Arkansas radio show attacking Clark on abortion now

[Cannikin]

If anyone can arm me with something defend him?

[fishguy]

1. What are they saying?

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

2. I'm listening to him now, too

But if those are Clark's positions (abortion on demand even up to the point just prior to natural birth, life begins with the mom's decision), then, IMO, those are positions that are hard to defend.

[Cannikin]

3. I agree totally...Thats why I had to ask....

Its the generalizations that are being made about all Democrats that is bothering me the most.

[noonwitch]

13. I don't see his position as hard to defend, since I agree with it.

Abortion is not a matter for the government to regulate. We've let the right wing get away with demonizing this issue for too long.

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

18. It's not you he would have to defend his position to

it's the Democratic voters who are looking for a candidate who can beat *. If Clark holds to those stated positions as our nominee, Karl Rove will do to him what we did to Dresden.

[SahaleArm]

91. You mean he'll lose 20% of the country that won't vote Democrat?

There's nothing damning in his statements; see the transcript below.

[KaraokeKarlton]

100. No, he'll lose most swing voters

n/t

[David__77]

22. So, what was Clinton's position?

I don't think Clinton's position is different than Clark's. The only way certain forms of last-trimester procedures should be restricted--if necessary--is if there is a wide exception for the health of the pregnant woman.

[bowens43]

30. Clark's position is miles away from this.

Clark says it should be allowed until the very moment of birth with only the mothers wishes considered.

[cally]

31. That is not what he said

A woman does not abort on her own. A legal abortion requires medical help. It's between her Doctor, her faith, her family and her. That is what he said.

We already know you never say anything pleasant about Clark. Since this is essentially the same position every Democratic candidate has, why don't you make it an argument about that instead of just Clark?

[bowens43]

33. It is what he said.

He said 'life begins with the mothers decision'.

He said until the moment of birth, the government has no right to influence a mother’s decision on whether to have an abortion.

Spin it how ever you like. This is NOT essentially the same position all of the other democratic candidates have, this position isn't even supported by most abortion advocates. This is either an extreme gaff , what he believes or more empty rhetoric. No matter which, it does harm to our party.

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

35. It's either a gaffe or he means it.

He should explain which one it is. Either way, it ain't good for him or our party.

[SahaleArm]

92. Or you could look at the transcript n/t

[Renew Deal]

89. Those are not his positions.

Some anti-abortion wacko site said some stuff like that.

[Jane Roe]

4. Here is something:

Abortions went down significantly under the Clinton admin.

Because of Clark's ties to the Clintons, he is the candidate likliest to decrease the abortion rate even more!

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

5. But if someone asks (and you know they will)

what did Clinton actually do to cause abortions to decrease (since we know correlation does not mean causation) that Clark would mimic, how should we respond?

[Ilsa]

11. Better sex ed = lower pregnancy rates = decreased abortions. n/t

[democratreformed]

6. This is all I can find quickly

From an article, this is what he said:
Regarding his own views on abortion, Clark said, “I’m not going to get into a discussion of when life begins. I’m in favor of choice, period. Pure and simple.

“I don’t think you should get the law involved in abortion,” he said. “It’s between a woman, her doctor, her faith and her family and her conscience. You don’t put the law in there.”

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

7. But even that last sentence

goes far beyond what Roe v. Wade says. All of the major abortion court decisions agree that the state does have an interest in protecting the fetal life past the point of viability.

I think he's taken a rather radical position that will be hard to defend to Eddie Punchclock and Mary Housecoat.

I hope he was just speaking from the hip without having connected the brain first. He needs to clarify.

[Selwynn]

21. It's not a radical decision at all -

Here's the interpretation:

"I'm not going to make abortion an issue of the campaign. I'm pro-choice, I don't really want to debate it. I believe decisions about a woman's body shouldn't be legislated by the government. I'll defend row vs. wade."

What's the big deal.

[David__77]

23. Do you agree with Clark's position.

Pro-choice means pro-choice--the right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy. It's quite simple. Playing defense on the issue all the time will mean the steady erosion of the right as well as the transformation of the debate in favor of the anti-rights forces.

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

25. I, for one, do not

I believe in Roe and Doe. If we start taking a more extreme position, that a mother can abort at any time for any reason, then we'll lose more votes than we'll gain.

[cally]

27. Noone thinks a mother should be able to abort

at any time for any reason. His position is it is between a doctor, her faith, and her family. The point is to keep the government out of a decision that is about a person's health and faith. Sometimes late term abortions are needed to save the mother's life, or the fetus will die, or...way too many complications occur and too many different medical options may exist. Rather than a group of lawmakers telling women what options they have for their life, Clark wants to leave it with a woman and those around her. It's a position of respect for families and women to make a moral choice and to allow women the same rights as men to protect their life.

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

28. But that's not what he said.

[bowens43]

32. Clark said “Life, begins with the mother’s decision.”

He said that until the moment of birth, the government has no right to influence a mother’s decision on whether to have an abortion.


His position is that it's the mothers decision until the very moment of birth.

[outinforce]

36. NO ONE??!!

"Noone thinks a mother should be able to abort at any time for any reason."

With all due respect, cally, I think you need to get out a bit more.

I have, on several occassions (some even here on DU) made the suggestion that it just didn't seem right to me that women should be able to abort at any time for any reason.

And you know what?

I was called "anti-choice".

I was called a woman-hating misogynist.

I was told that I had no right to even suggest such a thing.

I was told that such sentiments were downright hurtful and disrepectful of women.

I can assure, you, cally, there are PLENTY of people who think that a mother should be able to rid herself of the parasite within her at any time and for any reason. (It is, after all, her onw body. Isn't it?)

[Selwynn]

37. You were not called [insert insult here] for the reason you listed

You were called these things for the way you express your point of view.

There have been plenty of people here who have articulated all kinds of differing points of view on abortion and have not run into the problems you have. But of course, you have to take the pity poor me I'm so abused approach, rather than taking a look in the mirror.

[outinforce]

39. Thanks, Selwynn, for your most helpful response

I don't recall ever engaging you in any sort of conversation about abortion.

