General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBeing pro-life doesn’t make me any less of a lefty
Being pro-life doesnt make me any less of a lefty
Abortion is one of those rare political issues on which left and right seem to have swapped ideologies.
BY MEHDI HASAN PUBLISHED 11 OCTOBER 2012
Listening to fellow pundits on the left react with rage and disbelief to the support by the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, for halving the abortion time limit to 12 weeks, I was reminded of the late Christopher Hitchens. [A]nyone who has ever seen a sonogram or has spent even an hour with a textbook on embryology knows that emotions are not the deciding factor [in abortions], wrote the Hitch in his column for the Nation magazine in April 1989. In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain . . . break some bones and rupture some organs.
It is often assumed that the great contrarians break with the liberal left came over Iraq in 2003. His self-professed pro-life position, however, had provoked howls of anguish in progressive circles 14 years earlier. It has long been taken as axiomatic that in order to be left-wing you must be pro-choice. Yet Hitchenss reasoning was not just solid but solidly left-wing. It was a pity, he noted, that the majority of feminists and their allies have stuck to the dead ground of Me Decade possessive individualism, an ideology that has more in common than it admits with the prehistoric right, which it claims to oppose but has in fact encouraged.
----------
Rest at link: http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/lifestyle/2012/10/being-pro-life-doesnt-make-me-any-less-lefty
In my personal opinion, making contraception easily available and affordable to those most likely to have an abortion would solve things much faster. The Republican party has been running on a pro-life platform for decades, but beyond trying to get pro-life judges in (and generally failing) they have no ideas on how to accomplish their own goals besides random legislation here or there that doesn't really tackle things. It is more of an issue they use to display how holy they are, and to get people pissed off and ready to vote against the heathens on the left. A smart Democratic candidate can steal some of this vote by demonstrating the effectiveness of progressive policies in reducing abortion rates and by expressing pro-life positions.
msongs
(67,199 posts)Tigress DEM
(7,887 posts)Liberals are a LOT MORE FOR LIFE than people who are against abortion and contraception. Maybe a better term is Pro-Choice and FOR Life - especially the little ones we've already got who are being crushed in poverty by the policies Mitt Romney wants to bring us back to.
I'd like to see more birth control available so someone doesn't need to have an abortion. I think it CAN be irresponsible to rely on abortion as birth control. VERY few do that because it is not something most women want to do a second time.
With the availability of the morning after pill someone who really doesn't want to be pregnant can hopefully use that as an alternative.
One odd thing I've noticed is people with solid birth control, like an IUD getting pregnant. Even a couple with tubes tied and a vasectomy. Still having periods AND pregnant. SO abortion needs to be a choice for someone who doesn't even know right away.
I'm pro-choice and pro-life in the sense that I respect ALL life and I have a preference against over use of abortion, but am not against reasonable use. I'm pro-choice because I don't believe that any of this is my call for another person.
Some people are 10+ on a scale of 1-10 on thinking abortion should be just another medical procedure and NO thought, absolutely NONE to the unborn. I'm probably an 8 where in most instances I'd like people to seriously consider the other options. I think women often have abortions because they live in fear these days. I'd like to see women's rights and lives lifted up to the point where getting pregnant isn't going to endanger a career or cause a person to be kicked out of their home or marry someone they don't love to provide economic security for their unborn child.
I'd like to see that every child born is a wanted child and has a healthy happy life, but I understand it's an imperfect world where tough decisions need to be made sometimes.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)"suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?_r=0
Legal or Not, Abortion Rates Compare
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: October 12, 2007
ROME, Oct. 11 A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.
Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of womens deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)And it's not "pro-life."
Soylent Brice
(8,308 posts)Rectangle
(667 posts)As a middle aged male- I feel I have no right to make these rules for
women. Period!!
Permanut
(5,439 posts)Everyone I've ever met is "pro-life", at least in principal. That is to say, there is no one I can think of who is the opposite, who is "anti-life". Furthermore, I've never met anyone who was "pro-abortion".
calimary
(80,700 posts)Pro-choice people believe if you want NOT to have an abortion, that's your choice, too. And pro-choice people don't try to rain on that parade. On the other hand, anti-choice people DO want to rain, even DELUGE on that parade.
