abortion, it shouldn't be illegal but it's so undesirable it should be rare - to me that stance makes no sense at all

[LisaLL]

71. some consistency

WHat about the case of killing in the event of self defense?

Is it killing to defend yourself and your family's life against an instruder? Is it killing when we enter a justified war? The difference is what we consider justified.

If a woman feels that her life or children are threatened, I can see this as justified/self-defense/defending her children. This is why abortions occur whether they are legal or not.

In preventing and reducing abortions--we do so because we seek to minimize harm. No woman wants to be in a position where she is pregnant and does not have the means to raise a child. No person person wants to be in a position where they *have* to kill someone in self-defense.

The legality affects whether or more or fewer women will die of complications. period. If we care also about women's lives, the lives of the husbands that would be left widowed and the children that would be left motherless, that is a reason to make sure abortion remains legal.

Preventing unintended pregnancies and improving resources for women reduces abortions. Keeping it legal reduces the number of women who will die unnecessarily. This is the position that values life the most.

[Djinn]

89. not sure what your point is

but maybe I should have used the word "murder" - self defense and war do not fall under murder - neither does abortion.

my point being if you belive it IS murder then it's murder whether the child's father is your husband or the guy who raped you - it IS murder regardless of whether the fetus is three months old or 6 months old.

It isn't murder

[LisaLL]

116. difference

Right, there is a difference between justified killing/self defense and murder.

If one believes abortion is justified killing/self-defense/defense of one's family (which is far more accurate than calling it "elective") we can disagree on what is justified. Even many "pro-lifers" conceptualize this way if they consider rape, risk of maternal death as justifiable. Others may also consider defending the ability to provide for children is also justified.

If one believes that abortion is murder, then it is inconsistent to make exceptions for rape, incest, maternal risk of death. This reveals that "blaming the woman for choosing to have sex" is part of the equation for most hard-liners. "Murder" is a convenient word used to rile up people. And this supports the Prevention vs Punishment Frame (see Rockridge Institute web page) as being the root of these differences.

[Djinn]

131. still not really sure why you're responding to my posts

I don't see abortion as murder or justified killing, I see it as abortion, the removal of a embryo or fetus.

I beleive if you're against abortion it makes to sense to be for it in cases of incest or rape.

I think much of the oppposition to it is rooted in the old virgin/whore dichotomy and is about punishing people for having sex particularly out of wedlock

I think we agree?? or am I missing something?

[LisaLL]

140. agree

I was posting to expand on the murder/killing/not killing differences and the legal/illegal justifications.

>I beleive if you're against abortion it makes to sense to be for it >in cases of incest or rape.

(you meant "no sense" right?)
Agree. (Said another way, If they believe abortion is murder, the exception for rape or incest makes absolutely no sense).And if they are against abortion they *should* be working like mad to help expand access to contraception and accurate info. But, obviously that isn't happening.

>I think much of the oppposition to it is rooted in the old >virgin/whore dichotomy and is about punishing people for having sex >particularly out of wedlock

I agree 100% In fact, this is one of the best ways to explain the inconsistencies of the "pro-life" movement and their positions. They make sex more risky (by opposing contraception and condoms) so that there is more punishment (pregnancies and STDs) for sex.

>I think we agree?? or am I missing something?
We definitely agree.

[iverglas]

10. one almost suspects

... that they obfuscate deliberately.

"There are people out there who support abortion on the demand and won't cross the line, and people on the extreme other side," Day said. But "the vast majority want it to be rare ... and those people in the middle can definitely work together."

Eh?

We're being presented with three discrete groups of people:

- the minority who "support abortion on demand";

- the minority who (let's say it now, Ms. Day) want to compel women to endure pregnancies, deliveries and parenthood they don't want, in violation of women's fundamental human / constitutional rights; and

- the majority who "want abortion to be rare".

Hmm. And can someone who wants abortion to be rare not support abortion on demand? And vice versa, of course?

Hell, can someone who wants abortion to be rare not want to compel women to endure pregnancies, deliveries and parenthood they don't want? And again, vice versa?

This is bullshit.

There are two positions and two positions only:

- abortion must be legal; and
- abortion must be illegal.

(Of course, the second position comes in many suits of sheep's clothing.)

"Abortion should be rare" is an opinion about an entirely different question. One does not answer the question "should abortion be legal?" by saying "abortion should be rare".

If "pro-life Democrats" have been afraid to speak out -- and if that term really means "Democrats who want to outlaw abortion" -- perhaps it's because someone will call them on their bullshit. I sure hope a lot of people do.

