I don't know what to make of this post

[paulk]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1610517#1610751


Kerry's stance on abortion devalues women?

Do any of the women here have any thoughts on this?

[Pirate Smile]

1. I like the safe, legal and rare mantra. I once said every abortion was

a tragedy and got attacked for that.

I'm pro-choice but I don't view an abortion like going to the dentist and it bugs me when people want me to look at it that way.

I think that it hurts the Democratic Party when we talk about it that way. It doesn't ring true to the complexity of the issue.

I generally stay away from the abortion threads. I hate the topic.

[paulk]

3. I stay away from them also

It's a complex issue and my thoughts on the subject... are complex. Or maybe just mixed up. But, I've certainly NEVER met any women who thought an abortion was the equivalent of going to the dentist, either physically or emotionally.


I was just struck by this post - that somehow it got twisted into an attack of sorts on John Kerry. I thought Kerry's position was really solid. That it's not the government's place - or his place as an elected official - to legislate his personal beliefs.

[Pirate Smile]

5. I've never met a woman who thought that but I've seen posts before that

seemed to take a very similar point of view.

IMO, Kerry's position is a good example of the difference between his view as a Catholic of not legislating his personal beliefs v. the RW fundie view of imposing their beliefs on everyone.

[LittleClarkie]

16. They seem to resent him even for his personal beliefs

and for saying that we should examine, even just examine, how we should approach this issue.

As a woman, this was one of the stances of his that was part of my journey from ABB to Kerrycrat. Because I feel the same damn way. I would choose pro-life personally, but I don't feel comfortable saying my belief should be forced on someone else.

I too have seen the threads where someone makes an abortion sound like nothing. The most disturbing thing for me in those posts is that the person is devaluing some women's reactions to abortion, which is to feel bad or remorseful. The attitude seemed to be from some posters that a woman who feels bad is reacting to the negativity imposed on her by society, and nothing more.

And how can any physical procedure have no consequences ever. As if admitting either physical or emotional concequences is somehow dangerous to total pro-choice. To me it comes dangerously close to not admitting a possible reality for ideological reasons. I don't like one-issue votes, neither pro nor con.

Some gripe about how such things shouldn't even be coming out of a man's mouth. But then at least one pro-choice absolutist I encountered out there was a man. Dude, how would you know?

I got attacked for even saying that I knew a woman who, after approximately 5 or 6 abortions, was told she couldn't have another. The poster who attacked me refused to admit the possibility that an abortion could possibly impact a body negatively.

Not to get graphic for the men folk, but even if it's no more impactful than a pap smear, I don't wanna have one every other month, if you know what I mean.

For a dude, I suppose it would be the "turn your head and cough" test. You want that done frequently to your person? Wouldn't you look for ways to not have to go through that if possible?

What the hell is wrong with "safe, legal and rare?" Some out there in DU land reacted even to that. "But that makes it sound like a negative, bad thing." Um, yeah. I don't know anyone out there shouting "Yea! Go abortion!"

Can't we back it up a tick and talk about unwanted pregnancies instead? How about contraception?

I also think it's important to point out that places like Massachusetts have the fewest abortions in the nation. What are they doing right? And that there were fewer abortions under Clinton. Why? Hope, I do believe.

If having an abortion is part of feeling hopeless, I don't think I'd be trying to sell it as a "no big deal" procedure.

[Withywindle]

20. Thank you!

As I said, I am adamantly pro-choice no matter what, and I've been fortunate to never need it myself, but I've been with friends and family through it, and it's awful. I can tell you stories about bathtubs full of blood and 12 hours straight of crying. Because I've helped friends through it, I know it is NOT something women do on a whim, or something they do because they're too "lazy" or "stupid" to get birth control right. Nobody WANTS a friggin' abortion--whether they want children or not! Surgery's never fun!

It's a hell of a lot more impactful than a pap smear. But NOT as traumatically impactful as 9 months of pregnancy and an unwanted birth. Especially if you're sick. Especially if you're broke and uninsured. Especially if the "father" of this "child" is your rapist. Or your father. Or some shitbag who lied to you and you're only 15.