Perhaps you were content to sit back and lurk?

I might point out that I find the way you have just expressed your own point of view (concering how I express myself) to be a tad insulting and more than a little condescending.

BUT, you will note that I do not hurl all sorts of invective at you. Nor do I call you insulting names as a result of my own disagreement about how you choose to express your point of view.

[Selwynn]

42. I guess I'll just have to live with your dissatisfaction.

I'll be hard, but I'll give it a go. :)

Don't play the martyr. Plenty of people here express differing points of view and aren't persecuted for it. If you are, reflect on why that is.

[outinforce]

49. I Suppose You Will

Just like I guess i will have to live with your hostility. It won't be too difficult for me -- certainly not as hard as you living with my dissatisfaction.

You and I must visit different threads around here.

I see a few folks who, like me, express concern over the current laws on abortion. But my experience is that most (or all) of us are told that we either are not welcome here or that we are misogynists or that we are anti-choice.

So, I can only assume that the insults tossed our way are the result of what we express and not how we express it.

I have learned a long time ago that that is part of expressing unpopular epoints of view. And, believe me, I have no martyr complex.

It does cause me some upset, though, when I see someone post something which says "No one thinks a woman should be able to have an abortion at any time and for wehatever reason", when I know of several people who have said that that is precisely their position.

By the way, I take it that your position is that a woman should be able to have an abortion at any time and for any reason -- right up until the moment of birth?

[cally]

57. I stand by my statement but I will clarify

Noone takes a late term abortion lightly. But I trust in women to make decisions well. I do not trust the government to intervene in such a personal decision and medical decision.

I am one of those by the way. Abortion should be a choice and not legislated by the government.

[outinforce]

59. Let Me Ask You the Same Question I Asked

Selwynn.

"I do not trust the government to intervene in such a personal decision and medical decision. I am one of those by the way. Abortion should be a choice and not legislated by the government."

Does your concern for non-intervention by the government in personal medical decisions taken by women extend to silicone breast implants?

[cally]

62. Actually, yes

I did not support the ban.

Huge difference in the issues though. I don't equate the two at all.

[outinforce]

64. How

Do you see the two issues as being different?

Don't both involve governmental interference in a woman's right to choose a medical procedure, in consultation with her own physician?

How is banning a procedure that some physicians may deem safe any different from banning another procedure that some physicians may deem safe?

And, even if there is some risk involved with a medical procedure, why should the Government be involved at all in prohibiting in any manner medical decisions taken by women, in concert with competant medical practioneers?

[David__77]

55. Yes, it should be the pregnant woman's choice.

And another thing, that woman is not a "mother" until there is a baby.

[bearfartinthewoods]

90. jeeezus.....he said it. either suck it up and back his position

or don't but please stop trying to deny he said what we all heard him say.

[Selwynn]

15. And that is why Clark's position is excellent. (nt)

[bowens43]

34. I hope that he goes with it and repeats it often.

It will be the end of his candidacy. His extreme pandering will have finally done him in.

[KittyWampus]

95. Whether Or Not A Fetus Is A Wanted Child Is MY DECISION

and noone else's. That is what Clark was saying.

Late term medical abortions are not legal.

Period.

Clark did not say he wanted to make them legal.

Period.

[LTR]

8. Abortion is a pointless right-wing issue

Used to stir up their base and paint Dems in a corner.

Same with same-sex unions, religious issues and anything to do with the flag.

Are they really important in this day and age with a recession, unemployment, corporate outsourcing and a costly war? I mean, come on!

Besides, the abortion rate has decreased in the past decade.

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

9. Pointless or not,

we can't just bury our heads in the sand and wish that it would go away. It is still a major issue to the consevabots. We have to deal with that unpleasant reality.

[outinforce]

14. For Your Information

Abortion is a major issue -- and not just with the conservabots.

There are many very liberal folks who are pro-life and who consider abortion to be a major issue.

[bowens43]

29. Especially at the MOMENT of birth.

The statement attributed to Clark, if true, will destroy any chance he has of winning in the general election. Abortion at the MOMENT of birth isn't terminating a pregnancy, it's terminating a life and I defy anyone to find a qualified medical authority who say otherwise.

There can of course be mitigating circumstances that warrent but Clark says the decision should rest solely with the mother.

[SahaleArm]

93. C-Section versus mother's life - do you choose or the US governement? n/t

[loudsue]

16. You're right on the money, RatTerrier....it's an "issue"

because the repukes found out they can whip fundies into a frenzy by bringing it up, and everyone can gather around and hum the mantra in a big circle jerk.

Abortion is only a GOP issue because they've MADE it an issue. Anything to keep people from critically, analytically thinking about the myriad of issues that affect people's everyday lives.

And so many DUers still fall for this red-herring! Look at the abortion threads! YeeGads!

So many men and women, so afraid of the power of pregnancy women possess.

This is the second Dark Age...DON'T THINK, JUST GET WHIPPED INTO A FRENZY -- religious frenzy is the drug of (anti)choice.

DON'T CALL IT PRO-LIFE...it's ANTI-CHOICE, plain and simple.

:kick:

[bowens43]

10. His position is indefensible.

[Selwynn]

17. Your position that his position is indefensible is indefensible.

[outinforce]

20. No, Your position that his position is indefensible is indefensible is

itself indefensible.

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

26. I was gonna say that

:-)

[Selwynn]

38. No, your blah blah blah....

How about actually saying something of substance.

I love it how people like you actually think making a post with no message that says "his position is indefensible" does much of anything except make it appear that you are unable to defend your own position.

[outinforce]

41. Here's a Suggestion, Selwynn

I see, as of the time I posted this message, two messages from you posted to this thread.

Neither of the messages you post speak to the issue of abortion, Gen. Clark's stand on abortion, or anything remotely connected to this thread.

Instead, both of your posts (as nearly as I can make out) are pieces of advice aimed in my direction.

And both posts seem to be more than a bit hostile towards me.

Your posts seem, to me anyway, to be civil.