[Mz Pip]

15. My take on this

Instead of making this a black and white issue I think what Clinton is talking about is giving more voice to making abortions rare.

It could be interesting because in my experience many of the most rabid anti-choice folks are also anti information, anti contraception and anti sex education.

I do think if we talk more about prevention rather than just focusing on abortion we will own the discussion. If people really really really really want to end abortion then they should be out there advocating for free, easily accecssible information and contraception. Period. Our response to any of their objections should be "Then you don't realy want to end abortions."

If we focus on prevention of unwanted pregnancies then we expose many of the anti-choice crowd for the hypocrits that they really are.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[iverglas]

18. since GD moves so fast

Anyone interested in the "safe, legal, rare" paradigm could revive the still-active thread in the Choice and Reproductive Freedom forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=217&topic_id=1&mesg_id=1

[gulfcoastliberal]

21. Pro-Choice means you have a choice...

Why the dems would want to join the repukes as an anti-choice party baffles me. I mean I welcome dems who are pro-life but do not wish their beliefs made into law. If they want to legislate their religious beliefs, let em join the pukes.

[JerseygirlCT]

35. It would seem to be an easy concept to grasp

choice is just that -- allowing that this is a difficult decision, with lots of gray area, and one that is best made by the woman involved. If you don't like abortion, then you are perfectly free to choose not to have one. If abortion seems the best choice, then you should be equally free to seek the medical care you require.

I'm one of those people who would not seek an abortion for myself. I refused an amnio with my second son (old lady that I was) b/c there wasn't anything I was going to do with that information. But I would never, ever, be so arrogant as to say that I ought to make the decision for anyone but me.

[double_helix]

49. IMO, "Pro-choice" means being for a culture of abortion

where nothing is wrong with having one, like a haircut, like a decision between flavors of ice cream .. a decision where both "choices" are morally equivalent.

I disagree with that.. I disagree with a culture of abortion.

My position on abortion is "safe, legal and rare" - and heavily restricted. It is a neccessary evil - not something to be proud of, and certainly not a lifestyle.

[Djinn]

53. what is this "culture of abortion"

that you bang on about - are there pop songs I've missed? are there teenagers hanging to menstruate so they to can join the fun abortion culture of their older sisters?

Who the fuck sees abortion as a lifestyle - what does that mean??

The sticking part is not what one beleives but what one beleives should be legal, you presumably wouldn't allow abortion (if you had your druthers) at a very late stage of pregnancy - what would be your cutoff? and why would the "killing" of a fetus one day "younger" than that cut-off be OK?

[double_helix]

60. A culture of abortion is where abortion is used as birth control,

and thought of very lightly, because after all, it's just a "choice", like any other.

Abortion should be thought of as the last resort, the proverbial emergency button, a safety valve, something only utilized when there is no other way out.

Abortion is morally/ethically wrong and should be illegal, but it has to be "safe, legal, rare" if we are to prevent back-alley abortions from becoming commonplace.

I don't disagree with abortion on the grounds of "killing", per se. I diagree with the culture abortion enables - one of selfish sexual values, where men and women have little to no regard for themselves or the products of their unions - little value for monogamy, family or life in general. Women and men need to take responsibility for (and deal with the consequences of) their own behavior, and stand up and be fathers and mothers instead of acting like spoiled children.

I'm a minority (Indian-American) who grew up in an urban setting, and saw the bullshit firsthand. It's not the elites who have to suffer the consequences of policies destructive to the family unit.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LisaLL]

72. "culture of abortion" myth

This idea that women take this decision lightly and are using it to be irresponsible is something made up and propogated. Women are being stereotyped to discourage reasonable discussion and to prevent others from having compassion for them. As an ob/gyn I have extensive first hand experience with women facing unintended pregnancies (as well as being aware of the research on this subject for larger populations). I assure you it is not taken lightly.

It is because women value the importance of parenting that they use contraception to delay having children until they are in a position to best provide for them. It is because they value the importance of raising children well that they space pregnancies to maximize the time, attention and resources they can give to each child. Planning ahead in order ot be the best mother one can be is *extremely* responsible.

When women are faced with a pregnancy that they feel will impair their ability to take care of their existing children or the family she will have, they turn to abortion. (In all cultures). Contrary to the claims that this is selfish or irresponsible, it is because they are thinking about the long term well-being of their families. The way to reduce abortions is to prevent unintended pregnancies and to improve the resources for all families to raise their children in healthy environments.

[iverglas]

77. dang, eh?

