General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOK, I知 coming out of the closet. I知 pro-life.
It is a fact that there are generally fewer abortions during Democratic administrations than during Republican ones, mostly because economic conditions are generally better for the 99% under Democratic policies, thereby giving people a greater sense of security and optimism that encourage them to have children. I vote for Democrats in order to reduce the number of abortions per year.
It is a fact that, wherever medical abortions have been illegal, desperate young women have brought incalculable damage and death to themselves, either seeking to terminate their pregnancies in illegal abortion mills or, unable to afford that, via the coathanger and Drano solutions. I vote for Democrats in order to protect the lives and health of these women by giving them safe alternatives.
I believe that the “pre-born” and their mothers deserve adequate health care, food, safety and freedom from damaging levels of psychological and physical stress in the months before birth.
My concern for the children and mothers does not end at the moment of birth. My version of the pro-life position is one that provides for maternal and child nutrition, health, education and safety when the children are outside the womb as well as before.
I believe abortions should be rare, safe and legal.
I am pro-life.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)
seabeyond This message was self-deleted by its author.
niyad
(123,349 posts)
Spazito
(55,172 posts)support a woman's right to privacy in ALL aspects.
CBHagman
(17,246 posts)There are times when I feel that the lion's share of the politicians and others who choose to style themselves pro-life because they are opposed to abortion (and, in some cases, contraception) suffer from a serious of case of "I love mankind; it's people I can't stand," to borrow a phrase from Charles Schulz's Peanuts. That is, they put their energy into what they oppose rather than what they supposedly support -- life.
Thousands of children die needlessly every day due to malnutrition, preventable disease, and abuse. Thousands of people of every age die due to inadequate medical care. To be a truly pro-life society we must focus on those problems.
Fearless
(18,458 posts)
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)
TBF
(35,085 posts)
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)As I said to my husband on the way home from Mass today, is there a single bishop out there who has called for paid maternity leave!
yewberry
(6,530 posts)If we accept the dynamic as a black & white, pro-life vs pro-choice scenario, you're pro-choice.
You are allowing for the safe alternatives, while still maintaining a personal philosophy that differs. That's pro-choice, my friend.
Orangepeel
(13,973 posts)Although I don't mean to speak for the OP.
"pro-life" and "pro-choice" may be used to describe opposite ends of a continuum, but they are not, in actuality, opposite ends.
I started to use the term "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life" but then I stopped myself because that is also not the opposite of "pro-choice." One can, in fact, be adamantly anti-abortion and still be pro-choice. One can believe that abortion is morally wrong, a mortal sin, etc., and still think that the government ought to stay out of it.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I just think that the "pro-lifers" are not actually pro-life. They are pro-punishment for wicked girls who get pregnant when they shouldn't, and they see the resulting child as the punishment that should rightly be borne (excuse the term) by the sinful little slut.
This line of thinking is so incredibly perverse that it makes me kinda crazy just to contemplate it. Imagine--viewing an infant as God's way of punishing you. Maybe that's why they're so blithely unconcerned about the welfare of those children after birth. The more miserable the child's circumstances, the greater the punishment for the wayward mom.
Orangepeel
(13,973 posts)Just that somebody could be and still be pro-choice
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Orangepeel
(13,973 posts)
airplaneman
(1,318 posts)It amazes me that the "Pro Life" are anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-welfare, and pro capital punishment. I think your point is far more accurate than pro-life. Thanks for bringing this up.
-Airplane
pauljulian
(45 posts)I've refused to give an answer to those who bring it up (almost invariably the "pro-life" crowd), for these reasons and also for the fact that it isn't my business. I'm in my mid-50's as is my wife... I got "fixed" in 1982, so I wouldn't have a horse in that race, and my wife is past menopause, so there's that... my daughters are grown women who, should the unfortunate occur, are quite capable of making their own decisions, as are my wife's daughters.
My answer to those who ask is simply, "None of my business."
And I say this as an adoptee and the product of a seriously unwanted and unintended pregnancy... my birth-mother made a choice, and, although it might have been made differently had Roe v. Wade been in effect in 1957, it was her very difficult choice nonetheless... she could have chosen to keep me, and, from what I've learned, that would have been a very bad choice indeed.
I'm a man who loves life in all its varied and brilliant expressions, so I guess that makes me pro-life; the medical procedure in question is legal, and completely outside of anything I could choose to say about it, unless it be in the unlikely event that my counsel was sought by a woman considering said procedure... and my counsel would be that I'm the wrong person to ask... but she would have my support, whatever the decision.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)who get pregnant when they shouldn't, and they see the resulting child as the punishment that should rightly be borne (excuse the term) by the sinful little slut.
I agree, the perversity of their thought processes just....makes my blood boil and my brain explode. Their cognitive function is definitely sub-par, since they have no problem maintaining beliefs that are in direct contradiction to one another.
I do not understand how a person lives with such a disability.
caraher
(6,328 posts)Most abortion foes are fine with exceptions for things like pregnancies caused by rape. Now if they really thought a fetus equivalent to a "post-birth" person and that killing either is murder, they would not support an exception for rape any more than they'd support women killing a child of rape after birth.
But if the idea is punishing women for behavior they disapprove of it makes perfect sense. Only those pregnant because of someone else's bad behavior get the privilege of ending a pregnancy, because it "wasn't their fault."
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)SmileyRose
(4,854 posts)This was the exact line of discussion I had recently with one of those door to door religious people. No idea what church they were touting. They stopped by to ask me if I concerned about all the abortions in Georgia. I invited them in and had an actual discussion on the absolute insane absurdity of their viewpoint.
They won't be back again.
prairierose
(2,147 posts)thank you for saying this and for articulating it so clearly. And this little rant is even more spot on than the original post which I also loved. 
Cleita
(75,480 posts)safe and legal. Not only that, studies have shown when that happens populations stabilize or even go down a side benefit. We should pass a law that states, all religions, states and men stay out of a woman's uterus and mind their own business or pay a really big fine if they can't.
judy
(1,950 posts)for contraception? And also being guaranteed full access to resources to control their fertility?
That would be I think true progress as well...