But I wonder if you have any position on the subject at hand that you might care to share with the rest of us.

If you wish to dispense personal advice to me, there is always the DU private message system for doing so.

[Selwynn]

43. You post publicly, I'll respond publicly.

If I cross a line, there's an alert button.

Have a nice day.
Sel

[outinforce]

47. I try not to use the alert button

I find that using the alrt button (something I think I have done only once or twice) takes time from the moderators. My own view is that it should be used only in the most egregious cases of incivility or down-right abuse.

I don't think any of your posts directed my way have been incivil or abusive at all.

You just seemed so intent on dispensing advice to me personally (without taking the time to craft any argument of your own concerning the issue at hand).

I see that you have posted something on this thread recently which suggests that everyone should simply agree with you. Your exact words are "And if Clark agrees with me, then I have ZERO problem with his position, and neither should you."

It must be truly wonderful to see the world (and issus as complex as abortion) in such black-and-white terms.

[Selwynn]

48. If I've come off too strong to you, friend - please see my last post....

...this thread really hits a "nerve" with me. If I've come off too strong to your personaly, I apologize. :)

[bearfartinthewoods]

101. how about his position puts him at odds with 85% percent of the people

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

always legal is not a viable position in a general election since it garners only 15% support.

[Ilsa]

12. If the govt. can tell when you can't have an abortion,

they can also tell mothers when they must.

I have pro-life friends who admit to feeling like the govt. should require abortions or sterilization for anyone accepting govt. services. How far will this be extended? What about moms whose children receive state-sponsored disability services? ("If you had less kids, you'd be able to pay for private sppech therapy!)

[outinforce]

19. I have Many Pro-Choice Friends Who Have Similar Sentiments

I have many pro-choice friends who admit to feeling that the only compassionate thing for someone who discovers that her unborn child has Downs Syndrome to do is to abort it. And I know several pro-life folks who feel that it is an act of real compassion for a poor woman who already has several children and who discovers that she is pregnant to abort her unborn child ("She will be unable to feed one more mouth, and she n eeds to feed the children she already has!")

[Selwynn]

44. Name some?

Or is "I have many pro-choice friends who feel this way" just a euphamism for "I believe that there are problably many pro-choice people out there who feel this way?"

I realize there's no way to actually verify this. My point is just, do you really have many, which to me would mean more than three or four, personal friends who have actually spoken out and told you that if a child was diagnosed with a personal condition they think the humane thing to do would be to abort it.

I'm just asking. I imagined in my mind this was probalby more a figure of speach.

[outinforce]

56. While I Do Not Think It Totally Appropriate

to post the names of people I know who on the world-wide web, I will tell you that I do in fact know several (and it is more than three or four) real live people who do beleive that it is an act of compassion to abort unborn babies who will be born with birth defects, such as Downs Syndrome.

Although I do not know these people personally, I recall reading about a case in the Washington Post a few years ago where a mother and father were suing the ob/gyn who had delivered their child -- a child who, as it turns out, had Downs. The case alleged that the ob/gyn had failed to run all the necessary tests to detect for Downs during the pregnancy, and that if the parents had known that their unborn child had Downs, the parents would have aborted the child.

[bowens43]

24. Your assertion isn't supported by fact.

It's like saying that if the government tells you when you can't shoot up heroin it can also tell you when you must shoot up heroin.

Or

If the government can tell you when you can't steal a car it can also tell you when you must steal a car.

or

if the government can tell you when you can't go duck hunting it can also tell you when you must go duck hunting.

Do you think that at 9 months , at the very moment before natural birth occurs that that thing in the mothers womb is a fetus or baby?

I haven't been able to find a single person that says it's not a baby. Should the mother be able to 'abort' that baby at the very last moment before birth because she has changed her mind about wanting to be a mother? Clark says she should be able to.

[Selwynn]

40. Folks, seriously -- get a grip!

First of all, let's make sure I'm clearly describing Clarks "position" -- Decisions about a womans body should not be legislated by the government. That about right?

Ok, so how would that position be in conflict with positions of Clinton or past pro-choice candidates? Bush signed the so-called "partial birth" abortion bill. Are the people freaking out in this thread people who supported this deceitful and bogus legislation? If not, then what is the problem?

Why is it not appropriate for a woman to make medical decisions about her body in consultation with a trained medical professional and without the interference of the state? Or are you saying the State should continue to support - not fight to repeal - the so-called "partial" birth abortion "ban" and establish more laws governing a woman's ability to receive medical care and make medical decisions?

For those of you freaking out about Clark's unequivocal support of abortion, what is your suggestion? Do you feel the so-called "partial" birth abortion bill was a good bill? Do you feel there should be other kinds of invasive, right stripping, insertions of government into your medical life? If so what?

People who believe that a woman should have absolute right to make medical decisions about her body in consultation with a medical professional and without interference from the state are not people who go around dreaming at night for more abortions. In fact, I take Al Gore's talking points on abortion: safe and rare. However, I believe that the most effective way to insure that abortions remain safe and become rare is not to insert the STATE into the medical decision making process and strip away from woman their right to decide what happens with their own body. I believe that greater education, genuine health care and resource alternatives particularly for the poor, and a society focused on the caretaking of its lower and middle class is the most effective way to reduce and "regulate" the frequency of abortions.

And if Clark agrees with me, then I have ZERO problem with his position, and neither should you. :)

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

45. You seem to be taking a very Bushian position

Bushian meaning black or white.

You seem to be saying that if a woman can't abort at any time, medically necessary or not, then she has no rights at all and that the right to choose is essentially in the crapper.

I don't believe for a minute that Bill Clinton believed that a woman should be able to abort at any time for any reason. Yes, late-term abortions should be available when medically necessary and in consultation with her doctor, but that's not what Clark said.

His words implied that he believed a woman could abort at any time for any reason, medically necessary or not, even up to the point just prior to natural birth. Is that your view, too? If so, it is a radical one and one not in comport with either Roe or any of the subsequent court decisions or with the majority of the public.

And if that it what the Democratic Party is going to maintain, it will be a loser for us. Mark my words.