Abortion should be thought of as the last resort, the proverbial emergency button, a safety valve, something only utilized when there is no other way out.

If that isn't just exactly what it is.

When a woman is pregnant and does not want to be, abortion IS the only way out.

So your point was ...?

I diagree with the culture abortion enables - one of selfish sexual values, where men and women have little to no regard for themselves or the products of their unions - little value for monogamy, family or life in general.

I presume that if I search, I will find you advocating that adultery be a criminal offence?

After all, we don't have any "safety" issues to worry about. Back-alley adultery isn't going to kill anybody. An idea whose time has come (back), obviously. Got any good slogans to propose?

[Djinn]

90. Your morals are IRRELEVANT to everyone else

and what the hell are you on about with,

It's not the elites who have to suffer the consequences of policies destructive to the family unit.

yeah that'd be right coz it's only poor people who have family breakdowns - get your hand off it

as for whether it's morally right to root around like a rabbit on heat well it isn't "moral" and it isn't "immoral" what difference does it make to ANYONE if Fred Bloggs isn't monogamous?

and that "culture" ALWAYS existed, people ALWAYS screwed around, but back in the day, instead of an abortion a women would give the kid up for adoption (not always the happy outcome pro-lifers pretend it is) or they lie and tell hubby the kid is theirs, nothing has changed.

for Iverglas

Back-alley adultery isn't going to kill anybody

well you can slip and bang your head on a wall - very slippery those alleys!

[double_helix]

97. My morals are just as relevant as anyone else's

including yours.

The pro-choicers moral beliefs tell them that the choice to have an abortion is morally equivalent to the choice to have the child.

My moral beliefs tell me that the pro-choice position is wrong.

All law is morality.

If I am able to convince a majority of my position, or you of yours - it becomes law. That's the way democracy works.

[Djinn]

98. wrong

that not how democracy works - the VAST majority of people beleiev adultery is wrong (even a vile commie atheist like me thinks one at a time is the go) but it isn't illegal.

most people beleive lying to you parents isn't a good thing - aint illegal

I beleive it's immoral to teach children any religious beliefs because it makes it very hard for them to make up their own mind - aint illegal

MORALS are not the same as LAWS

[double_helix]

105. all morals aren't laws, but all laws are based on morals.

There are certain morals the majority feels should be left up to the individual, and certain morals the majority feels should be enforced by the group.

[Djinn]

132. nope

it's illegal for me to jaywalk - it isn't immoral.
it's illegal to park in a clearway - not immoral

Not all morals are made into laws and not all laws have a basis in morality

[ultraist]

106. Interesting how so many ANTIchoicers have shown up tonight!

It looks to be an organized effort.

[in_cog_ni_to]

63. You're MALE.

What right do you have to tell any woman what to do with her body? Abortion IS NOT a "Lifestyle." That's absurd. Flatout absurd. Any woman "I" know who has had an abortion did not make the decision easily. Do you really believe it's as simple a decision as when, where and how to get a friggin' haircut? Typical male. You know NOTHING about how a woman thinks and feels and you have absolutely no right to tell US what to do with OUR bodies. If YOU don't want YOUR wife/girlfriend to have an abortion then my suggestion to YOU is DON'T HAVE SEX. That's the ONLY thing you have control over. You do not control my body, My sister's body, My friend's body or any other woman's body. End of subject.

"CULTURE OF ABORTION" is a religious right/freeper/right wing angle to define abortion. They/you want the world to think it's a common occurance, which it isn't. No woman has an abortion "just because she can." Another way to frame the idiotic argument for getting rid of Roe V. Wade. We will NEVER let that happen. Never. Get use to it.

I am assuming you have adopted 30 kids, you give every dime you make to kids who are orphaned, you volunteer every waking moment of every day to helping kids who have no food, clothing or healthcare and you have an open door to ALL kids who live on the streets.

[northamericancitizen]

70. Well said.

[lazarus]

79. Ignoring the rest of the argument

because I agree that "culture of abortion" is a code, I have a comment or two.

"If YOU don't want YOUR wife/girlfriend to have an abortion then my suggestion to YOU is DON'T HAVE SEX. That's the ONLY thing you have control over. You do not control my body, My sister's body, My friend's body or any other woman's body. End of subject."

And if you don't want to have a child, don't have sex. Right? Isn't that the line from the right?

Of course, males don't have any choice in the matter. We just have to pay child support for 18 years if we don't want a child. That or give up sex. We can't get abortions.

So, congrats on your extra choice that men don't have.