Cleita
(75,480 posts)However, I don't see anyone campaigning against condoms or vasectomies. All the restrictions and legal maneuvering is about keeping women from getting the reproductive help they need.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I don't know about vasectomies, but haven't there been anti-condom movements? Particularly in the context of aid to the 3rd World, and especially keeping them away from teenagers?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)but I haven't seen any candidates campaigning on this nor has Congress introduced bills about it like they have regarding women's fertility issues.
moriah
(8,312 posts)... if men had the same level of contraceptive options as women do. Condoms are essential for disease prevention but as birth control they suck in comparison to the options that women have.
As it stands, if men want to be sure that they can control their fertility, their only option is to freeze their sperm and get a vasectomy.
This is not to excuse the men who refuse to wear condoms. I can get on a soapbox all day about the need for proper condom use.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Thank you.
Yes, nations with liberal abortion policies are the only ones that have managed to stabilize their populations, and in fact, population control is for me, from a species survival perspective, a categorical imperative.
judy
(1,950 posts)you are still "pro-choice"...to be really pro-life, you need to also declare that all people should be allowed to live in peace, without being invaded or bombed from the air by drones, and that war is the most anti-life thing there is on the planet...
Please don't flame me, I am only teasing, I think Jackpine's post is great and to the point...
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)"to be really pro-life, you need to also declare that all people should be allowed to live in peace, without being invaded or bombed from the air by drones, and that war is the most anti-life thing there is on the planet..."
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)RebelOne
(30,947 posts)
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Not you, Jackpine Radical - you show real pro-life views.
I'm talking about the "pro-lifers" who are against abortion - they're apparently only pro-life from conception to nine-months.
They're so passionate about it that they shoot doctors in the face and cut off financial assistance to potential cancer patients. Yep. "Pro-Life".
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)But I feel, as someone who cannot be impregnated, it's not my place to tell women what they can or can't do with their bodies.
In the past I've counseled friends who unexpectedly found themselves pregnant to find alternative options to abortion, but when they made their decision I'd always shut my mouth and never say anything about it again. And I would never dream of trying to impose my personal moral belief in this area through law.
It is possible to be pro-life AND pro-choice at the same time.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Women aren't children that require any "counceling" that only consists of what the "councelor's" own opinion is and who isn't an actual qualified counselor who has been asked for their expertise. The time to shut one's mouth is before spouting one's own personal opinion concerning someone else's perdicament - particular when it isn't asked for and is not even a perdicament they could ever find themselves in - and if it is, then "counseling" them to make their own decision without the interference of the personal opinions of others either on their own or with the guidence of a qualified counselor.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)I gave it. If not, I didn't.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)to be "counseling," by your definition, I should just keep my mouth shut?
WingDinger
(3,690 posts)Not an ideologue.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)I know plenty of women who have had unintended pregnancies while using good birth control methods correctly. If unintended pregnancies aren't rare, why should abortion be?
In the end I think the "safe, legal and rare" language still stigmatizes women's health care choices. We don't owe anybody an explanation when we need abortions any more than we do when we need breast exams or pap smears, and their frequency is a medical matter, not a legal one.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)have an abortion and under what circumstances. It should be safe and legal - PERIOD.
alfredo
(60,166 posts)can't, we want abortions to be safe and legal.
The Republican world is cold and callous, a world where women have little hope for their children's future. I wouldn't want to bring a child into a Republican world.
Major Nikon
(36,922 posts)Prior to the decision the government was deciding who could and who could not have an abortion. If abortion is immoral or unethical, then it should be banned entirely. If it's not, then it should be allowed regardless of the reason. The SCOTUS decided it should be allowed regardless of reason.
SmileyRose
(4,854 posts)I read it that the OP would like a world where women have better options
NO woman wants an abortion. It's a last resort.
SidDithers
(44,332 posts)
Sid
moriah
(8,312 posts)... Means that women should have access to effective birth control and that right should not be infringed. That programs should be there to help women who want to have the baby but are considering abortion solely for financial reasons. That women should not lose their jobs just because they get pregnant.
Basically, I think that abortions would be more rare if we supported women who get pregnant, so that if they want to have the baby they can, and not feel pressured to do something that they don't want to do soley because of circumstances.
Make sense?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Modern contraception is so effective that if it is properly used, unintended pregnancies (and hence abortions) will automatically be "rare". Also, improving the availability of the morning-after pill would make abortions even rarer.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)This is where the right-wingers opposed to contraception really screw up. More contraception, fewer abortions. Who could object to that?
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)and better economic circumstances, among many other factors, can help to make unintended pregnancies les common and thereby render abortion less frequently necessary and less common.
I'm making no judgment about anyone seeking an abortion.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)And I wouldn't compare a breast exam or pap smears to an abortion anymore than I'd compare a hernia cough test to an appendectomy.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Let birth control, sex education and self-determination be common, and abortion will be rare.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Calling abortions "invasive medical procedures" makes them sound so scary and fraught with risk when in fact first trimester abortions (the vast majority of abortions performed in this country) are very safe and very low risk.
pauljulian
(45 posts)I would like to see the need for pap smears to be rare... a cure for cancer, HPV, etc., would do so. Do you see the difference?
This is what I've been saying, and to any that are not bound and determined to take offense, I would think that is what anyone has been saying.
It seems that for one to desire that the necessity of an abortion be less, it's taken as an attack on choice.
Why do some folks here refuse to see the difference? Granted, this is one of those issues that folks just yell across the fence about without ever listening, but why has it been necessary for folks to attack those on their same side of the fence?
There is nothing anti-choice at all about desiring to see more education and contraception that the need for abortion might be lessened. (and, in the case of rape or incest, along with a fast track to the clinic for the victim, a guarantee of life in prison in a cold, dark place for the perpetrator).
It is amazing that folks who consider themselves so liberal and open-minded will refuse to see any discussion about abortion outside of "it just is, that's all" as an attack on choice.
Once and for all, at least for me, I consider it an act of human caring to wish that there will never be a child born that is not wanted, and to hope that as much help that can be given before it ever becomes a thought, let alone an issue, is all to the good.
Or, are you arguing that unwanted pregnancy is a good thing? I doubt you are arguing that any more than I am arguing for any restriction on the right of a woman to seek this procedure. It is the need for such that I would wish to see diminished... that every pregnacy that does occur would be because the woman chooses it to be so.