[Selwynn]

46. What an insult to women.

I don't think his words "implied" that at all - so I guess we should get a clarification.

I don't believe Clark wants to add more laws to the books further legislating abortion. That seems to be pretty consistent with the democratic platform.

I don't believe Clark would support the so-called "partial birth" abortion legislation, which is a good thing, because it is a deceitful lying mess of a law.

So - what again is the problem with Clark's position? I choose not to insert words into Clark's mouth and as such I agree that decisions about a woman's body should be made by that woman in consultation with a trained medical professional and without interference from that state. Medical professionals don't do around recommending "late term" abortions on a whim, and woman don't go around demanding "late term" abortions for the fucking hell of it. And that's the number one reason why this thread angers me so. Because in my opinion it an insult to woman everywhere.

I actually choose to place freedom into the hands of women to make the best decisions about their medical care. Freedom does imply some risk, sure. There may be a woman somewhere who makes a poor choice. But the risk from the state infringing on the sacred right and inserting itself into the medical care of private individuals is far, far worse. Woman aren't going around looking for the "joy ride" of a frivolous abortion. That's the underlying implicit theme behind a lot of this thread: we don't trust woman and we know that if the government isn't there to protect women from themselves, they will just go "crazy" and start having fringe abortions for the hell of it or like another birth control method. It's unbelievably insulting.

Decisions over abortion are difficult, gut wrenching decisions, probably one of the most complicated and incredibly PERSONAL decisions of a womans life - it should be made PRIVATELY and in consultation with a physician, and a woman should not then have to be put on public "trial" for that choice are be subject to the scrutiny of a bunch of fucking old white MEN on capitol hill!

[loudsue]

50. AMEN AND AMEN!!

That is the absolute truth and the whole point!

Keep the government the hell out of my body!!

:kick:

[outinforce]

61. "Keep the government the hell out of my body!!"

I guess that means that you think it is wrong for the government to engage in the paternailistic act of "protecting" women from silicone breast implants.

After all, shouldn't a woman be trusted enough to look at the medical information available, consult with her doctor, and choose to have a medical procedure -- like silicone breast implants -- free from government intervention?

Isn't the government putting its hands on a lot of women's bodies when it decides that women may not have that procedure done??

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

51. Reply

>>woman don't go around demanding "late term" abortions for the fucking hell of it. And that's the number one reason why this thread angers me so.

But if a woman did chose to abort, even up to the point prior to natural birth, that'd be OK with you? It wouldn't me.

>I actually choose to place freedom into the hands of women to make the best decisions about their medical care.

Hmm, this seems to answer my question above.

>>There may be a woman somewhere who makes a poor choice. But the risk from the state infringing on the sacred right and inserting itself into the medical care of private individuals is far, far worse. . . .we don't trust woman and we know that if the government isn't there to protect women from themselves, they will just go "crazy" and start having fringe abortions for the hell of it or like another birth control method.

Y'know, we allow the state to take control of a woman's children if she makes poor choices. And we have these laws on the books, not because we believe every woman everywhere will make poor choices with respect to her children, but to protect those children from the few women who do make poor choices. That's not an insult to women, it's to protect the children.

Your above statement makes clear, to me anyway, that you do not believe that a fetus, even one 9 months in gestation, is a person and is deserving of zero protections. If that's what you believe, then say so.

But it's not what most Americans think and it will be a loser for us politically.

[dawn]

52. How is this protecting the children?

If the mother doesn't want or can't afford the baby, but is forced by the state to have it, do you think the baby will have a good life?

Will the people opposed to this woman's choice find someone to adopt the baby? I always think about that when I see the anti-abortion protestors? Are they willing to adopt the babies the woman don't want?

What about the man who had an equal part in making this baby? Why does he get off scot-free? Why are women always demonized for their choices, but no one talks about the men who impregnate them?

I agree with Clark's decision, too. The state should stay out of a woman's reproductive choices. For the women, and for the child. Maybe there will be less abortions this way.

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

53. Dawn, you're missing the point

This isn't about abortion in toto. We're talking about late-term abortions, because one legitimate way to read what Clark said is that he would support even late-term abortions that aren't medically necessary. "Life begins with the mother's decision." If the mother's decision was to abort one day prior to her giving birth naturally, medically necessary or not, Clark's words seem to indicate that he support her right to do so.

That is not a position that most Americans agree with (I don't agree with it), and if he's our nominee, his chances of winning are nil (assuming he sticks by what he said).

[cally]

54. You answered my question....this thread is about

the democratic platform that all the candidates have agreed with. Clark has done nothing but affirm his support of it.

So you have a problem with saving a woman's life. She should die instead of having a medically necessary procedure. Look at what late term abortion really means and when it is done. A woman is going to die and her child too. It is not done on a whim but to save lives.

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

63. But that's not what he said.

He never mentioned anything about medical necessity. He said that life begins with the mother's decision. That can include late-term abortions for medically necessary reasons, but it can also go much further than that.

He should clarify that he meant his support for late-term abortions when medically necessary, not the extremist "abortion on demand for any reason at any time" position that, sadly, far too many people hold to, and would doom the Democratic Party if made a part of our platform.

[outinforce]

58. Curious About Something Here

"I actually choose to place freedom into the hands of women to make the best decisions about their medical care. Freedom does imply some risk, sure. There may be a woman somewhere who makes a poor choice. But the risk from the state infringing on the sacred right and inserting itself into the medical care of private individuals is far, far worse."

Does your belief that women should have the freedom to make the best medical decisions for themselves, free from interference from the government, extend to things like silicone breast implants?

[Selwynn]

65. Actually, its my belief that....

woman should be free to medical decisions about their bodies, in consultation with medical professionals and apart from interference from the state.

[outinforce]

67. Thanks for the Reply

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

I do take it, though, that you have no problem with the state (or the government) being in the position to decide, through a system of licensing, who is authorized and who is not authorized to practice medicine. And I take it that you likewise have no problem with the state establishing certain minimum ages, for instance, for which certain procedures (like, say, a tonsillectomy or an appendectomy) would require the consent of a child's parent or guardian.

