Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: OK, I知 coming out of the closet. I知 pro-life. [View all]iverglas
(38,549 posts)103. call me a "raging absolutist"
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.
I'm amazed at the outrage some here seem to feel
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.
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?
The question is: do you go around saying that cancer treatment should be safe, legal and rare?
Get a grip, folks... it seems that it's not only the anti-choicers that rabidly jump on every word.
Some of us have a very firm grip. Despite the slipperiness of the fishes laid out in front of us.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
150 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

pity that the ones who generally use that term don't seem to understand all it means
niyad
Feb 2012
#2
If women were given all the resources they need to control their fertility, they would be rare,
Cleita
Feb 2012
#10
the usage of "rare" implies to me that others stipulate who can and who can't
TorchTheWitch
Feb 2012
#22
We want women to feel safe and secure enough to carry to term if they so wish. If they feel they
alfredo
Feb 2012
#24
Being a health care provider, and having worked with reproductive health, not sure what you mean.
uppityperson
Feb 2012
#141
RU486? Thank you for clarifying. Seems were differ on what terms mean for "invasive" but are
uppityperson
Feb 2012
#143
It seems some are talking "color" and others are talking "visible light frequency"
pauljulian
Feb 2012
#134
See, I've never understood why Dems let religious nuts steal the term "pro life"
tularetom
Feb 2012
#32
What I really agree with is the fact that you are wrestling with this issue
Jackpine Radical
Feb 2012
#47
When ever I encounter a "pro-lifer" I always say, "I'm also pro-life. I'm also pro-choice."
tpsbmam
Feb 2012
#57
"I think they need to be safe, legal, and I'm not worried one bit about the quantity." Exactly
uppityperson
Feb 2012
#66
I would prefer that my daughters use contraception than get pregnant and have an abortion.
Nye Bevan
Feb 2012
#65
I'd prefer that my daughters & sons rarely had sex.Unless they're intending to get pregnant, no sex.
Gormy Cuss
Feb 2012
#85
Do you think that contraception should be readily available and widely used,
Nye Bevan
Feb 2012
#115
Of course I do and the two are unrelated. You see, 'rare' is a relative term that is full of shit.
PeaceNikki
Feb 2012
#116
I say 'fuck rare' to thumb my nose at the idea of some asshole judging what's 'rare'... or not.
PeaceNikki
Feb 2012
#119
Oh, also, the Democratic Party dropped that seriously antiquated language in 2008
PeaceNikki
Feb 2012
#125
What if we stopped focusing on the number of abortions and instead focused on the women themselves?
PeaceNikki
Feb 2012
#126
At the very heart of the abortion issue who "pays" for the operation. It's couched in terms of
nanabugg
Feb 2012
#61
When addressing anti-choice people, I usually put "pro-life" in quotes & prefix it with "so-called"
2ndAmForComputers
Feb 2012
#138