Based on the words of some here, I'm sure this statement will be taken as what it is not... and flamed accordingly.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)I'm just pointing out that pap smears are just as much invasive medical procedures as abortions. However, I can't remember anyone using that term to describe pap smears here. Why is that? Is it perhaps because pap smears are accepted as medical interventions and abortions are not?
The abortion debate makes many uncomfortable and the language used displays that discomfort. It's easier to describe abortion in terms that make it sound scarier than it is to confront the reality that personal aversion to abortion makes it difficult for some people to accept the pro-choice label even though they want to allow others to make choices that they believe they would not make for themselves. Calling them "invasive medical procedures" rather than just medical procedures, and wishing for them to be rare IMHO are displays of that discomfort.
uppityperson
(115,920 posts)Even first trimester abortions are much more invasive than a pap smear is. Both are medical procedures but they differ in "invasiveness".
There is a reason to keep abortions safe, legal, hygienic and that is because done poorly, they can and do cause many problems.
Saying paps are just as invasive as abortions is dead wrong. And yes, I've worked with both.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Someone did imply however that abortions are invasive and pap smears are not. Characterizing only abortions as invasive is word play by anti-choicers and some who are pro-choice but against abortion.
Most people outside of the medical profession don't realize that the term "invasive" is a descriptor, not a sign of complexity. While it is correct to term many abortions invasive, few can be counted as more than minimally invasive and most early abortions aren't considered invasive at all.
uppityperson
(115,920 posts)Prying open a cervix, sticking a suction tube up into the uterus isn't "invasive"? Unless you mean some other type of early abortion? Would you please clarify for me so I understand what you mean. Thank you.
I guess it depends on definition of "invasive". I just don't want to go the other way and depict D&Cs as comparable to a pap smear as they aren't and no need to, oh damn my words fail me. Exaggerate? Like the anti-choicers exaggerating "omg every abortion is HORRIBLE!!!!111" thing but the other side.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Of course dilating the cervix is more invasive than a pap smear, but both are invasive -- it's just a matter of degrees. The poster I responded to described only one as invasive. My point was that using the term "invasive" makes abortions sound far more complex and risky than they are in most cases..
uppityperson
(115,920 posts)saying the same sort of thing. Thanks for clarifying.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)It's not uncommon for people to need heart surgery because of their poor lifestyle choices.
But it isn't something anyone would choose to undergo on a whim.
It's something that (a) should be avoided if possible because of the stress and risks involved, and (b) could be avoided in some cases by altering individuals' circumstances. And so we have a duty to help people avoid it, in their own interests.
Quite the resemblance to abortion.
Does anyone go around saying they want heart surgery to be safe, legal and rare?
No. We want heart disease to be rare, not heart surgery. We want heart surgery to be available to those who need and choose it.
Pregnancy calls for each pregnant woman to make a choice. It's her choice. Made for her reasons. We can offer information, services, products, that would help women to avoid having to make that choice, but no woman can be forced to avail herself of them, and no one can guarantee their effectiveness.
I want abortion to be legal.
I would be happy if unwanted pregnancies were rare -- whether because unintended pregnancies were rare or because women had genuine choices when they happened. Just as I would prefer heart disease to be rare.
But I'll no more say that I think abortion should be rare than I'll say I think heart surgery should be rare. That way lies judgment of other people's choices, and they're none of my business.
There are two options: anti-choice and pro-choice.
You can dislike the idea and practice of abortion for whatever reasons you might have, and still be pro-choice.
And you can not give a damn about fetuses and still be anti-choice; in fact, that accounts for most of the anti-choice brigade, I'd say.
If abortion is legal, and of course if there are no end runs being done around that (mandatory misinformation, obstruction of access, hyper-regulation), then it will be safe.
And that is the only thing that is any of anyone's business, and all any of us needs to concern ourselves with, and say.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ted_Kennedy
How *dare* he say "rare".
iverglas
(38,549 posts)You really don't want to address the issues here, do you?
If that was meant as a question, the answer is "NO, we can't."
If it was meant as a statement, it was wrong.
You do understand that, right?
Many people do NOT agree that "abortion should be rare".
That's really quite simple.
Many people think that the number of abortions that occur is a function of individual women's choices, and have nothing more to say about it.
Surely we can all agree that individual women's choices are none of our business, right?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)pauljulian
(45 posts)I don't see it as a function of anyone's choices. Many people also seem to see it as a woman existing in a vacuum apart from any other human on the planet, and have nothing more to say about it.
My part of the discussion has nothing to do with choice, for or against... I would rather my father not have died of cancer after a long and painful decade of treatment... but moreso, I would much have desired that there would never have been the issue in the first place.
A desire for working toward a society where these things are not needed is where I'm coming from...
Or are you arguing that undesired pregnancies are a good thing?
pauljulian
(45 posts)True, abortion and heart surgery should never be done on a whim. Would you argue that it's not desirable to see that the need be lessened? That it's not desirable to exercise preventative rather than reactive measures? You insist on seeing this as an attack on someone's choice... ferchrissakes, get it through your head that it is the NEED for these things that is addressed. I don't thing the American Cancer Society and such are in business to work with legislation for or against cancer treatment, but to work for a world in which cancer treatment would not be needed. (or substitute the American Heart Association if we must continue the same example).
alfredo
(60,166 posts)
spooky3
(37,377 posts)
NOLALady
(4,003 posts)I have always been pro choice also.
I went with my daughter to a Planned Parenthood clinic in NOLA a couple of weeks ago. The "crazies" were outside as we were leaving. They approached us with their fliers, bible rhetoric, guilt trip crap. It wasn't pretty. I told them they were terrorists among other things. They were face to face with an honest to God, angry black woman protecting her kid.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)and add that I can't just look away while my military - or anyone else's - bombs to smithereens pregnant women and children in other nations.
I can't pretend it's not murder when anyone kills for oil. For money. For power. For land. For shits and giggles. For god.
I can't pretend those "foreign" children killed by war - whether seen or unseen - aren't "life" too.
But oh, what contortions some go through to justify the aborted lives of other nations' babies....like "Jesus just thinks our American unborn babies are spushull and other unborn babies have to die so our unborn babies can drive big trucks so....so there."