Of course, men could stay out of this debate completely, and it would still be a debate, because women disagree on the issue at roughly the same percentage as the general populace.

[Djinn]

92. while I don't beleive men have no say in this

I always love how it's thrown in like it's something we planned with god/biology.

the vast majority of women would prefer to swap and take the chance of ending up paying child support and NEVER have to have a period, not have to get hormonally insane during pregnancy, not throw up every morning, not end up looking like you'd swallowed a basketball, not have to give birth and NOT have to have be sewn up from bumhole to breakfast because it RIPPED during delivery.

but we can't - we're stuck so the whole "poor men" thing just sounds pathetic and whiny

[lazarus]

125. pathetic and whiny?

I just went through fucking HELL trying to get custody of my daughter BACK from the woman who ripped her out of school 4 months ago, undid my 18 months of work trying to fix all the shit she screwed up in the girl's first 11 years of life, then called me to give up and could I please come get her.

This after things like being dragged into court and forced to pay more child support, despite having just become fully disabled and living off savings and charity until my disability came in.

Sory, but I'm getting a bit bitter about the whole thing. And to have me accused of being pathetic and whiny pisses me off beyond belief.

For what it's worth, your first line is also something that men could say. We're constantly told how we're not good parents, or at least not the optimal parents, and how we just don't understand motherhood, and how we're trying to control women because they're the ones that reproduce. Like we set the whole thing up.

[Djinn]

126. and that has WHAT to do with anything?

first of all the child you are talking about is already born so not so much relevance to the abortion debate

second no-one accuses men of trying to control women because we reproduce - they try to control it by refusing us to control that reproduction.

[double_helix]

111. What right does any woman have to do anything she wants with my child ?

What about the rights of the father, and the child ? What about the rights of young women who are at the mercy of people like you who lead them to think abortion is ok ?

You, or nobody else has absolute right's over their body. I can't sell my kidneys, even if I wanted to.

Unless she is raped, a woman consents to sex with a man, and both should be legally responsible for the child if she becomes pregnant.

The women's movement was correct in fighting for equality - equal pay and equal rights. But they have gone from wanting equality to selfishly demanding superiority - at the expense of everyone else.

"Safe, legal and rare" is as far as I go on this issue.

[mairceridwen]

122. it's not your child

until it is a child.

fathers can have father's rights when they become fathers...after the child is born. I don't support third-term abortions, but I maintain that reproductive rights are about the preseravation of bodliy integrity and autonomy--a fetus does not have these rights over and above the mother.

and young women have the RIGHT to be informed of all their options in an environment that does not promote shame and guilt.


mcfall vs shimp. even the courts agreed that the state cannot legally compel someone to donate bodily tissue so that someone else can live.

that we can't treat all of our organs as exchangeable commodities does not mean that we don't have *rights* over them. The ability to exchange something for money does not equal having rights over it.

[Djinn]

134. a fetus isn't a child

by the way you're misogyny is showing - women are not "led" into beleiving an abortion is OK - you're posts are getting weirder and weirder.

But they have gone from wanting equality to selfishly demanding superiority - at the expense of everyone else.

if men got pregnant I'd fight for their rights to accessible abortion to - how does this have ANYTHING to do with superiority?

why can't you just say "I am happy to FORCE a woman to give birth against her will" - if you feel uncomfortable about saying that it's possibly because deep down you know you have ZERO right to force someone carry a pregnancy REGARDLESS of how they got that way

[ultraist]

22. That "inclusion of pro lifers" must be the "rare" part

There is no way the Democratic party is going to backpeddle and say it's ok to deny women their right to privacy, a civil liberty, on which Roe vs. Wade was premised.

If she wants to spin it to pander to her people fine. Dean and Kerry will not advocate for limiting women's rights. Check their voting records. I highly doubt either would make such a turn.

I'm all for programs that curtail the number of abortions. REAL sex edu with free birth control, more financial support for women in poverty etc.

[RedCappedBandit]

30. I woule like to see..

all of the "pro-life" supporters really show us how they are "pro-life"

Pro birth? Sure, but what about after birth? They obviously don't care about the childs world which he or she will be brought into

Look at it this way, if the mother wants to have an abortion but is not legally allowed to have one, what kind of world will the child be brought up in?

[cags]

34. According to that logic

If your life is likely to be hard, or you will be poor than it is better that you are not born.

I don't know too many people who had a hard life or who are poor who say they wish they were never born.

[RedCappedBandit]

40. My point is..

if you're going to force a woman to give birth, you should at least ensure that the mother and her child's well being after the birth will be confirmed

[ultraist]

43. Exactly! Put your money where your mouth is or shut the fuck up.

This is a civl liberties issue, what reasonable mind would argue women should be deprived of a civil liberty?