And I would also take it that you have no problem with the state mandating certain standards of hygiene and cleanliness for hospitals and other places where surgeries are performed.

Or am I assuming too much here?

[Selwynn]

73. You are assuming too much, insofar as you think....

this line of leading question will help you arrive at a comparative conclusion which has any relevance to the subject of abortion at any level.

Of course we have laws! Of course the state must say that murder is illegal, and "restrict" our freedoms for the overall welfare of society. That's why we have laws. The same is true in the regulation of the medical profession. However, you all already falling prey to an either/or fallacy. "Either you must believe that all instances of government regulation or legislation are wrong, or you must believe that no instances of government regulation are wrong." And simply isn't true. I don't care about any of the things that you mentioned, and I'm happy that we actually have laws in our society, as I assume you are as well.

However, when it comes to the issue of the decision about abortion, I do not believe it is something the government can or should legislate. I believe that this is a personal and private decision that should be made between a woman and a medical professional apart from interference of the state. I don't believe that the state best knows what the right course of action is for each individual woman faced with decisions about her body, and I believe that those choices are best decided privately in consultation with a trusted physician.

There are also other things I feel this way about. There are some places where it is the responsibility of government to regulate behavior in the best interests of society. And there are some places where it is the responsibility of government to protect the privacy and freedom of individuals in making decisions about their lives. The bottom line is, you and I just disagree about what category abortion falls into. There's not logical gaff in my belief, and probably none in yours either. We just simply disagree.

I further disagree with you because I don't believe that legislation curtailing the right of a woman to seek professional medical advice and make personal private choices based on that advice is appropriate or effective in the quest to make abortions more safe and more rare. I believe that the best way to make abortions safer and more rare is to support education, social programs and work toward creating a society which returns to a genuine caretaking of the poor and middle class.

Also, this issue pretty much frustrates me, because there is no epidemic of "casual" late term abortions in the country, and there never has been. Later term abortions are overwhelmingly performed for medically necessary reasons. There isn't a group of sex crazed women running around getting knocked up then waiting to the last minute so they can have an abortion . It's a ridiculous issue. Abortions that happen(ed) late term are statistically overwhelmingly related to medical necessity. So there really is no issue here, and the best policy, and the policy of the Democratic party by the way, is to support the choice of the mother, period.

There is no democrat or politician ANYWHERE that takes that to mean support for a casual attitude about abortion - no one. Ever. Period. Including Clark. And everyone else. The position of the part is that we affirm choice, and we oppose measures that seek to weaken the Roe V. Wade decision. It has nothing to do with saying we're for casual, frivolous abortion and it is ridiculous and insulting to imply other wise.

[Jane Roe]

75. Roe v Wade

This important court opinion allows states to forbid, by law, third trimester abortions (so long as there is a life and health of the pregnant woman exception).

It is not clear whether you or Candidate Clark support this portion of Roe v Wade. Do you?

[Selwynn]

78. The only problem is--

the only time there are third trimester abortions are when there is a life and health risk of the pregnant woman.

I mean, show me some counter-examples, and I'll listen. But as I've said, I see no evidence of an epidemic of frivolous casual whim-based "late-term" abortions. I don't think Clark does either, but I acknolewdge some qualification would be helpful.

If Clark is saying, "hey man, I think abortion should be treated like birth control, and woman should run around casually frivolousliy choosing to have abortions as their dialating to 10 centimeters, and whatever woo hoo let's all go have a big abortion party!" then of course I don't agree with that position at all.

However, if Clark expresses his position as I have expressed my position here, then I'm fine with it, and you know... the party platform is fine with it.

Abortion is decision that should be treated with absolute seriousness, and the entire system should be geared towards EMPOWERING women to make the best, most informed, most appropriate choices over their own bodies at every step of the way.

[Jane Roe]

80. Proposed law:

Third trimester abortion is forbidden except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

By your post I assume you would be okay with this kind of law because you don't believe that this law would have any application in the world. While this law would have no application in practical terms, I think it would be a very savvy, vote-gettin' proposal for the Democratic candidate to make. Now we are getting somewhere helpful!

[Selwynn]

84. I am not for superfluous laws

So my first reaction would be to not support a law that is unnecessary, and might be open to abuse and misuse.

[Jane Roe]

86. If a superfluous law . . .

can soften a notorious "wedge issue" and thereby help win back the presidency and Congress to the Democratic Party, then, IMHO, it is worth it. Its not like tons of superfluous laws don't already exist.

Side note: I don't necessarily agree that my proposed law would be superfluous, but I would support it even if I did for the foregoing reasons.

[outinforce]

82. Are You Sure?

"the only time there are third trimester abortions are when there is a life and health risk of the pregnant woman."

Are you sure about this?

Aren't there times when such abortions are performed because of fetal abnormalities? Things that, while they pose no risk to the mothers's life or health, would cause a severely deformed baby to be born?

And, as I think has been made clear here in a nnumber of different posts, no one is seriously suggesting that Clark, or you, or anyone else is suggesting this: "hey man, I think abortion should be treated like birth control, and woman should run around casually frivolousliy choosing to have abortions as their dialating to 10 centimeters, and whatever woo hoo let's all go have a big abortion party!"

Rather, what some of us are trying to point out is that Clark (and perhaps you and others) are saying that women should have the right to use abortion as birth control, and, if they wish to do so, run around casually frivolously choosing to have abortions as they are dilating to ten centimeters."

And that causes some of us a problem. I have a problem with that because (Aaomng other things) I think that position concerning the rights of women puts our party on the real fringes of American thought concerning abortion, and makes us appear as real extremists.

[Selwynn]

85. You're very right - I misspoke. Here's the corrected statement:

the only time there are third trimester abortions are when there are medical issues in play - these are the only conditions in which "late term" abortions are performed in the overwhelming majority of cases.