NO ONE'S FORCING ANYBODY TO HAVE AN ABORTION. NO pro-choicers EVER do that. Hell, that's what the word "choice" is all about. That's why her ladyship ayn of dressage went on "The View" the other day and every third word she uttered was "choice." It's a KEY word. And she's doing what all the republi-CONS do, as they press ahead with yet another one of their many CONjobs. If you say it often enough, people begin to think you believe in it. Unlike them, pro-choicers actually believe choice is just that. CHOICE. It's a right. Not a mere manipulative buzzword.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)There have been plenty of people who are/have been pro-abortion. Ayn Rand is a good example. So perhaps none you've ever met, but they are out there and they actually have some decent arguments.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)The whole issue really has less to do with choice and more to do with conservatives forcing their warped version of morality on others. Conservatives believe that if women had just kept their legs closed, they wouldn't be in their predicament, so they should bear the "responsibility" of that perceived immorality.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)lillypaddle
(9,580 posts)gkhouston
(21,642 posts)reproductive choices for women, that means they could outlaw pregnancy just as easily as they could outlaw abortion.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)xxqqqzme
(14,887 posts)is ANTI-CHOICE. Being pro-choice does not make me anti-life.
ThomThom
(1,486 posts)Last edited Mon Oct 22, 2012, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)
I agree with Biden. It is not my place to tell someone else what to do with their bodies.
I am opposed to the death penalty and war therefore I am pro-life.
johnnyrocket
(1,773 posts)ThomThom
(1,486 posts)speak for yourself not me
Just because I would not have an abortion does not mean I should make that choice for anybody else. Neither should the Govt. Period.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)and Hitchens was wrong about the description of abortion in the early stage of pregnancy and I don't consider anyone who opposes abortion to be "pro-life" since outlawing abortion is merely "anti-woman" and the objective to encourage contraception may be achieved without including religious beliefs that the majority of the population disagrees with (i.e. that a church, rather than a doctor, may make the best informed decisions for a woman in relation to child bearing.)
To be fair, why don't the anti-choicers go after parents and attempt to create a law to force them to donate body organs to their children? Why is it only women who are forced to be organ donors in the eyes of the religious?
The entire anti-choice logic is grounded in sexism.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Social, because it helps to shape the way we act and react to others. Social because it is shared by many others.
Whether Hitchens was right or wrong, it seems to me that he turned out to be a very bad example of a person of the left. So saying "I am a pro-life lefty just like Hitchens" seems like kind of a weak argument.
A person can also "oppose abortion" without wanting to "outlaw abortion", and I also don't think the doctor is making any sort of decision at all, except his/her own personal decision on whether to perform abortions - which is a decision that some on the pro choice side would take away.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)whether or not they believe the things someone who is not grounded in physical medicine tells them.
it's oppressive to the maximum to assume your religious belief is good for everyone - people choose to associate with others who share beliefs but they also regularly act and think in ways that are contrary to those beliefs, so, honestly, who cares if someone has a religious belief - until they try to force it on everyone else.
I think it's ridiculous to "oppose abortion" and then claim that means you don't provide support to those who want to outlaw it. The linguistic frames are the same. The mindset comes from the same place. If you really gave a goddamn about life, you'd work to make sure females had economic power - that's how you reduce the number of abortions - by empowering women.
Even so, birth control is not 100% effective. There's no reason a woman should have to abide by a religious system which she finds is unscientific and unethical because another group finds some sort of social power in a belief.
Doctors know far more about issues related to blastocysts, embryos and so forth, than religious people do. Doctors do provide information as part of health care for females.
Where do get the information that pro-choice supporters want to take away the right of doctors to practice medicine? It's this sort of bullshit from the religious that makes me want to puke. You're trying to pretend that the reality that some states have no places for safe abortion is okay because of religious beliefs, and so is opposing choice for women - i.e. the barefoot and pregnant mindset - and the problem, you want to pretend, is pro-choice who expect to be able to access legal healthcare.
It's this ridiculous b.s. that makes me detest religions.
hiphopnation
(3,100 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)But your last line is not very copacetic.
I never said anything about "taking away the right of doctors to practice medicine". I said something about the right of doctors to NOT practice medicine, to not perform a particular procedure if that is their choice.
And whatever information the all-knowing doctor provides to the patient, it is still NOT the doctor's choice about what the patient will do. The doctor can proclaim that "you have to have an abortion or you will die" but the patient is still the one making the choice. The doctor does not get to choose and say just "you have to have an abortion".
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I'm also a Democrat. The OP is right. We are much better off at solving the problem of abortion by providing birth control, and education (at a very young age) about birth control. None of us are pro-abortion. Abortion needs to become a moot point.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)The only person I have ever heard say that with a straight face is Patricia Heaton.
Did you star in "Everyone Loves Raymond," or are you just the second person I have ever seen say this with a straight face?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)You know, if you can't understand something, just admit that you can't figure it out, rather than making fun of the person saying it. It IS possible to be anti-abortion and a feminist. They are not mutually exclusive points of view.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)A felony. Ruining their lives forever.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)First of all, the taking of another human life is a homicide. There are all kinds of homicides, not all of which are felonies.
I believe that abortion should be outlawed because it is the taking of another human life. Why in the world would that law, if it were passed, be unlike any other law that has been passed, and apply retroactively?
