Re-framing the abortion issue

[Sweet Freedom]

Saw this in another DU thread yesterday.

"We must reframe the debate to convey the message that support for the constitutional right of privacy does not make Democrats pro-abortion. President Clinton formulated the Democratic position on abortion when he said that it should be "safe, legal and rare." However, Democrats have failed to speak out on how they intend to make abortions rare. We must formulate and advocate a progressive pro-life program that does not infringe on a woman's right to privacy. The key elements of such a program are universal pre-natal and childhood health care, universal access to non-abortifacient birth control methods, subsidized adoptions (including, if needed, homes for expectant mothers), adequate paid family leave from employment and free or affordable day care for working mothers and students."


http://pdamerica.org/newsletter/2005-01-PreSummit/reframing-abortion.php

[TwentyFive]

1. We already do. It's called sex education.

Most abortions happen because girls believe all the misinformation out there. Just think all the stories guys think up to get teenage girls into the sack.

[Jackie97]

12. Yeah of course.....

Pro-choicers have been reducing abortions for years with that. Anti-choicers have been making abortions go up with stuff like abstinence only education.

[forgethell]

2. I have real doubts

about this whole "re-frame" idea. It's like we think reality changes when we use new words to describe it. Conservatives don't think like that. They are of the "rose by any other name would smell as sweet" mentality.

Furthermore, this idea, while it has some force, I admit, misses the whole point of making abortion illegal, which, in my opinion, is the reason for the pro-life position. It misses the importance of it being illegal, so that such illegal abortions as take place are seen to be wrong.

To them it is like saying, "Murder should be safe, legal, and rare", and I do not see how it can be re-framed around that to attract them. But maybe it can be.

[Randers]

3. One thing that is needed is a different term for abortifacient

And a direct attack against people who would suggest that women should have any less right to it than any other birth control.

I would suggest contraplantation. If some birth control is contraception and that birth control stops conception - why not have a word like contraplantation that stops implantation. And not apologize for it.

Seems to me that the main contraplantion types of birth control are exceedingly more effective than the contraception varieties. So anyone really serious about not getting pregnant would need to use them.

As I have mentioned other places - people who wish to also use contraception (which is not as reliable) could supplement their contraplantion with it. And then they wouldn't have to worry to much about conceiving and they still would not have to worry about getting pregnant.

Because contraplantion (you're free to come up with another word - contra-pregnancy :shrug: ) does stop pregnancy by the medical definition. So there is no reason for people to sit there will others define it as "abortifacient" - which sounds like something that some people would want to oppose.

[choicevoice]

4. Why not reframe their position?

They say they are pro-life but that isn't actually true. They are pro forcing women to give birth. They don't truly care what happens to the "baby" once its born. They say they are pro-life but don't support the life of the pregnant woman by making sure assistance is there for her during the pregnancy and there for the baby after birth. They say they are pro-life but they aren't willing to back either sex education or inexpensive or free contraception to stop a pregnancy from happening. Why don't we start asking THEM the hard questions? What are you willing to do other than stand in front of a clinic and protest? How many non caucasian or babies born with drug addictions or birth defects have they adopted? What have they done to make adoption a better and easier choice?

I agree that there is no way to reframe our position that will satisfy them. They want abortion to be illegal. Nothing short of that will satisfy them.

[meppie-meppie not]

6. you took the words right out of my mouth! :-) n/t

[WildClarySage]

7. I disagree. They don't care about the fetus

one bit. All they care about is controlling women through shame, judgementalism and denial of access to self-determination.

[BrklynLiberal]

5. Prollifers are not just about abortion. They are about controllling women

and everything about their lives they can.
Why else would they be involved in things like sex education, birth control, AIDs information and medication, and the funding of any organization, here and worldwide that is involved in any of this?
Abortion is just another one of their code words. The real issue here is control...control of women, and privacy.
No problems with Viagra or any of those other "male enhancing" drugs. Right? Only problems are when it involves women.

Pharmacists can deny women birth control if it is against their conscience, but I'd like to see them try to say "no" to a guy asking for a condom or Viagra.

Stop focusing on "abortion" as the issue. It is just a distraction.
The real issues are privacy and control - of women!

[Fleshdancer]

8. If I were to re-frame the debate....

I would make use of the history and discuss what happened prior to abortion becoming legal in this country. Illegalizing abortion never has and never will stop abortion, but it HAS needlessly killed women and put an unfair burden on the poor who couldn't fly to another country or seek the assistance of a safe but expensive doctor like the wealthier women could.

Is it time to bring back the buttons and t-shirts with pictures of hangers with a line through it?

[HockeyMom]

9. Why you can't reframe it

They beleive life begins at conception. They call a fertilized egg a baby and to them birth control pill kills babies. Cannot be any reasoning or compromising with that kind of EXTREME views.

[Verve]

10. If we take out the extremists on both sides, pro choice and pro life

individuals all want the same thing. Less Abortions. The disagreement lies in how to go about decreasing abortions. Pro lifers want the government involved, pro choicers do not.

The new stereotypes should be pro-government or pro-body. That's really what we're debating about. I believe our government should not interfere with our bodies. Yet, at the same time, I would do anything in my power to talk someone out of an abortion.

If only pro lifers would look at history. Making abortions illegal will not make abortions go away. It'll only make it worse. You want horror stories just look at what young, naive, uneducated women used to do to themselves in the mid 1900's when they were faced with an unwanted pregnancy and abortions weren't legal.

A government crackdown is not the answer! Sex education, social services, and birth control usage is what will bring down abortion rates, not G.W. and the Supreme Court.

The middle of the road pro choice and pro life individuals need to come together on this issue instead of fighting about it. That's where we can make some real progress.

[Jackie97]

11. Hilary better not sell us out.

I realize that she's doing that to get votes in 2008, but she better not sell us out.

I didn't join the Democratic Party because I liked donkies. I joined it because I liked progressive values.

I am ashamed of Hilary for making abortion out to be immoral by saying it needed to be rare and that we needed a "pro-life" program. Pro-choice is pro-life. Anti-choice is NOT pro-life. Deciding not to have an abortion because you think it's a person is not pro-life. It's just pro-birth.

Abortion is not murder, and I'm ashamed of Hilary for not standing up for us women.

Flip flopping like this and making our values out to be immoral are the exact reason why we lost the elections so big. We will continue to lose elections if we don't stand up for our values as being moral.

As far as I'm concerned, my progressive values are moral or else I wouldn't support them. I do not find anti-choice to be moral. I find it to be an immoral position. We need to stand up for our values.

[IrishDemocrat]

14. I'm a Pennsylvanian..

and I may have a very tough choice come April or May 2006. I am a pro-choice progressive Democrat and I would love to have Joe Hoeffel or Barb Hafer replace Rick Santorum, but our best chance of disloging Rick Santorum from more power is the anti-choice Democrat Bob Casey. I agree with Casey on most positions except choice. I may have to vote Casey if it were to come down to it. Santorum with more power is scary and could be more detrimental to the right to choose than merely having Casey as Senator.

Unfortunately, we have to be more open as Democrats to the anti-chocie position. We are a labor/working person's party first. For reference I have defended the right to choose in a local paper, the Northeast (Philadelphia) Times, which is usually a very conservative paper.

[seventythree]

15. when faced with two evils,

you choose the lesser one -- or sit the race out all together.

[Megahurtz]

13. I just think that the Democrats need to

stand their ground and stop giving in and accomodating the G.O.P.'s every whim.