I fundamentally disagree with you vehemently in your interpretation of Clark's statement, that he is saying women should have the right to use abortion as birth control, nor run around casually and frivolously having abortions. And like I said in my previous post, I believe it is a dishonest lie to act like there is any pro-choice person, anywhere in politics who would say "your damn right that's what I'm saying" nor do I consider that to be a reasonable interpretation of Clark's remarks.

Have we been round and round on this enough yet? Can we just agree that you and I disagree and let it go? Or do we need to do this some more still?

[outinforce]

77. Wow

Thanks for your thoughtful and civil reply.

I would point out, however, that you have made an assumption about me.

You say; "I further disagree with you because I don't believe that legislation curtailing the right of a woman to seek professional medical advice and make personal private choices based on that advice is appropriate or effective in the quest to make abortions more safe and more rare."

But where have I ever said that I believe that legislation curtailing the right of a woman to seek professional medical advice and make private choices based on that advice is appropriate or effective in the quest to make abortions more safe and more rare? You have, I think, merely assumed a position that I have never stated.

Regarding your observation that I am falling into an either/or fallacy trap concerning the government's interventiion regarding women and their medical care, I believe it was you who asserted this; "But the risk from the state infringing on the sacred right and inserting itself into the medical care of private individuals is far, far worse."

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but it was you who elevated the right of a woman to make medical decisions in private to that of a "sacred" right. If you think that there are times when it is perfectly appropriate for the government to use its power to restrict adult men and adult women from certain medical practices or procedures, then fine. (I happen to think that it is an appropriate use of government authority to regulate the medical profession). But by suggesting that "the medical care of private individuals" is a "scared right" which carries a "risk" if the state infringes upon it, it seems to me that you are the one who has said, in effect, no government infringement upon the right of a woman to select any medical procedure she deems necessary or desirable to her, assuming she is able to find some medical professional willing to perform it. Otherwise, the state is treading on her "sacred right".

Your observations about "casual" late term abortions, in my view, misses the point.

It is not that anyone is suggesting that there is a group "of sex crazed women running around getting knocked up then waiting to the last minute so they can have an abortion". I certainly do not believe in the existence of such a group.

But if you truly believe, as you appear to, that "the best policy, and the policy of the Democratic party by the way, is to support the choice of the mother, period., then don't you have to agree that if there was even one woman who wished to have a "casual" abortion (that is an abortion totally unrelated to her own health or to the health of her fetus) in the eighth month of her pregnancy, that you would have to "support" her in that decision?

How could you reasonably argue otherwise? FOr to do so, would be for you to say that there are conditons in which it is appropriate for the government to say to a pregnant woman, "No. You may Not have a Legal abortion".

You write, "It has nothing to do with saying we're for casual, frivolous abortion and it is ridiculous and insulting to imply other wise. "

But why is it insulting to point out that when you say "the best policy, and the policy of the Democratic party by the way, is to support the choice of the mother, period.", you are also saying, "even though we may not be in favor of women having casual late-term abortions, we would do nothing to prevent them from doing so"?

It seems to me that all some of us are doing here is to point out the logical conclusions of your own beliefs.

It is instructive that you seem to have difficulty with these conclusions, and find them insulting.

[Selwynn]

79. I think you're still missing it:

"Now, correct me if I am wrong, but it was you who elevated the right of a woman to make medical decisions in private to that of a "sacred" right. If you think that there are times when it is perfectly appropriate for the government to use its power to restrict adult men and adult women from certain medical practices or procedures, then fine. (I happen to think that it is an appropriate use of government authority to regulate the medical profession)."

The key here is a phrase that I have said over and over todya: the right of woman to make medical decisions about their bodies in consultation with medical professionals and without interference of state.

If in consultation with a medical professional, the determination is that an abortion is safe for the mother, and the mother, after careful soulsearching and access to any other resource she feels she needs decides that an abortion is the best and right, though admittedly difficult, choice, the the state should have no right to interfere in that. That, to me, is a sacred right.

I don't mind if the goverment says "hey hospitals have to be sterile because it might kill you if they're not." And I don't mind if the goverment says, "hey you can't use silocone because it could hurt you." Abortion however is not that sort of issue. I am not willing to sacrifice the rights of the woman for rights for a fetus. It is the womans difficult decision and responsibiltiy to make the best choices about her life, including decsions about a fetus. And I once again point out, before I am accused of supporting casual and frivilous "late-term" abortions, that it just doesn't happen that way. "Late-term" abortions are about being medically necessary in nearly all cases, if not all cases.

I have a qusetion for you: do you support the so-called "partial birth" abortion law passed by Bush last year? Because perhaps I'm pretty sure you and I just have ideological disagreements.

But why is it insulting to point out that when you say "the best policy, and the policy of the Democratic party by the way, is to support the choice of the mother, period.", you are also saying, "even though we may not be in favor of women having casual late-term abortions, we would do nothing to prevent them from doing so"?

Because it is a lie to claim that there is anyone out there who is saying that. "Casual" late term abortions just don't happen in any satistically significant way, if at all. And I'd challenge you to present evidence to the contray.

[kiahzero]

66. Completely irrelevant

There's a difference between banning a procedure based on evidence that it's harmful, and banning it for purely moral, theological reasons.

Apples, meet oranges.

[outinforce]

68. Really?

You didn't say this, but I take from your post that you have no problem with the state banning a procedure based upon evidence that its harmful. If that is indeed the case, then I suppose you would have no problem with the government banning childbirth -- since, as we all know, there is a lot of evidence to show that childbirth is harmful. Of course, there are probably lots and lots of people who have relgious and theological reasons for wanting women to be forced to give birth, but why should the government listen to them, especially when there is lots of evidence that childbirth is so risky?

But I really do not see how banning a procedure -- even in the face of evidence that it might be harmful to some women -- should permit the government to insert itself between a woman and her physician. We should simply trust the medical community enough and we should trust women enough to make the best decisions without interference from the government. Isn't that right?

[kiahzero]

69. Do you enjoy knocking down strawmen?

You've certainly gotten a lot of practice in this thread.

If that is indeed the case, then I suppose you would have no problem with the government banning childbirth -- since, as we all know, there is a lot of evidence to show that childbirth is harmful.