I suggest to you that your rhetoric is obviously being used to inflame those on your side of the issue, thus getting neither of us anywhere, and certainly no closer to solving the problem. If that's your motive and your means, why bother posting an answer to my posts at all?
Response to Th1onein (Reply #135)
Post removed
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)for homicide would apply retroactively. Homicide has no statute of limitations. If you don't think overzealous prosecutors won't "go there", you are dead wrong.
You come at this from a very different angle than the rest of us - you believe abortion is evil, wrong and must be eliminated.
The rest of us believe its a part of LIFE and must remain a viable choice. There are many things that look evil but they enhance the greater good. Medical procedures like chemo and radiation are hideous, life changing events but in the long run they are necessary for the greater good of mankind. Rats and poisonous spiders have their place in the ecosystem.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)where something was legal, and then changed to become illegal. The two have nothing to do with each other. Ex post facto laws are specifically forbidden by the US Constitution.
And, yes, I do come at this from the perspective that abortion is evil, wrong and must be eliminated, and most people believe the first two, if not the third. Nobody sets out to get pregnant so that they can have an abortion. Sorry, but that is just a fact.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)and in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, abortion is the medical procedure to handle it.
So now you also want to make abortion a homicide crime by law? You've moved beyond personally believing that women who have abortions are committing homicide, and now you are full on to legislating it as a crime..... Nice.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)This incendiary rhetoric does neither of us any good. It also does nothing to forward the discussion, yet you seem intent on continuing it.
You believe that life begins at birth; I believe it begins at conception. Never the twain shall meet. Now, we can either beat the crap out of each other for our beliefs, or we can move on to find a solution to the problem. That problem is abortion.
Care Acutely
(1,370 posts)The only problem is crotch-sniffing nookie-nannies who would force women back into the alley, back into the kitchen, back into the 50's.
We won't go back. Period.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)We see abortion as the solution.
Yes, and never the twain shall meet. We will keep fighting to stop people like you from limiting our choices.
You can't shut us up.
And I will not apologize for that.
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)liberalhistorian
(20,809 posts)who died from botched, illegal abortions, before it was legal in this country, many of them suffering horribly and/or bleeding to death for hours? What about THOSE lives? Do those BORN lives mean NOTHING to you? How can you call yourself a "feminist" if they don't? And do you honestly, really, truly believe that abortion will become a "moot" point if it's illegal again? Really? Seriously? Do you NOT know that there were nearly as many abortions before 1973 as there are now, the difference is women died or suffered horribly to get them? You DO understand that just because something's made illegal doesn't mean it won't happen? Or do all those women who will die or suffer mean NOTHING to you because they will be "getting what they deserve", because they "asked for it"? And you're going to let men totally off the hook here?
RainDog
(28,784 posts)you are lying about others and to yourself.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)of this sort.
Abortion is NOT a good thing, and I think everyone would agree with that statement.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)I'm telling you that's not a factual statement but you pretend to yourself that it is because it bolsters your extremist view.
If that means you're not lying, then I guess I don't understand the concept of "claim something as fact that is not verifiable."
It's not invective to tell the truth or call you on a statement that is nothing more than propaganda.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Do YOU really believe that most people think that abortion is a great thing? A positive thing? A joy? A blessing? Hmmmm?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)They are all legal medical procedures.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)When you have a societal problem, it's usually defined by what the consensus is, or at least, the consensus defines the initiation of the conflict. For instance, if people are killing their relatives for money, and everyone agrees that relatives should be killed for their money, you have no societal problem. When another group pops up, forms a consensus, and says that killing relatives for their money is not good, you have a conflict.
We are in a conflict. Let's at least admit that there is a consensus that abortion is something negative.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Have you called people on DU who support abortion "murderers?"
You claim this is not a religious belief. So, where do you get your information to decide something is murder when the U.S. legal system disagrees with you? Where do you get the idea you can be a vigilante and lie and invent stats that don't exist.
...and, because you do this, why should anyone think you have anything worthwhile to say?
I'm not splitting hairs. If you think this is the case, you have a sloppy command of reality - which, in fact, is something I have already begun to suspect.
Yes, some people think abortion is a great, positive thing. A blessing.
You simply refuse to accept reality.
So, even if your belief is not founded in some religious doctrine, you are employing the same sort of cognitive dissonance to claim you support life. You support forced child birth.
Care Acutely
(1,370 posts)Thank you, that is exactly perfect.
Care Acutely
(1,370 posts)You said that most people think abortion is "evil." You. Your words.
Now you are trying to move the goal posts to most people calling it a joy and a blessing.
Black & white thinking and vacillating to extremes much?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)saves lives, and protects families.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)On the other hand, most people would rather have a nice meal. One thing is negative, one is positive. Can you tell the difference now?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)And they are all legal medical procedures.