I plugged this site before and I'll do it again: http://www.imnotsorry.net

It is NOT a simplistic issue on either side. But I'm pro-choice without apology because I don't believe that my rights, as a present and accounted-for, fully realized human who happens to be female, are less than the "rights" of some undeveloped mass of cells, and I also don't want to see a woman ever have to go to court to "prove" that she was raped (considering how our society already treats rape victims) or is sick (considering what all other-than-rich people already have to go through for medical care) or otherwise "deserves" an abortion.

[sandnsea]

19. Well, I pretty much do

I think we've gone way overboard in the worship of embryonic cells. In the first couple of months, I don't think it's a moral question. At least not for me. But I respect those who do think it's moral question. But that's why it can't be legislated, everybody views it differently, even within different religions.

But there is a point that it is a tragedy. Of course, that point is when very few abortions happen and the vast majority are for medical purposes. The real tragedy of middle and late term abortions is that we've turned them into something evil instead of the personal tragedy that they used to be. I don't even know what women who need late term abortions do anymore. Just not tell anybody so they won't be labeled a baby killer? The whole thing has been so sadly distorted.

[saracat]

21. Well said sandnsea.

[Pirate Smile]

22. I agree with all that you said, sandsea.

[angrydemocrat]

6. Like You I Stay Away From Those Treads Always Have

Because I consider myself pro choice because it is the individual womans choice, but for me personally I don't believe in abortion. But that is my belief and I don't expect others to believe like me. And people like those posting in that thread are insulting as hell to people like me when we tell them we don't believe in it personally. It's like they think it is there way or the highway in this party, but I have big news for those assholes there are many democrats just like myself that don't believe in it ourselves but we respect the rights of others that do believe in it and we have always been a part of this party and we are going no where because dumbasses like them think they know it all and own the party. Personally I say they can
"GO FUCK THEMSELVES!!"

And saying abortion should be safe, legal, and rare is not in anyway trying to side with republicans on this issue. That is the dumbest shit I have ever heard and shows what a bunch of damn blowhards these assholes are. If these blowhards just realized how ignorant they sound and make themselves appear they would go bury their heads in the damn sand some where. Women who have had abortions didn't do it for the fun of it and many women suffer emotionally for years to come if not the rest of their life after they have a abortion. It is not a matter to just throw around and talk about as if it is nothing more than making a damn choice about going to a dentist and getting a tooth pulled. It is a very serious issue that effects a woman for a long time and needs to be taken seriously.

Abortion should always be legal and safe regardless if you are a person that believes in it personally or a person who doesn't, you should realize this and why. First off wether abortion is legal or not they are going to happen. If they were not legal you would have woman going to the back door allies so to speak to have them done and you would have more deaths than ever due to this. By saying it is illegal to have a abortion will not solve a damn thing other than bring about a rising death toll in women. By saying a woman will go to prison the rest of her life won't solve a damn thing either because if the woman dies having one you don't have to worry about a damn prison cell now do you.

There are many things that are illegal in this country and it hasn't stopped a damn thing. Take drugs for instance, many are illegal but yet this country is still over populated with the very same ones that are illegal and we have more and more addicts everyday all the while the prisons are over flowing with people due to this issue so by just making the shit illegal has not solved a damn thing. Where it would make more sense to do studies find out why people get on drugs to start with, have rehabilitation centers to help people to get off drugs, and rather than throw people in a damn prison cell automatically have programs that drug offenders have to enter and do community service, go to school and get a education so they can get a real job in order to make ends meet and get ahead in the real world show people that there is a better way of life other than drugs. Then and only then if the person refuses to do right they should have to pull time. This would do more good than what is going on now.

You have a close to similar issue with abortion. Why not do studies find out what the reasons for women having abortions are and address those issues. Why not try to teach young people how and the stuff to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Why not try to address the problem at heart and not on the outer core. By getting to the heart of the issue is only going to help the matter not hurt it or make it worse. If you can lower people having unwanted pregnancies, lower the number of women that are raped in this country, lower the number of women who get hooked on drugs and live a life of hell, lower the number of women and kids that are raped by family members, the number of women catching aids etc. then you can lower the rate of abortions. Because are the main reasons women have abortions. Hell they don't do it for the fun of it.