Childbirth isn't a medical procedure - it's a function of life. Next, I suppose you'll be claiming that the government might want to ban taking a crap, because you might get hemmoroids. <FUD> Hell, the evil government might ban life itself, because it naturally leads to death! </FUD>

It's the FDA's mandate to regulate the practice of medicine to prevent snakeoil salesmen and rampant quackery. There's a difference between the several concepts that you've conflated into one giant false dichtomy:

A) Banning medical procedures that are harmful / do nothing: Leeches... I'm OK with the government banning the use of leeches as a medical practice.

B) Banning life functions: Obviously, I'm against the FDA banning life functions, and it's ludicrious of you to suggest that I'm for it. I'd say much worse, but I don't want this post deleted.

C) Banning medical procedures solely on the basis that some people of society do not agree with them: Let's get away from the A-word, and use something else as an example. Circumcision. Some people are for it, some people are against it. Other than some hygiene issues, research shows it doesn't really matter. I'd oppose government regulation either way.

I'd say my position is pretty clear.

[outinforce]

72. Oh, My, Yes!

Thanks for asking. And Yes, One of my most favorite activites in the whole world is knocking down strawmen.

Why in the world, though, do you ask? Did something I wrote cause you to think that I enjoyed knocking down strawmen?

"Childbirth isn't a medical procedure"

I bet that there are quite a few physicians, nurses, anaesthatists, insurance companies, and women who might have a slight disagreement with you here.

"Next, I suppose you'll be claiming that the government might want to ban taking a crap, because you might get hemmoroids. <FUD> Hell, the evil government might ban life itself, because it naturally leads to death!"

Actually, I would never make such a ridiculous suggestion.

When I defecate, I am able to do so without the aid of any medical professional. And I am quite capable of doing so in the privacy of my own bathroom. And I've yet to find any medical insurance company that would find any reason to cover my defecation.

On the other hand, when a woman wishes to give birth, I think she usually gets some medical assistance in this country, and it is usually done in a hospital.

See the difference? Is this the strawman you were talking about me knocking down? Gee, it sure was fun doing that.

"It's the FDA's mandate to regulate the practice of medicine to prevent snakeoil salesmen and rampant quackery....A) Banning medical procedures that are harmful / do nothing: Leeches... I'm OK with the government banning the use of leeches as a medical practice.

I am well aware of the FDA's mandate.

But don't you find it a tad paternalistic, especially when it means that the government interjects itself between a woman and the medical professional she has chosen? There was a time when "abortionists" were considered by the FDA and others as being little more than "snake oil salesmen" and "quacks". Would you feel comfortable with the FDA using its regulatory power to impose regulations on medical professionals who practice in order to prevent "snake oil salsemen" and "quacks" from being able to assist women? Or would you prefer to leave the government out of the business of deciding who is and who is not a snake oil salesman all together, and just trust women to make the right decisions concerning their own bodies?

And why do you have no problem with the government banning the use of leeches? Here again, if a woman wishes to have leeches used as the medical procedure she deems best suited for her own body, who in the world is the government to ttell her she cannot? Surely you don't think that a paternalistic government should ever tell a woman that she can not have something done to her own body (which, after all, she owns) that she does not want to have done. Do you?

If I understand you correctly, you have no problem with the state not prohibiting men from mutilating their penises, but seem to have a real problem with the government allowing women to do certain things (such as use leeches) on their own bodies, it that is what they wish to do.

on edit: I think I am correct when I say that there is some evidence in the medical literature to suggest that uncircumcised men have a higher probability of developing cancer of the penis, a conditon my own (uncircumcised) father had when he died.

[kiahzero]

74. Maybe not strawmen, then... maybe just willful ignorance

"Childbirth isn't a medical procedure"

I bet that there are quite a few physicians, nurses, anaesthatists, insurance companies, and women who might have a slight disagreement with you here.

Hate to tell you, but none of those are essential for healthy childbirth. Makes it a hell of a lot easier, but it's not critical. You might as well, to go back to my... excuse the pun... shitty analogy, imply that taking a crap is a medical procedure, because some people have to take laxatives or even get an enema to do so.

"Next, I suppose you'll be claiming that the government might want to ban taking a crap, because you might get hemorrhoids. <FUD> Hell, the evil government might ban life itself, because it naturally leads to death!"

Actually, I would never make such a ridiculous suggestion.

When I defecate, I am able to do so without the aid of any medical professional. And I am quite capable of doing so in the privacy of my own bathroom. And I've yet to find any medical insurance company that would find any reason to cover my defecation.

On the other hand, when a woman wishes to give birth, I think she usually gets some medical assistance in this country, and it is usually done in a hospital.

See the difference? Is this the strawman you were talking about me knocking down? Gee, it sure was fun doing that.

OK... let's use the above example, again... what about enemas?

But don't you find it a tad paternalistic, especially when it means that the government interjects itself between a woman and the medical professional she has chosen?

I don't find it paternalistic for the FDA to regulate good medical practice. I find it common-sensical.

There was a time when "abortionists" were considered by the FDA and others as being little more than "snake oil salesmen" and "quacks". Would you feel comfortable with the FDA using its regulatory power to impose regulations on medical professionals who practice in order to prevent "snake oil salsemen" and "quacks" from being able to assist women?

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the FDA does that, for EVERYONE. This isn't the "women only" issue that you're trying to make it.

Or would you prefer to leave the government out of the business of deciding who is and who is not a snake oil salesman all together, and just trust women to make the right decisions concerning their own bodies?

No, I wouldn't prefer that, because look at the crap that goes on with herbal supplements. I would love to see that loophole closed, because it's hurting real people.

Is it paternalistic to protect people from false advertising?

And why do you have no problem with the government banning the use of leeches? Here again, if a woman wishes to have leeches used as the medical procedure she deems best suited for her own body, who in the world is the government to ttell her she cannot? Surely you don't think that a paternalistic government should ever tell a woman that she can not have something done to her own body (which, after all, she owns) that she does not want to have done. Do you?