If the state takes control of women's bodies, they will also have control over men's bodies. FORCED sterlizations, castrations, treatment for life threatening illness, etc.

It wont happen. There is no way that the State is going to gain control over people's bodies.

Furthermore, a zygote is a not a human being. It merely has a potential with an unknown probability for becoming human. If they rule a zygote is human, what will they do with all of those frozen petri dish zygotes? Force implantation or murder these "children"?

I am so sick of the abortion debate. Fundies need to get a grip that just because their preacher told them so, it doesn't make it reasonable or factual.

[RedCappedBandit]

50. Every..

Sperm also has potential for life! Should abstinence be outlawed? Is that what the fundies really want? :eyes:

[Yupster]

57. Anti-abortion fundies believe

life begins at conception.

The only time I ever hear the argument made about sperm or eggs before conception is someone on DU trying to belittle their beliefs -- and in Monty Python movies.

[Yupster]

56. If there was a Christian woman

in front of you who had seven kids, four of her own and three adopted, whose husband works three jobs to support them, while she teaches Sunday school, hosts the Sunday night youth group, helps cook Wednesday meals, facilitates her prayer group, volunteers at the crisis pregnancy center, distributes food at AMOS, volunteers at her school, you'd tell her she doesn't care about kids once they're born.

What right do you have?

No wonder we lose so many states and regions without a fight with attitudes like yours.

If you go to a fundamentalist church, you will be amazed at the number of adopted kids. There will be some Sunday school classes where more than half the couples have adopted kids.

Your post is an ugly stereotype.

[uhhuh]

59. I would say

With your husband absent from the home constantly and all your outside activities, who the hell is raising your kids?

[Scout]

64. I'd have the same question....

I don't give a good god damn how many children fundies do or don't adopt ... they still do NOT have any say over MY BODY and MY CHOICES.

I believe in abortion on demand and without apology ... because I trust women to make their own choices. No woman is going to go through a pregnancy only to get a late-term abortion of a perfectly healthy fetus ... unless some fundie assholes or our society have thrown so many roadblocks in her way that she couldn't get an abortion earlier in the pregnancy.

I might also tell that Christian woman she might want to consider using birth control, if her husband has to work three jobs to take care of 7 kids, they probably ought to control themselves and STOP BREEDING.

[RedCappedBandit]

78. Firstly,

I would never see such a woman. It wasn't a stereotype, its my honest opinion. For the ones who actually do adopt or assist in the adoption process, great! What about the rest? Until every single anti-abortion believer gives their part to raising the children who were born unwanted, I don't want to hear republicans being labelled as "pro-life"

I would also like to see how many of these fundamentalists adopt children of a different race or who were born with deformities.

[Djinn]

93. you'd also be amazed

at how many hollered and yee-hawed when we started demolishing Iraq, who are happy that we put people in Gitmo and that Dubya is president, your post is as irrelevant - some fundies adopt kids some don't - how that has anything to do with them getting the hell out of strangers wombs I'm trying to work out

[mairceridwen]

114. I would say (assuming she voted for bush)

How the hell can you vote for someone and support and administration who obviously does not value life in the way that she seems to?

Oh, and if there is a draft, I hope yours are among the first to go.


I don't care if they adopt children. I will not be, or let others be forced to bear unwanted children.

[Vladimir]

119. Fine, have a referendum on Roe v Wade then

as long as men aren't allowed to vote.

Seriously though, I don't understand why these 'pro-life' activists really feel the need to be against everyone else's choice in the matter. Its not like forcing someone to bear an unwanted child for 9 months and then potentially raise them for 18 years is a minor intrusion by the state into people's lives...

PS Incidentally, if they wanted a non-sexist pro-life policy, then the father has to suffer as much discomfort as the mother because of the state's decision to force the pregnancy to go ahead... not being a woman I have no concept of what this level of discomfort would be but I am sure some of our feminists could come up with suitable suggestions. :P Then lets see how many anti-choicers are left.

[Q]

120. This is why the Founders set up our country with a secular government...

...so that the morals of religion couldn't dictate the law of the land.

Sure, we can have a dialogue...but we already know that a vast majority of Americans and Democrats don't want CHOICE taken away from them.

[Djinn]

135. thanks!

it's always brought up by the fetus-fanclub that "morals" can be dictated based on majority rule - apatr from this being WRONG they conveniently forget that most Americans want to have choice.