American Anti-Life Exceptionalism if you ask me.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)If so, you're out of luck. I'm too smart to fight with people who demonstrate such ability to hit a series of nails on the head.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)These assholes are definitely not "pro life", they oppose programs to feed clothe and house children whose parents cannot take care of them, in general they support the death penalty, they wholeheartedly endorse the use of mass murder in support of corporate profits, and they want to deny support to organizations that provide breast cancer screening.
And the Democrats have let them coopt this title without even a challenge. Every beltway media talking head refers to those who oppose abortion as "pro life". Even prominent Democrats refer to their opponents as pro life.
Somebody needs to stand up right fucking now and point out the irony of people with no regard for life calling themselves pro life. It's bullshit.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)"enemies of reproductive freedom" for them, while reserving the term "pro-life" for myself.
I guess the major difference is that I'm not interested in ensuring that every blastocyte makes it full-term, but rather, that those who do enter this world be surrounded by the resources they need to flourish into happy, healthy humans.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)We keep allowing them to set the language, the relative importance of the issues, the emotional environment, etc. while expecting long-winded but consummately rational arguments to carry the day.
Among its many other accomplishments, OWS did two remarkable things: They got the focus onto the maldistribution of wealth and off the fuckin' deficit, and they gave us the meme of the 99% versus the 1%.
These are earth-shaking events, and something the Dems would never have managed by themselves. Even though such was not necessarily their intent, they have done more in a few months to ensure the defeat of Republicans than the official Democratic Party following its customary modus operandi could have done in a lifetime.
Tennessee Gal
(6,160 posts)I have often wondered why the facts you state are not brought out more frequently.
And I love this part: "My version of the pro-life position is one that provides for maternal and child nutrition, health, education and safety when the children are outside the womb as well as before."
I know someone who made up a little ditty about the right wing position that went something like this: "Love all the babies til they're born."
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Republican policies lead to more abortions.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)To grossly over-simplify my very tentative thinking on the issue, I believe that once a fetus has a mind (i.e., mental states) it has a right to life just like you and I. Prior to that, abortion is morally unproblematic--pregnant women clearly have a right to get one. After the fetus has a right to life, things are more complicated. But abortion isn't necessarily wrong at that point for the obvious reason that women have a right to control their bodies. Even with my right to life, I don't automatically have a right to use someone else's body to survive, and the same can be said of a fetus. Thus, in a case of pregnancy due to rape, where the woman is not responsible for the fetus needing her body for survival, she clearly has a right to deny the fetus the use of her body even if the fetus has a right to life. On the other hand, if a woman voluntarily seeks to get pregnant, and the fetus is not a serious threat to her health, I am inclined to think that she should get an early abortion to avoid violating the right to life that the fetus will acquire once it has mental states.
Again, all of this is very tentative. The only thing I am sure about is that no one will agree with me.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)at such depth of thought. There would be no reasonable way to incorporate this into law, however. The problem as I see it would in determining the conditions and states of mind of the women seeking to terminate their pregnancies.
I think it is fine to object to abortion personally, and to lead your life according to your beliefs, but not acceptable to try to enact those personal beliefs into law in a world that is shared with equally well-intentioned people who have reasonably concluded that it is more harmful to restrict abortion than to allow it within wider legal and practical limits.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I think that when an issue is this cloudy, you have to protect the rights you are confident about and that would be the woman's right to control her own body.
femrap
(13,418 posts)men were like Thom Hartman and keep their traps shut when it comes to abortion. They have so little to do with creating life. And how many kids are born today with a father listed on the birth certificate?
And while I'm at it: there are too many people on this dying planet. Get vasectomies!
Jury that.
tpsbmam
(3,927 posts)They're not mutually exclusive.
saras
(6,670 posts)If we really mean to protect all life, this unreasonable bias towards multicellular creatures has to go.
The whole idea of substituting "life" for "abortion", which is a perfectly reasonable, neutral, well-understood word worldwide, is the grossest form of propaganda, and deserves no respect or obedience.
Personally, I am pro-abortion. I think they need to be safe, legal, and I'm not worried one bit about the quantity. Like much of Europe, I'd suggest that the most appropriate response is to simply quit being so emotional about it. It's a private medical decision between a woman and her doctor, of no significant consequence to anyone else. If the father doesn't have a relationship with the woman sufficient to gain entry into the child's life, then he screwed up and lost his chance. If you're going to get people pregnant who don't want your babies, whether it's carelessness, stupidity, or maliciousness, you don't really get to tell them they have to have your baby. That's just virulently stupid.
uppityperson
(115,920 posts)Thank you. that is my stance also. Safe and legal and not worried about the quantity.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)pro-life
adjective
opposed to legalized abortion; right-to-life.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pro+life
SidDithers
(44,332 posts)and as common as they need to be.
Fuck "rare"
Sid
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Wouldn't you?
You don't think it's better that contraception is widely available and used by couples, so that unwanted pregnancies, and therefore abortions, are "rare"?
What's your objection to contraception?
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)pauljulian
(45 posts)What gets lost in the hysteria is that, completely outside of any subjective considerations, it is an invasive medical procedure, and, as such, carries certain risks. Simple fact....
I would rather see someone exercise preventative rather than reactive measures, wouldn't you? And it, ultimately, doesn't matter at all what I would rather, but I would really like to see (yeah, and unicorns and glitter will fly from my butt) a completely unemotional discussion . It is a legal medical procedure that carries more risk than a tooth extraction but less, perhaps, than a heart transplant... but as such, it needs to be safe... we've already discussed that it is legal... rare, to me, would indicate that we've matured to the point that contraceptive means are improved, that the man involved in the relationship take responsibility for his own actions, and that realistic and comprehensive sex education be made as mandatory in the public-school system as math, reading and history.
We've come to a point that radical mastectomies are not as common as they once were... medical science has improved to the degree of the procedures of lumpectomies and drug-therapy. Would we argue that that invasive medical procedure not be rare?
Once one gets past all the understandable emotionalism about this issue, there are facts that need to be addressed, but aren't outside of blogs such as this.