So making it rare means getting to the heart of the problem taking it seriously and addressing the problem. This does not have a damn thing to do with taking a womans right to choose away. This is another way to address a problem in this country that has skyrocketed under the * administration due to their sorry asses and republicans cutting funding to critical programs such as aids, drug and alcohol rehab, adult education programs, unwilling to listen to reason or studies that prove that a different approach to these issues would be a better approach and why, unwilling to provide funding for education on preventing unwanted pregnancies and aids, cutting funding for drug education in schools and for adults, cutting out rape prevention programs, etc. hell the list goes on. When programs like these were in place you didn't have the rate of abortion that you have today. So if their is no need for a woman to have a abortion then it becomes rare that you here of a woman having them. This is what John Kerry means by saying making it rare!

Like me Kerry doesn't believe in abortion personally, but also like me he considers himself a pro-choice person because regardless of our belief he understands and respects the rights of others who do. And because we personally don't believe in abortion doesn't make us any less important, any less of a democrat, nor should would be any less respected than those who do. And I get sick of assholes who act as if we don't belong do this and personally say they can kiss mine and Kerry's ass over this very damn issue. Because we are going no where!

[whometense]

8. GO, AD!

See my post (#7). Great minds, etc. :D

[Hans Delbrook]

2. Yes, extremist

Not worth my time. I run into these types all the time since I am uncomfortable w/ abortion after viability. SO I end up being "dissed" by many of my fellow Catholics because I do believe in choice prior to viability and "dissed" by my fellow liberals because I have problems with it after.

I figure, if I'm pissing EVERYONE off - I must be right. }(

[LittleClarkie]

17. That is the line that I and my Conservative friend have agreed on

the point of viability. Neither is completely happy, but we can both compromise there.

I agree with someone who said that partial birth abortion seems to be a phantom procedure that doesn't really happen except when the baby is NOT viable. As far as I understand, the baby's got water on the brain so severe that it has to be drained for it to be born naturally. It is a condition that the baby will not survive. and making the mother give birth to a baby via c-section when it is going to live for mere seconds if at all would seem extreme in the other direction.

If I'm wrong, I would like someone to point it out. If that is not the only reason, I'd like to know. But don't you think if the mother has has been carrying the baby up to this point, chances were she wanted to give birth to a living child? Why would someone wait 9 months? Why would you kill the baby in the canal so that you could call it an abortion on a technicality?

So I can see why it can't be banned. But I would also hope that technicality isn't being abused, either.

[Withywindle]

4. I saw that! Devalues women - what?

I'm staunchly pro-choice with no qualifiers or modifiers, but I don't see how it "devalues women" to say that the best way to reduce abortion is to help women avoid being in a position to need one!

[whometense]

7. Bravo.

I'm also staunchly (and unapologetically) pro-choice. JK has been my senator forever, and I have NEVER in all that time heard him say a word that devalues women in any way.

These people are fanatics. For god's sake, look at his daughters! Confident, mature and accomplished. They are daughters who were raised by a man who values women. Look at Teresa. Could any man be married to her and not value women?

I have no argument with anyone who says they dislike abortion or would be uncomfortable with the idea of having one. That's exactly what pro-choice means. And one of the most hideous hypocrisies of the *ies is that they are saying no to abortion, but also no to child care, no to health care, no to jobs, AND NO TO BIRTH CONTROL.

[angrydemocrat]

15. AMEN!!!

You read what I had to say in my post above. This is a issue I don't like to get started on in most cases but when I do as you seen I just say what the hell I think. And for anyone to ever say that John Kerry devalues women is out of their damn minds! And they need to get their brains out of their ass so the shit goes in the toilet instead of coming out their mouth!:hurts: This man has done nothing but help women his whole career. Hell when he was a prosecutor in Middlesex he was the one that transformed that whole damn office and turned it around and in doing so tripled the staff and two thirds of the people he hired was WOMEN! He has always put women and kids first in everything he has ever went to do.