I'll admit, I don't know a whole lot about leeching, so we'll examine it from two standpoints: either it does nothing, or it actually results in harm.

A) It does nothing: Fine, people can use leeches, but it should be in the same way that people can use faith-based healers.
B) It actually harms the patient: No, people should not be able to provide services as "leech-based healers."


If I understand you correctly, you have no problem with the state not prohibiting men from mutilating their penises, but seem to have a real problem with the government allowing women to do certain things (such as use leeches) on their own bodies, it that is what they wish to do.

Let me restate my position, since you seem to be willfully misinterpreting me.

A) Abortion: WOMAN'S CHOICE
B) Circumcision: PARENT'S CHOICE (although I do wish that it were practical for the child being circumcised to have input, that's not exactly practical, now is it?)
C) Leeches: Person's choice IF THEY DO NO HARM, not an option IF THEY HARM PATIENT.
D) Breast Implants: Person's choice IF THEY DO NO HARM, not an option IF THEY HARM PATIENT.
E) Smoking mountain laurel as "herbal remedy": Not an option.

I really fail to see the contradiction.

[Jane Roe]

76. Enemas

The FDA does generally regulate laxative drugs and devices for giving enemas. So I guess it would be fairest to say that sometimes defecating is a medical procedure and sometimes it is not, depending on the difficulties and risks of the particular defecation in question.

Defecations that are as risky as childbirth are more likely to be treated as the FDA's business to regulate than your everyday, routine defecation. I don't know of any situation where childbirth is as low-risk as a routine bowel movement or even a routine recreational enema. If such a type of childbirth existed, it would not be a medical procedure.

As to all the other childbirths: medical procedures. Outinforce is correct here.

[Selwynn]

81. Well said - you helped articulate my position as well.

Thank you.

[outinforce]

83. OH! The Pain! The Agony!

I simply cannot tell you how it pains me to see your suggestion that I am willfully misinterpreting you.

But here is what I see you saying:

A woman should have complete control over medical procedures involviing her own body. Unless, of course, a paternailistic government decides that a certain procedure might cause her harm, in which case it should be banned.

I am of the opinion that any medical procedure has the risk of doing harm to a patient. I know, for instance, that when I had my wisdom teeth pulled, I had to sign a statement acknowledging the risk -- and possibility of harm to me -- before the doctor would pull them out. I think that is fairly standard practice for most medical procedures.

And even if there were a great deal of risk involved in a given medical procedure (and I think I am correct when I say that abortion, even though not as risky as other medical procedures, carries a fair amount of risk of harm to the woman), why should a woman not be allowed to have any medical procedure she wants? It is, after all, her own body. Why should she have to rely on the government to make those decisions -- decisions as to which procedures are "too" risky?

Couldn't that lead to a situation in which a government could decide that abortions as just too "risky" to permit, in the best interests of women?

[drdigi420]

60. abortion should be legal

until the 'fetus' is 16 years old

instant end to juvenile crime

[Jane Roe]

71. Abortion also should be legal for fetuses over 70 years

I think my health insurance premiums would go down a lot, which would be immensely helpful to me.

[jeffcal005]

70. clark's comments bad for dem's

The very fact that Clark said he would NEVER appoint a pro-life judge won't sit well in a general election. He is using one issue to completely block an entire percentage of potential judges.

I am probably in the minority on this here, but I am pro-life and Clark will havea tough time going foward making comments like this.

[SahaleArm]

87. Really - the majority is either Democrat or Libertarian on abortion...

About 20% of the country is hard-core fundie and will vote Republican regardless.

[SahaleArm]

88. Here is Clark's own words - The transcript...

McQuaid: Let’s take an issue. Abortion. Are there any limits on it in your mind?

Clark: I don’t think you should get the law involved in abortion—

McQuaid: At all?

Clark: Nope.

McQuaid: At all?

Clark: It’s between a woman, her doctor, her friends and her family.

McQuaid: Late term abortion? No limits?

Clark: Nope.

McQuaid: Anything up to delivery?

Clark: Nope, nope.

McQuaid: Anything up to the head coming out of the womb?

Clark: I say that it’s up to the woman and her doctor, her conscience, and law — not the law. You don’t put the law in there. Yesterday, Simmons said “Republicans and conservatives want to pin you down in debates about timing, but this isn’t about timing, it’s about whether we trust a woman and her doctor to make medical decisions that are in the best interest about her and her life.”

“The issue here is whether or not we’re going to try to inject politics and government into a medical decision by a woman and her doctor and his answer is ‘No, we’re not going to do that.’”

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=31422

And guess what he's exactly right because it is up to the mother and her doctor, not the fundies or the governement. Good to see Dean getting lots of fundie support, are those the famous Dean Republicans?

[sandnsea]

102. I agree with that

This isn't what was reported. He is going to have to get the story straight in the media before it spreads through the country that he's for abortion just minutes before a child is ready to be born.

[tameszu]

94. Hey look, what's that: DUers attacking Clark from the right

Taking his words and twisting them out of context to produce stuff that will bait Republicans and make the fight for choice harder for women in American. Bravo. And who was it who was whining that Clark brought too many non-liberal supporters to DU? Maybe you were correct, but in a very different way than you intended.

EDIT: I am referring to the 2 people arguing anti-choice positions in this thread, not to the original post.

[SahaleArm]

96. What's your take on the transcript above? n/t

[zulchzulu]

97. I'd say this...

"As a Wesley Clark supporter, I am for abortion parties on Friday nights. Nothing like watching an abortion and having a weenie roast. Then we pull out our Satan-worshipping books and eat bat heads while we listen to Black Sabbath. If you haven't done that yet, you should try it."

You may as well say something like that because the radio dweeb isn't going to listen to you anyway...

[SahaleArm]

99. Exactly it's like trying to reason with Rush...

or any other fundie. You're better off watching grass grow.

[Marian]

98. Clark's position on

abortion is Libertarian.

He wants the government out of it; that makes sense. If you don't think so, talk to your moms or grandmoms about back-alley butchers.

Enough on this already (pretty please).