It says a lot that we all seem to need to insert our "but it's none of my business" into these discussions... true, it is not, but I have to question those that seem to be inching towards being the bugaboo of the right, who accuse pro-choicers of saying "any abortion possible." I know no one is saying that, but how can one truly argue against wishing this procedure that is undoubtably taking place at one of the worst times in a woman's life be rare, and rare as a result of the right reasons?
iverglas
(38,549 posts)Ah, yes, hysteria.
An historically victimized, oppressed and marginalized group demanding the ability to exercise fundamental human rights without interference: that's classic hysteria.
Oh wait, I seem to have forgotten. The group in question is women. Of course they're hysterical.
Have you considered the risks of full-term pregnancy and delivery at all?
If it's the risks to women's well-being you're concerned about, I think you want to be saying that you want childbirth to be safe, legal and rare.
Actually, it carries less risk than a tonsillectomy. You can look that up. I knew about it when I decided to undergo a tonsillectomy at the end of my first year of law school, after spending a year in torts class reading about post-tonsillectomy haemorrhage (yup, I got it), post-tonsillectomy infection, sponges left in throats ...
That would all be lovely.
So why can't you say that, instead of saying you want abortion to be rare?
pauljulian
(45 posts)Ahem, I rather thought that was what I was saying. And, sorry you took offense at what I said... granted, it is a fantasy to say that such things would happen, but how could you possibly take offense at my words?
For that matter, I'd rather see, if possible, prevention of tonsillitis rather than surgery... wouldn't you?
It seems to me that you came here ready to take offense where none was intended.
Sorry, but my absolutism died years ago, and my idealism resides solely in my head.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Well, not really but that would be a surefire way to curtail the risk of unintended pregnancies.
The rate of contraception failure is high enough that relying on female contraception alone as a way to make abortion rare isn't going to cut it.
Jennicut
(25,415 posts)Many kids are told not to have sex rather then being educated about being safe and preventing pregnancy. I didn't have sex until I was 23 but everyone I knew in high school in the 1990's was having sex at 15,16,17. I was rare. Sex education policies in some schools are pretty bad. And parents really, really need to talk to their kids.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)iverglas
(38,549 posts)What's your objection to civility?
Can you produce some justification for asking someone a question so loaded with a false premise?
Contraception may reduce the numbers of unintended pregnancies and thus unwanted pregnancies.
If I may play your game: what is your objection to reducing the numbers of unintended pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies?
I have to assume you have one; otherwise, you'd be saying you think unintended/unwanted pregnancies should be rare.
Instead, there you are saying you think abortions should be rare ... and playing right into the hands of the right wing.
Reminds me of the reclaiming of misogynistic / homophobic / racist / bigoted language.
You can say that "X" means "Y" all you want. That doesn't have an iota of effect on what "X" actually means to people who hear it.
When you say you want abortion to be rare, you are saying that you disapprove of abortion, and thus of women who choose it. Because that is what the people listening to you hear.
Why do you want to betray women?
Just playing your game again.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)which will result in unwanted pregnancies being rare, which will result in abortions being rare.
I confess that I don't really understand your issue with this.
BTW the poster I was replying to stated "fuck rare". And *I'm* the "uncivil" one?
pauljulian
(45 posts)Those who are quick to take offense will do so anyway... I find it amazing the fury such a thing garners... I'm no "concern troll," as a search of my posting history on many blogs would verify... If I were to say that I would like breast-cancer surgery to be rarer because of education and preventative means, would this garner the same degree of ire from some of our absolutists here? If not, why not? Why should advocacy of education and preventative means to lessen the number of breast-cancer surgeries not cause the same rage?
If it doesn't, why not? (for the irony and humor-impaired, this was an exercise in hyperbole to make a point)
It's amazing to me that I could have a civil discussion with someone on subjects upon which we agree without question, yet when the subject turns to abortion, any hint of saying that maybe there are things society could do to lessen the number causes outrage.
Not everyone who would like to see the number of abortions lessened is a raving "Tiller-killer," or anything of the sort.
Why the rage, folks? Why the absolutism that you so rightly decry when it's about one of the right-wing's lunacies du jour?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Bill Clinton, I thought, said it perfectly. I never thought there would be a "fuck rare" contingent on DU.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)And fyi, there has been a "fuck rare" contingent at DU for years.
In the olden days the rallying cry was "free abortion on demand".
I liked that one. And it's what we have in Canada. No laws. No problem.
Is there a "fuck free abortion on demand" contingent at DU, I wonder?
Maybe they'd like to step up and justify their position, if so.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I agree with Joyce Arthur that ALL abortion laws should be repealed. Every single one. Abortion is not a “necessary evil.” Abortion is a moral and positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, and protects families. No country needs any laws against abortion whatsoever. We can trust women to exercise their sensible moral judgment; we can trust doctors to exercise their professional medical judgment, and that’s all we need to regulate the process.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/115253
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)and that sex education encouraging the use of contraception should be improved, which would result in unwanted pregnancies being rare, which in turn would result in abortions being rare? (Of course an added benefit to this is that STDs would also become rarer).
Like many other DUers in this thread, I am absolutely astounded that anyone could take issue with this simple common sense. Is it hard to understand that someone can be pro-choice while still believing that it is better that contraception is more widely used to prevent unwanted pregnancies?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Women can get conceive for about 10 decades. If a woman has 4 abortions in her lifetime, is that not 'rare' enough for society? I think it's none of society's fucking business and should be left out of the conversation entirely.
Abortion should be safe, legal and easily accessible. Contraception should also be safe, legal and easily accessible. And, to agree with the OP, society should foster an environment with assistance, social safety nets and access to health care so that women can make decisions that they want to make rather than feel forced to make due to an unwelcome environment.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Contraception automatically leads to abortions being rare.
You and I are both pro-choice. You do not need to say "fuck rare" to burnish your pro-choice credentials here.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Not to 'burnish my pro-choice cred'.
Why is that so hard to understand?
I'll say as often and to whomever I choose, tyvm. I never accused you of being anti-choice, I am explaining why trying to qualify it with an ambiguous relative 'frequency' is fucking stupid.