[elshiva]

9. I am a woman and I think the Democratic party line

on abortion values women.
One of my first memories of a debate is the 1996 VP debate between Jack Kemp and Al Gore. The only thing I remember is Gore saying, "We accept abortion in cases of rape and incest." I was and still am impressed by this.
This is very respectful of my rights. This is the hard line on abortion rights. We don't take abortion lightly. Abortion is painful and is usually necessary in painful situations.
Skip to 2004 presidential debate, part 2. Kerry defends the right of woman to have an abortion, expressing that he can't legislate his Catholic belief system on non-Catholics. Memory that will always stay with me: Kerry is asked why he didn't support parental consent on abortions, "Because I don't want a 17 year old who was raped by her father to have to ask!" That was the most passionate I've ever seen him. I was amazed how truly angry he seemed at the situation. How can anyone say this man devalues women?

[sandnsea]

10. I don't read screaming posts

But the screaming pretty much says it all.

Anyway, without the right to abortion, women are set back economically even more than they are now. Like it or not, aborton is essential for women to truly have 100% control of the direction of their lives. I think we never should have conceded that blastocysts and embryos were sacred life. Conceding that abortion should be "rare" helped give energy to the idea that abortion is a moral wrong. Maybe even a murder. If it is murder, than why are we supporting it?

So I fully understand the screaming coming from traditional feminists.

At the same time, I think we could improve attitudes about sexual responsibility, pregnancy and child rearing in this country. A child should have both their parents in their lives and I don't think we emphasize that fact near enough in sex ed classes. Lots of things we could do along those lines that might help young people take sex more seriously.

Just another situation where reasonable debate can't get heard over the noise machine from all sides.

[JI7]

13. also make clear that abortions went down under Clinton

that certain liberal policies which don't really have anything to do with abortion contribute to decrease in abortions without having to take away the right to abortion from women.

that helping women economically helps in abortion rate going down.

abortions have gone up under Bush again also.

in fact if anyone was REALLY against abortion they would focus on these things because making it illegal sure isn't going to end it. all it means is unsafe abortions which result in women and girls getting hurt and maybe even dying.

[sandnsea]

18. I agree

Abortion really isn't the issue. Pregnancy and poverty is the issue. They go together and we're not doing a good enough job making the point.

[karynnj]

11. This woman is scary

I've never seen anyone use two colors and three type sizes to express anger before! Her comment on Kerry makes absolutely no sense. Is she saying there should be absolutely no legislation relating to abortion? I couldn't figure out anything to say - it seems no one but Dean has the right answer.

[paulk]

14. I felt the same way - in that it seemed a reply was needed

but I couldn't think of anything to say....

best to just walk away, I suppose.
but the shots on Kerry seemed gratuitous and just plain misguided

[LittleClarkie]

31. I repeated much of what I said here

in that if they're going to speak of devaluing women, then devaluing a woman's emotions as imposed on her from society, as if they have no legitimacy of their own, must also be discussed. They're saying in that thread that somehow a woman who chooses abortion over contraception is being unfairly labeled as too stupid not to get pregnant. Well, they would seem to be labeling women who don't understand their own emotions and where they come from as stupid, if we want to use such language.

Both of the extreme sides of this issue give me the creeps. No discussion allowed. That's just wrong.

[JI7]

12. seems some people have a problem keeping abortion legal

they care more about ranting about it than focusing on keeping it legal. Bill Clinton always talked about abortion in terms of wanting less and other similar things but when it came down to it he ALWAYS vetoed every fucking bill which limited abortion rights and under his administration organizations which provided abortion services were funded unlike right now.

but some people don't care about that. they would rather rant than focusing on actually making sure it's legal. reminds me of some anti war assholes who seem to care more about ranting about it than doing something that could actuallyb ring about change.

[TayTay]

23. I think we are having an 'evolutionary' moment on this

The argument to date has been that abortion is a necessary 'evil' because human beings make mistakes and an enlightened society doesn't make people live with their mistakes as punishment for sins committed. (In a tiny nutshell, that's sort of it.) For most of human history a woman's fertility was not under her own control. Now, it is. This is a seismic shift in how human beings see themselves and their roles in society. We are still living with the fallout from this momentous shift.

The Democrats and Republicans, at one point in time, were mostly in favor of legal abortion as an option for women. But then we got the religious backlash against it. This backlash mirrors a lot of other religious discussions that have taken place when science makes something possible that was not possible before. There is a parallel to the evolution debate. Religious change and changes in religious thought take decades, if not centuries to happen.

