Legal, Safe, and Rare!!!

[Dawgs]

Democrats need to be repeating this statement over and over again. It's a statement that works, because it's what we all believe. It shows that Democrats are not for abortion, but realize how important it is to keep it a choice. The RARE part is genuis because it shows that Dems want to reduce abortions... something the right thinks they own. It also engages those that are anti-abortion into a debate.

One of the best arguments we on the left have is that abortion can not be stopped. It can be reduced though. Education is the key. Bill Clinton showed this in the nineties, when abortion was at it's lowest in thirty years. Now that Bush is in office, abortion has been on the rise. I guarantee that most Republicans don't even realize this. If they do, then they probably don't care. No matter what you tell them, they still believe abstenince is the only answer and abortion should be illegal.

Still this simple three word statement may change the minds of those that believe all Dems and Libs are pro-abortion.

[bryant69]

1. You make a good point

I also agree that this argument can have a lot of resonence.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mdmc]

2. legal , safe, and rare

Democrats are working towards making abortions
rare
safe
and
legal

[Kazak]

3. Or, show them this quote from one of their own...

"If the pro-life people in the late 1960's and the early 1970's had been willing to compromise with the pro-choice people, we could have had an abortion law that provided for abortion only for the life of the mother, incest, rape, and defective child; that would have cut the abortions down to three percent of what they are today. But they had an all-or-nothing mentality. They wanted it all and they got nothing."

-C. Everett Koop

[musette_sf]

4. but that law would have been

terrible. Women NEED to have a CHOICE, not just for the reasons Koop states. Women need to have access to honest sex education, birth control, "Plan B", AND safe, legal elective abortion. I am not willing to concede on this.

[Kazak]

5. That's very true, but...

the quote really serves to illustrate the Right's unwillingness to compromise, on more that just abortion too.

[MostlyLurks]

6. I disagree.

Not that I disagree with the idea that we need to shift the "frame" but in a larger sense, I disagree with the idea that ANY type of reframe will matter.

I think this is a common misperception on our part, that of the "reasonable" pro-lifer who just needs to realie that Dems are just as against it as the "other side" is. Simply put, for these people on this issue, there is no middle ground: it must be 100% wholly illegal in all cases, under every circumstance, no exceptions, etc. Koop admits as much in the quote that's posted upthread: he says they could have had a reasonable compromise but they chose all or nothing because that's what it is to them (and always will be). To be honest, I think they'd even fight a "for the life of the mother" clause in which all other abortions are outlawed. I really think they would. Remember, this is a group (rightist evangelicals/fundie whackjobs ) that discounts some of the most basic science there is. So what would stop them from arguing that medical science cannot accurately predict when a mother's life is in danger? All they'd have to do is find one case where the mother was supposed to die and didn't and then they've got their "evidence" and they can claim that a "life of the mother" clause is a loophole that doctors will use, blah blah blah.

"Rare" is not good enough. "Legal" is clearly not good enough. And I would go so far as to say that even "safe" is anathema, as I'd be willing to bet that at least a decent number of them would say that anyone having an abortion SHOULD be subjected to the possibility of death or suffering.

The real problem, I think, is that on our side we see the nuance. Kerry did, I thought, really well to sum it up in the second debate: regardless of how *I* feel about it, I can't force my religious beliefs on anyone. The other side sees no complexity to it, no nuance, as perfectly summarized by "It's a child, not a choice". They see it only in one perspective (as they do almost everything) and you can't shake them out of it with rhetoric. They're goners as long as pro-choice is anywhere in our vacabulary - we can't get 'em back and we shouldn't try.

Mostly

[Bunny]

8. Well said. Thank you. I think you are exactly right.

If we're going to reframe it at all, we need to come from the perspective of individuals rights and liberties, i.e., the right of the woman to control her body. Just as it's the right of the gun people to own guns. And the right of people to put a confederate flag on their car. And all the other rights we currently have. Rights which SOME people do not agree with, but in a free society are forced to live with.

[KuTava]

10. Actually, it's the Repugs who see middle ground on this one.

Their platform wants it illegal with exceptions. WE'RE the ones who want it legal, under every circumstance, no exceptions.

Usually I want us to back away from compromising with the Repugs, which happens every day in Congress, and the people get screwed. But this is a place where my party is so extreme there could be a little give. For example, we could consider the medical testimony that in late-term abortions, fetuses feel pain (after all, they don't grow their pain receptors in the birth canal!). They're the party that turns away when people suffer, not us. Anaesthesia wouldn't violate anyone's privacy.

[MostlyLurks]

11. I Think You Might Be Mistaken

The 2004 Republican platform contains the following: "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life."
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docs/platforms/R2004platform.pdf

Now do they come right out and say "we want to make it illegal"? No. Know why? Because they know that making it illegal can be overturned. So that's not their goal. It's all in that obscure reference to the 14th amendment. The 14th states that all citizens of the US, both born and naturalized, shall have the same rights, with no abridgement. That's the key - they want to make a fetus (which, by defintion has not been born, thus a slight problem in terms of Constitutional interpretation) a citizen and, in so doing, ensure that no fetus can be harmed. It's a de facto illegalization of all abortion, though never named as such.

Even if you want to argue that, all you have to do is look at the state party platforms. For example, the Texas platform for 2000 was unmistakable in its demand that Roe be banned and abortion criminalized in all forms ("therefore, the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. The Party affirms its support for a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse making clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection applies to unborn children....We support the elimination of public funding for organizations that advocate or support abortion. We urge the reversal of Roe v. Wade. We affirm our support for the appointment and election of judges at all levels of the judiciary who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life"). Note once again the reference to 14, but this time the added language detailing the overturning, and thus criminalization of abortion.
http://www.rlctx.org/RLCTX/Texas%20Republican%20Party%20Platform%202000.htm

Lastly, use the evangelical right as your yard stick. They are *not* clamoring for a "meet us half way" solution - I've never met a single one who was willing to budge one inch. There's tons of evidence to that - all you have to do is listen to their spokesmen like Robertson, Reed, Fallwell, et al. Again, Koop's statement belies your assertion and proves mine: they had a chance at "meet us half way" decades ago and decided they didn't want it.

Sorry, I think your assertion is fallacious. Both sides are entrenched.

Mostly

[aden_nak]

7. No one wants to live in a society where abortions are common.

That's just a little disturbing. But as a rule, liberals often see shades of grey on an issue where conservatives can only see the black and the white.

In the case of abortion, it needs to be legal and safe, absolutely. But we should all be working towards a society where the need and desire for abortion decreases. We should be working towards a quality of life for all Americans where no woman is faced with making that painful choice.

The conservative element (on the other hand) thinks, "If you don't want people doing something, ban it!" It's the same policy that has worked so well over the years for alcohol consumption, drug use, and firearm control. Right? Er. . . right?

[Festivito]

9. Safe and rare. Doesn't Legal seem redundant?

Safe with modern medical action and advice, which is and implies: safe from legal entanglements.

I do give that it be an informed choice, between a mother and her conscience. Being conscious of her own relationship with God as she sees Him. (And, yes that includes how she would NOT see Him.)