ETA: And if what I and others support reduces the number of abortions, helping you with your weird 'rare' stipulation, why are you so hung up on us stating that ambiguous relative 'frequency' as well?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ted_Kennedy
Oh that Ted Kennedy. He was *such* a fucking asshole.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)My position happens to be the same as his.
You and I are both pro-choice, but for some reason you have a visceral hatred of the word "rare", in the context that it was used by Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy as well as by me and several others in this thread. I have obviously failed to persuade you to change your opinion on this, and I don't think I will be able to, so there is probably no point in arguing any further.
Have a good night.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Most notably this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=276543
The phrase and context to which you refer was updated by the Democratic Party in 2008 to reflect my line of thinking. You should re-read that since you have such a visceral hatred of omitting the silly relative, ambiguous and judgmental 'frequency'.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)iverglas
(38,549 posts)
, which had asked that women not have abortions unless they absolutely must. The 2008 platform, just announced, says instead, "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." Should a woman desire to bear her child, the Dems advocate prenatal care, income support, and adoption programs to help her there, too. But in the world of the new Democratic platform, it's the woman's decision to make.Free abortion on demand!
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Numbers mean nothing without context. If the 1.21 million abortions that took place in 2005 (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#1) represent the number of women who needed abortions (and in my opinion, if a woman decides she needs an abortion, then she does), as well as the many women who chose to terminate pregnancies that they very much wanted but could not afford to carry to term, then that number is too high. The work of reducing the number of abortions, therefore, would entail creating an authentically family-friendly society, where women would have the support they need to raise their families, whatever forms they took. That could include eliminating the family caps in TANF, encouraging unionization of low-wage workers, reforming immigration policies and making vocational and higher education more accessible.
On the other hand, if those 1.21 million abortions represent only the women who could access abortion financially, geographically or otherwise, then that number is too low. Yes, too low. If that’s the case, then what is an appropriate response? How do we best support women and their reproductive health? Do we dare admit that increasing the number of abortions might be not only good for women’s health, but also moral and just?
What if we stopped focusing on the number of abortions and instead focused on the women themselves? Much of the work of the reproductive health, rights and justice movements would remain the same. We would still advocate for legislation that helps our families. We would still fight to protect abortion providers and their staffs from verbal harassment and physical violence. What would change, however, is the stigma and shame. By focusing on supporting women’s agency and self-determination, rather than judging the outcomes of that agency, we send a powerful message. We say that we trust women. We say we will not use them and their experiences as pawns in a political game. We say we care about women and want them to have access to all the information, services and resources necessary to make the best decisions they can for themselves and their families. That is at the core of reproductive justice. Not reducing the number of abortions. Safe – yes. Legal– absolutely. Rare – not the point.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/04/26/safe-legal-rare-another-perspective
iverglas
(38,549 posts)and that sex education encouraging the use of contraception should be improved, which would result in unwanted pregnancies being rare, which in turn would result in abortions being rare?
You keep making this claim: that the measures you advocate would result in unwanted pregnancies being rare.
What evidence and/or argument do you have for that claim?
Surely you understand that you just don't get to stick it into a question and require that the person being asked the question assume its fact-hood.
There actually is not the slightest shred of factual basis for your claim, that unwanted pregnancies would become "rare" by improving sex education and encouraging the use of contraception.
And you are still not responding to the actual issue: why you and others insist on saying that you want abortion to be rare.
If you want unwanted pregnancies to be rare, why do you not say that?
What is it you are really concerned about: the distress that unwanted pregnancy causes women, or the fact that some women with unwanted pregnancies have abortions?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts) iverglas
(38,549 posts)The poster said "fuck rare" for a reason. If you really did not understand it (even after reading the several posts in this thread that explain it very clearly), you might have considered asking what was meant by it.
Instead, you made something up. You alleged that the poster objected to contraception.
That little effort was so utterly transparent I can't begin to imagine why someone would even waste their time typing it. Did you really think someone was going to believe, on reading your post, that the poster you were addressing objected to contraception?
How does that kind of tricky demagoguery advance anyone's understanding of an issue? It certainly doesn't seem to have advanced yours.
How does it advance the discussion? Did you really expect to get a reply explaining clearly and carefully why the poster objected to contraception?
I'd say you expected that as much as I expect you to give me a clear and careful explanation of why you beat your dog, if I ask you why you do it.
which will result in unwanted pregnancies being rare, which will result in abortions being rare.
Do you honestly believe that? Do you believe that access to contraception in the US is so pitifully bad that boosting it will (not might) have that effect, will make abortion rare?
I'm in Canada. I'm somewhat rare in that I don't have a drug plan, being self-employed. People with secure jobs here tend to have supplemental medical insurance if they live in a province where the public health plan doesn't cover prescription drugs. If they are on social assistance benefits, drugs cost $2 per prescription, which many pharmacies waive. IUDs and long-term hormonal contraception are often available free of charge at community clinics, which also distribute condoms. Reading up, I see the pill is about $25/month, depo-provera is $35/3 months, and an IUD is $300! Mine were always free (and again, those charges don't apply to the low-income or people with employer-based supplemental plans). There is no stupid right-wing interference in sex ed in the schools ... but there is in the coverage provided by the public health plans, which successive right-wing governments have obviously been reducing when it comes to women's reproductive health. Both pregnancy care and delivery and abortion services are covered, of course. So there's no healthcare expense involved in continuing a pregnancy to term.
And you know what? Our abortion rate is not very much lower than the rate in the US. Ditto for European countries where there is ready access to contraception.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article686691.ece
Published Thursday, May. 22, 2008 9:00AM EDT
Last updated Monday, Mar. 30, 2009 3:40PM EDT
Between 2004 and 2005, the most recent data available, the number of induced abortions dropped 3.2 per cent to 96,815, continuing a five-year downward trend. The rates fell in every age group except for women aged 35 to 39, which remained the same. {population of Canada is roughly 1/9 the US population}
... The United States has also seen a decline in its abortion rates, with the annual number of abortions dropping from 1.3 million to 1.2 million between 2004 and 2005 - the fewest since 1975 - according to a Guttmacher Institute report released this year.
Almost two-thirds of the U.S. decline was traced to eight jurisdictions that had fewer barriers to abortion and had committed to sex education - a departure from the Bush administration's abstinence-only approach - giving ammunition to those who say that openness about sexual intercourse is the best abortion prevention strategy.