We are in a moment in history (at least history in the Western Civilizations.) We have to develop new societal structures to account for the changes that have happened that don't fit in with old ways of thinking. We are in the process of painfully hashing out how to fit the idea that each individual controls his or her own fertility into our ideas of how society works and how individuals are responsible back to society. This all fits into that. (How much individual freedom should be allowed? How much change can a society take before it's fundamental structure collapses? Is this right something worth fighting for? Can it be used as a means of removing unwanted human beings from the world? At what cost? Do we want to be that kind of a society?) Like I said, we have had a recent period of immense change (civil rights, rights of women, etc.) This doesn't happen without consequences and dissent. (And it's a generally positive discusssion.)

That said, the current debate is evolving. I think Kerry sees this. There is a moral subtext to the argument that Democrats have shied away from discussing. I think this has happened because Dems fear that all moral discussions about abortion become arguments about the absolute sanctity of life. (Not true!) But we need to enter the discussion with *our* moral arguments about what happens when abortion is illegal, how we address concerns about poverty and the lives of poor women raising children alone and so forth. These are no less about morality than any argument raised by the most committed pro-lifers. And we are not having that discussion. Ithink Kerry and other Dems would like to start steering the conversation that way, and I think it's a good thing.

So, what say you? (Sorry for the long-windedness. I am still verbose.)

[paulk]

27. I say...

oh, my brain hurts! You're making me think too much...

That reliable contraception (and the control implied, especially for women) is at the root of the abortion backlash is kind of a fascinating idea. Anti-abortionism and the notion that life begins at conception are historical ... anachronisms. It's only in the last 100 years or so that these ideas have gained any political (and religious!) traction. Perhaps the issue isn't about abortion at all?

[TayTay]

32. Sorry, this is what happens when I go to book conventions. LOL!

For hundreds of years, the Catholic Church did not believe in giving women drugs to relieve the pains of childbirth. The theory went that the bible said that women should give birth in pain and that was what God wanted. I dare say we feel differently now. But that change took years and years of argument to affect.

Part of the original argument against evolution was that it was degrading to human beings and sort of disregarded their souls. If Man just evolved and the strongest survived then what did that say to a moral society. (This is the side of the Scopes so-called monkey trial that isn't discussed now.) There was a lot of discussion that acceptance of evolution would lead to acceptance of social Darwinism, that the strong in society should survive and the weak should be despised. So some of the opposition was a moral opposition based on what this meant for society. (And this argument was advanced by the progressives of the time.)

There is a moral dimension to opposition to abortion. But there is also a strongly moral component to supporting abortion rights. That discussion is being buried by this whole 'pro-life' or 'pro-abortion' framing of the discussion. If one side is pro-life, are they also pro sex education, which would reduce the need for abortion in the first place? (And place abortion more in the realm of doctor-patient medical decision.) Can the pro-life side really endorse criminalizing sex again? (Which is part of what they want.) It's a truly fascinating subject to ruminate on.

(Okay, this is what happens when I go to conventions and hang out with really, really smart people. Anybody want a dissertation on medieval fabric and dying techniques and how Peter Jackson's LOTR movies got it both right and wrong in the social context? Didn't think so. But I loved it. Wonky, wonky TayTay.)

[sandnsea]

34. It's kind of peculiar

"There was a lot of discussion that acceptance of evolution would lead to acceptance of social Darwinism, that the strong in society should survive and the weak should be despised."

I've heard fundamentalists use this argument against liberals and evolution. Yet it seems to be their side that exhibits this. Can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em. Don't want to pay taxes for schools, health care, and other assistance. Pull yourself up or get kicked to the curb. It's bizarre to me that they're actually the social Darwinists when they preach against it.

[TayTay]

36. True enough

It's a religiously-inspired argument. (With a light and a dark side.) You mentioned the contention that people are responsible for their actions and the consequences of their actions. Taking that to it's logical conclusion, you arrive at what was said above, social darwinism, religiously derived. (Fallen people who mess up their lives by sinning and breaking known rules of society deserve what they get.)

The other side of that (the progressive side) is that people mess up and need forgiveness. (That's what makes religion so powerful, it provides a way to get rid of the bad baggage.) Even in the abortion wars there is a religious or perhaps a moral argument to the pro-choice side. People make mistakes. There is a means for them not to have to live with the consequences of those mistakes. Isn't it moral to allow for that to happen, rather than shackle them to the mistake forever? Americans tradtionally believe in second chances.

[sandnsea]

38. I think you misunderstand

I think young people are not being told what the real consequences of their actions are. It isn't fair.

For example, in my town we have peer court. Which is all fine and well. Except these kids do silly things like walk dogs at the shelter or pick up trash for their crimes. What a shock when they turn 18 and go to jail for the exact same things. It's not fair. We're not being honest with them about the seriousness of what they're doing and how it will be met in the adult world.

I'm not talking about tough shit extremism vs. a pat on the head. I'm talking about telling the truth.

[sandnsea]

33. Reproductive Responsibility

Reproduction is possibly the most important decision in a person's life.

Reproduction means there will be a father and mother. Forever. All people must take their role in reproduction very seriously.

Children do better when both parents are committed to them, and even better with intact marriages or relationships.

Teaching sex in the classroom ought to focus more on the huge responsibility of parenting and the well-being of children than the inevitability of recreational sex. So to speak.

Reproductive responsibility also means personal responsibility in preventing the spread of STD's.

All birth control fails which means there will always be unplanned pregnancies. They don't have to be unwanted if both partners considered and accepted the possibiity of a child before they had sex.

This slight change in approach could reduce pregnancies alot. But there will always be extenuating circumstances of one sort or other, far too many to legislate. Since reproduction is such a complicated matter, and pregnancy actually does carry health risks, it should always be a woman's personal responsibility to make the decision to carry a pregnancy or not. If a woman does not have the responsibility for that decision, she actually becomes not much more than an incubator and is a victim of an economic culture that does not make room for working parents with children anyway.

A heightened focus on the real responsibilities of parenthood could be transferred to taking responsibility to grow as a person and create a good life for a child. If we had a better education system and adults who helped young people identify their strengths and set an educational course that would lead to a good-paying career. A young person who has hope is much less likely to get pregnant, male or female. (I always spoke to my sons in terms of them getting just as pregnant as the girl)

I think we believe we're teaching about the responsibility of parenting. But we're not. We're using scare tactics. We've got a teen mom with a kid and no life on one side. And a teen boy with no kid and a big fat child support check on the other. That's the wrong way.

Babies are gifts and a joy. When we're ready. Reproductive responsibility. I think it changes the debate without abandoning abortion rights or getting moralistic, and changes it in a way that would help kids.

I've been thinking of this for a while. What does everybody else think?

[TayTay]

35. It deepens the discussion

We have had folks on this site who are married and who do not wish to have children. (This is a really really recent social change. Marriage evolved as a means of ensuring paternity and inheritance rights, among other things.) So, in a world with fertility controls, what does marriage mean? Should married people, without kids, have the right to terminate pregnancies because they do not want children? This is a religious discussion and we have religious people making policy. What does this mean?

The conservative side has always been at it's strongest when it's stressing individual responsibility for actions taken. (This is a huge thread in American history, a gift of those wacky, fun-loving Puritans and their obsession with the individual's relationship with God and with sin and obligation. Anybody seen any good Scarlet Letters lately? You just might find them coming back into style.) God, sobriety, hard work and modesty are the cardinal American virtues and sex happens in the context of strengthening the family structure. (Okay, that's the conservative side elongated.)

The progressive or liberal side has always acknowledged that some people have the deck stacked against them and that they get into trouble through no real fault of their own. This is the huge American impulse to correct what is wrong and side with the underdog against the faceless and souless corporate structures that ignore the little guy. This side also tries to convince people that we don't always have to live with the consequences of sin, that maybe sin is a private and not a public concept.

Hmmm, this will take more thought. Responsibility for action vs moving beyond placing blame. Which is more American?