However, experts point out that Canada's patchy method of compiling abortion statistics means there could be thousands of abortions unaccounted for.
So an intelligent approach to sexuality and barriers to abortion seem to be what reduces the abortion rate.
pauljulian
(45 posts)This is one of those hot-button topics that seem to turn otherwise reasonable people into raging absolutists, whichever side.
Reducing the number of unintended pregnancies should be the goal, and effective education and effective contraception will help towards that goal.
I'm amazed at the outrage some here seem to feel... if reducing the number of unintended pregnancies at the front end reduces the number of abortion procedures, how is that offensive? The medical procedure is no more a sacred cow than any other, and, if the number of them is reduced, how is this wrong? If my uncle's lung cancer could have been prevented at the front end, he would not have had to have the procedure removing a lung... so am I so wrong for preferring the former over the latter?
Get a grip, folks... it seems that it's not only the anti-choicers that rabidly jump on every word.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)And I will say: ABSOLUTELY.
I am a raging absolutist when it comes to women's right to life and liberty.
I brook no arbitrary interference in the exercise of those rights, I admit of no "compromise" of those rights by anyone on women's behalf, and I regard pandering in any way to those who would interfere in them as anti-woman.
Ah, yes, it's teh outrage. Fine: I'm outraged at people who want to be considered to be progressive and talk about women's rights in ways they would talk about no one else's.
Did anyone ever say that they wanted the presence of African-American children in integrated schools to be "safe, legal and rare"? Does anyone say that same-sex marriage should be "safe, legal and rare"? Why is it that women's rights are the ones that need to be exercised rarely? Wouldn't those be ways to persuade racists and homophobes to go along?
That's all this "safe, legal and rare" stuff is. It's a way of showing the anti-choice brigade that we all cluck our tongues about abortion too, but it's one of those necessary evils, yada yada. No, it isn't. For the individual women who make that choice, it is necessary (there being no other way at that point to avoid the unwanted outcome that is the only alternative), but it ain't an evil, either morally or pragmatically.
If a woman would prefer not to be pregnant, I'd prefer that she have access to the best means of achieving that end. But if the outcome of whatever choices she makes along the way is that she chooses to terminate her pregnancy, that is not my business, and I will not make some gigantic deal out of what is actually not a gigantic deal for a lot of women.
The question is: do you go around saying that cancer treatment should be safe, legal and rare?
Some of us have a very firm grip. Despite the slipperiness of the fishes laid out in front of us.
pauljulian
(45 posts)I would do so if cancer treatment had become politicized like abortion has been. If abortion had not been demonized like it has been, the statement would have no meaning.
However, it seems that I've been reasonable and have been slammed as some kind of "anti-choicer." Because I don't display the approved level of righteous indignation? Got that enough from the other side, thank you.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)I and others have laid out reasons why you and others like you should examine your rhetoric, and consider what the real reasons for it are, and ask yourselves what its effects are and what you are actually accomplishing by persisting in it.
It's all over to you, now.
pauljulian
(45 posts)Nope, not over to me at all, as I'm the wrong gender to make the decision, so I'm doing what everyone else here has apparently been doing this morning, sitting behind my computer typing out words that aren't going to matter at all in the long run.
I, as a man, will never be pregnant, and as such, will never have to make such a decision.
My wife is past childbearing age, and so it's a non-issue there.
Each of our sets of daughters are grown women in their late-20's and early 30's, so they are quite capable of making decisions without any input from me or anyone else.
I have examined my own beliefs and convictions, and do so daily, as a thinking person should. That you do not see my reasons for them are because you do not know me, and you do not see into my thoughts; this does not mean that I consider my reasons as mere rhetoric, or that I believe the way I do for reasons that have never been examined. You call it rhetoric, I call it reason... potato, potahto... I don't expect to convince anyone of anything, and if anyone's seen anything different in what I've said, sorry... was only showing up here for discussion, not demagoguery.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)"Over to you."
Your turn. The ball's in your court. You have the options, you get to decide.
Continue to use rhetoric that demeans women by treating them and their lives and their choices as a lumped up quantity that someone else's opinion about matters, or not.
If there's a reason for saying "abortion should be rare", I have never yet encountered it. That is, I have never yet encountered a reason for saying it that does not apply equally to "heart surgery should be rare".
It's only women's choices about something that is utterly and completely personal to each woman that get pronounced about this way.
Here's your new slogan: Let's help women avoid unwanted pregnancy if that is their goal, and keep abortion safe and legal.
Exact counterpart of: Let's help people avoid heart disease if that is their goal, and keep heart disease safe and legal.
It's absolutely correct to say
But that does not lead to your conclusion:
We do not alter our rhetoric, let alone our principles, to fit into the twisted depiction of an exercise of fundamental rights that has been served up by someone else.
If we don't want women's rights to be a political football, we don't play football with them.
It makes absolute sense to demand, in response to the politicizing and demonizing, that abortion be available safely and legally.
It makes no sense at all to stigmatize women's choices one's self by saying the choices women make should be rare.
pauljulian
(45 posts)Hmmm... I've read over my posts on this thread, and maybe it's that I didn't make myself clear...
Apparently you heard me saying that the choice should be rare... although I have no idea where you got that...
Does it make more sense if I phrase it that I would hope there would be diminishing need for abortion?
Hell, in what sense did I say at all that invalidated the reality of a human's choice about anything?
Would you agree that it's desirable to lessen the NEED for heart surgery? If so, and if you can understand that the choice of the human involved is not even in that sentence, then why is it so difficult to understand that I am saying the same thing as Planned Parenthood (which organization I enthusiastically support, BTW) that the wish is for every child to be a wanted child? As abortion counseling and services are less than 3% of PP's activities, it seems to me that the importance should be laid on their other activities, which are everything I enumerated, namely education and contraception.
How am I being rhetorical or demonizing by stating that I'd like to see the NEED to be reduced?
pauljulian
(45 posts)I've got to say, though, that it seems you are attempting to make something out to be an argument where no argument was intended... any observation you think you've made that I'm somehow arguing against any choice by any human being regarding that person's medical matters or anything else is flat wrong... and I've not made that argument about abortion, or any other matter, nor would I.