[sandnsea]

37. "extenuating circumstances"

"married and who do not wish to have children." That would be me. I'm 47 and oh no no no I do not want and will not have any more children. I would suspect most couples have taken the ultimate precaution, as we have, but even vasectomies are known to fail. No legislator in D.C. knows me or what a pregnancy does to me. No legislator can tell me how risking my health with a pregnancy must be weighed against the needs of my grown children who are now having children. Let alone the mental stress of raising another child at mine and my husband's age. If my life is my responsibility than I have to have control over all decisions pertaining to it, whether incidental events or out of my control or not.

In a sense, it's the same sort of argument we're having on medical care. Should a person who has cancer have access to every available treatment, or only the one the HMO approves?

Life happens. The Bible says God rains on good and bad alike. I think we can move to a more honest "be prepared" type of discussion while acknowledging life doesn't always cooperate. While our purtian strain always wants to punish, I don't think the polar opposite of a sort of helplessness is exactly correct either. The deck is stacked, but the solution is finding a lifeline and grabbing on. Liberals ought to make sure the lifelines are always there, but also say clearly that the individual has to take the responsibility to grab. And that climbing up that lifeline is going to make climbing the gym rope look like jump rope in comparison.

[TayTay]

39. Oooh, I like that

that squares the circle. I'm in the same boat. I had my tubes tied when I was 31. That was it, no more kids for me. My decision to get 'fixed' (I joke like this with my hubbie) was mine and mine alone to make. It was both pro-active and responsbile. (No accidents for me. That is that and move on.)

[ginnyinWI]

24. Well whatever the Dems believe on the subject

of abortion, or anything else, it is very important that we define what we believe, and not let the other side do it for us. So opening the discussion is a good thing. And framing it in terms of compassion for the woman is going to do more for us than anything. The conservative view is that an unwanted pregnancy is the woman's fault and she needs to "pay the price". We have to increase awareness that women can be innocent victims in the process, due to many factors like rape, incest, and just plain ignorance and poverty. We need to make a moral case for helping women, and preventing needless injury and death caused by illegal abortions. Yes, abortion is heartbreaking, but it is made worse when it is done in back alleys. We need to revive that argument, the one that helped Roe v. Wade come into existence in the first place.
We are in the majority on this: 60% of Americans favor some kind of abortion rights. So we need to talk like it. The other side tries to act like they are in the majority, but it only seems like it because they scream louder.

[New Earth]

25. i think

that the 'frame' that needs to be emphasized is that regardless of our (the left, liberal, Dems, whatever) personal or religious beliefs,we believe that religion and personal views should not control our laws. our laws should be based on individual freedoms and rights. The focus of argument needs to come AWAY from debating the fetus. That is the part the other side uses to demonize those who support the legalization of abortion.

Also, i think that is much better way to say what pro-choice support: We do not "support" abortion, but rather we support the "legalization of abortions".

^That is really stating the obvious, but it is a 'frame' and i think it needs to be used more often. Don't support abortion, support it being LEGAL.

i am starting to think these are the points that Clinton, Kerry etc are trying to make.


***edit, i forgot to comment on the thread. lol oops! she is out of line of course.

[paulk]

26. good point

about Clinton and Kerry. The Democratic Party does need to reframe the issue as "supporting the legalization" of abortion and not "supporting abortion".

I've never thought of abortion as a "liberal" or "conservative" issue. It's a personal and private issue, and the role of government should be only to make it "safe, legal, and rare".

[ginnyinWI]

28. but even saying "support legalizing abortion" makes it look one-sided,

As if we would rather see an abortion than not. That's why I like to say "support choice" instead. I am personally hoping that women will choose not to have an abortions, but I want them to have the choice.

Anyway, it is legal now already. Supporting choice means supporting keeping it that way, and leaving it up to the woman.

[paulk]

29. "Support choice" is a better way to say it

Really, the Republicans kill us on this stuff. "Pro-Life" vs. "Pro Abortion" - gotta hand it to them, whoever thought up that frame was a genius.


I think that the Democratic Party is finally understanding how important language is in the selling of politics. The Republicans have been way ahead on this. Of course, owning the media doesn't hurt.

[New Earth]

30. that's good too

support choice, support legalization - or support continued legalization (against those who would try to make it illegal).....regardless, the point needs to be made with correct framing to get the message across that we are not 'pro-abortion'.