Don't be so quick to see an enemy that you miss an ally.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)You aren't.
Or you wouldn't be, if that were what you were saying.
What you were saying was: abortion should be ... rare.
See how they are just not the same things?
IF someone wants to assist women in avoiding unintended/unwanted pregnancy
THEN I expect them to say that.
NOT to say that it should be rare for women to make a particular choice to deal with an existing unwanted pregnancy.
pauljulian
(45 posts)Alright, since, in my verbosity I apparently was unclear...
Once more....
I would like to see women assisted in any way possible to avoid unintended/unwanted pregnancies.
I would like to see the need for abortion lessened, not the choice.
Is that effin' clear enough?
If it's not, at this point it's obvious that you don't WANT to see that that is what I've been saying...
And not a pandering or weaseling word in the bunch. Fair enough?
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)I know at least two women who have become pregnant while using a copper IUD. It's barely less effective than surgical sterilization, impossible to misuse unless you fail to notice it's fallen out, and yet they wound up very unexpectedly pregnant. One of them had an abortion, one had a baby. Both of them were using one of the most effective birth control method available to them.
Hell, even surgical sterilizations have a potential for failure.
pauljulian
(45 posts)No, it's not magic, any method used can fail and is not without some risk, but wider availability coupled with accurate information and education is preferable to the current politicizing of contraception and the stupid insistence on "abstinence-only" claptrap by our elected officials and many of our citizens.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Abortion is not a “necessary evil.” Abortion is a moral and positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, and protects families.
nanabugg
(2,198 posts)pro-life but wealthy folks have been having abortions for centuries without anyone raising an eyebrow. They used to call it D&C. We all knew when a young socialite said she had a D&C what it really meant. And some RW rabid anti-choice folks have it going on in their families right now. It's just like the RW liars who yell the most vicious anti-gay venom and it turns out that they themselves are gay. Sure many people are against abortions...and they won't have one. So what is the big deal? If I don't want something or don't approve of something if someone else want what I don't, is that going to change me?
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)and about 1% oppose abortions but they aren't a hypocrite - they anything that could end life includng the death penalty, wars and they care about what happens to the fetus when it becomes a child - supporting healthcare, education, jobs.
I think Sen. Bob Casey is one of the few people I would call pro-life. I know of a few catholic nuns that fall in that 1% too.
piratefish08
(3,133 posts)same as anti-choice.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)so unwanted pregnancies are rare, so abortions are rare.
It's not really all that complicated.
pauljulian
(45 posts)Rare = less necessary due to improvement of sex-education and improvement and availability of effective contraceptive means.
As an aside, I have to wonder where is the research on effective contraception for men? Seems the only options are condoms and surgical sterilization...
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)I don't think the word means what you think it means.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Just like "Partial Birth Abortion," "Abortuaries" and "Abortionists."
SaintPete
(533 posts)pro life means that one supports life. Its opposite is "anti-life" not "pro-choice"
Why let the bigots set the rules for language?
If progressives can turn "Santorum" into a pejorative, then we can reclaim "pro-life." We've got facts on our side...
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I don't use the term "pro-life" at all except in quotes, and usually with "supposedly" before it.
I usually use the term "Pro-forced childbearing" because that is what they espouse.
They like to equate pro-choice with pro-abortion. I say pro-child, parent by choice.
w8liftinglady
(23,278 posts)I am the mother of three children.I have used Planned Parenthood to prevent unwanted pregnancies.I have supported my friends who used Planned Parenthood for access to safe pregnancy termination.I have also totally supported programs that provided healthy nutrition and complete,non-judgemental medical care to a woman who chose to have her baby.Planned Parenthood will also provide breast exams to men who go there,and refer to a specialist if they find an abnormality.Planned Parenthood also tests women for sexually transmitted diseases,treats them,and refers women who are HIV positive to community organizations that can help.
I am also gay.I support Planned Parenthood because they provide women's healthcare for lesbian women without the lecture.Planned Parenthood will provide std and breast exams to gay men,provide condoms and std treatment and referrals if the man is HIV positive.
These,to me, are all "Pro-life".
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)That's what the Big Dog said!
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Infact I lament that it has become a political issue and litmus test. I have always said, noone is pro-abortion, it is pro-choice, and you can still favor that people choose life as part of that choice. The key is in our culture. The film "Juno" subtley addresses this.
pauljulian
(45 posts)As I'm sure there are some that are convinced they are fried eggs...
The issue should be no more politicized than any other medical issue, but it is. And that really sucks...
Regardless of my personal views on this or any other subject, once a choice has been made, it's been made, and is worthy of respect.
*sigh*
Pretty sure someone will take offense at this, also.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)It's not a matter of being "anti-life" or "pro-life". It's "pro-choice" or "anti-choice".
gregtownsand
(43 posts)NT
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Pro-life is full of shit.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Of course, eventually I lose my patience and start calling them what they are -- misogynist religious extremists.
But yeah, anti-choice is almost as accurate. And shorter.
renie408
(9,854 posts)Robbins
(5,066 posts)If you want to reduce them and make them rare condoms,and birth control pills should be easier to get not harder.
When the economic conditions are better women's economic condition doesn't leave them with feeling they can't provide for the
children.Many women get abortion feeling they can't provide for the children.
This Is way to make Abortion rare.
Ship of Fools
(1,453 posts)safe, legal & rare? They are safe (by a competent, legit doc). They already are legal. They are (relatively) rare. I've always found this qualifier to be a little apologetic and a little condescending.
Abortion on demand. No exceptions, no apologies. And no, I do not need my doc's input (unless it
is in regard to my health).
IMHO.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I used "rare" simply in the sense that, in a world where women have full freedom to control their bodies, they are more likely to have access to alternatives to abortion, thereby diminishing the need.
Ship of Fools
(1,453 posts)
Dawson Leery
(19,426 posts)-rape victims
-to save the life of the mother
In these specific cases, do you support abortion without reservation?
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I'm not in the business of telling people what to do with their bodies. I just think that in a fairer and more equitable world there would be less need for abortions, because education and access to contraception would presumably reduce unwanted pregnancies.