See the similarities?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)The reason that it's not is because if you choose not to take chemo, then you are affecting one life only--your own. But, when you choose to have an abortion, you are affecting your life and the life of your unborn child.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)There is a difference. Abortion means that a life is taken. Period. That's a bit different than risk; it's an actuality. You want to end a life because seeing to it that it's not ended is dangerous? Doesn't hold water; sorry.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)And, who is committing this said murder?
What penalalties should be given for these phantom murders committing phantom murders?!
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)at the risk of their own life especially when they do NOT want to subject themselves to that risk.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Pregnancy and childbirth, btw, is horribly dangerous, and results in many deaths and in shortening a woman's life.
Interesting you say nothing about that.
Forced Birth of raped women, women who may die, girls who have been raped... you are so pro woman and pro life, eh?
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)Care Acutely
(1,370 posts)It's a well-honed medical procedure safer than giving birth and an important tool for saving women's lives as well as allowing them autonomy over their bodies and reproductive lives.
That's not just good - it's fantastic.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)You need to understand you are arguing with someone comparing abortion (BAD) and a good meal (GOOD). I don't think they are gonna understand your point.
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)Again, you try and put your morals on everyone. You assume because YOU feel somehow that "everyone" does also. Of all the women I've assisted with getting abortions, in a rare minority of cases was it "NOT a good thing". Maybe you should listen to women who have had them. Actually listen and think rather than simply trying to shove your ideas of morality down them.
polly7
(20,582 posts)it's a great thing the only uterus you have control over is your own.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Terminating the potential for a zygote to progress into an unwanted child, and to the detriment of the woman forced to carry it, is not evil, wrong or something that must be eliminated. You probably don't speak for 'most people' at all.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Any abortion thread needs George Carlin's classic rant!
Best point of all that he makes: When does life begin? Conception? Nine months? How about 4 billion years ago, with life being a continuous process that keeps rolling along, generation after generation.
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)However she's run afoul of rules here on DU about calling other DUers (who've had abortions) murderers. Regardless on your particular question, I'll also be interested in how she answers, if she does.
So Skinner and she have come to an agreement that she can call abortion a "homicide" instead. I'm not sure exactly why being told you committed murder is different than being told you've committed homicide but that's the nuance they worked out. DU lawyers can probably parse this out - I think its awful any which way.
This is a holdover from DU2 and I know she doesn't really want me to bring this up because she tries to take a different tack each time abortion comes up and doesn't particularly like this bit of history.
I call a spade a spade however.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)mostly due to the 'murder' language. I do know she was told not to call it murder but didn't know 'homicide' was ok. I think that's bullshit because it's a legal term and abortion is a legal medical procedure. Accusing women and their doctors of crimes is slanderous so that seems insane, but, whatev.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I'm just now seeing your post, or I would have answered it sooner. As you can see, I've been barraged with posts regarding this issue.
I and another couple of people on DU had a big flame war on this issue; I don't remember how long ago it was, but it was on the old DU. At that time, Skinner made all parties involved put each other on ignore. He also expressed his discomfort with my calling abortion murder. I think he explained it (or someone did; I don't remember) that murder is a legal term, and as long as abortion is not against the law, or the legislature has not labeled it as murder, it's not murder; it's homicide.
That's the correct term for it. But, he said another thing, which I have since thought about. He (or someone else; I don't recall this long after) said something to the effect of the term "murder" bothering people. Think about that--suppose a woman had had an abortion and someone came along, like I did, and started calling what they had done murder. How would that make them feel? Do I want to be responsible for making someone feel like that, when absolutely NOTHING good could come of it? The child is already dead; gone. The only thing that remains is the person who had the abortion.
I have no desire to make people feel bad. None, whatsoever. Because, when you do that, you alienate those people. And, when you alienate those people, they don't hear what you have to say.
There is nothing to hide here, riderinthestorm. Same old Th1onein; same views. And, there is no new "tact," riderinthestorm.
Let me ask you something: Is there really a reason to accuse me of that sort of dishonesty? I have never been anything but straightforward about my views on this issue. Must I be vilified and condemned as no better than Paul Ryan, Todd Akin, etc.? Is that necessary to your argument?
RainDog
(28,784 posts)wow.
there is no logic in that position at all.
Frankly - if you call women who have abortion "murderers," you're no different than a right-wing woman hater. I don't care if you do claim to be a female.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)You need to read the post that you are replying to again. Not sure how you got out of it what you apparently are claiming.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Think about that--suppose a woman had had an abortion and someone came along, like I did, and started calling what they had done murder. How would that make them feel? Do I want to be responsible for making someone feel like that, when absolutely NOTHING good could come of it?
You don't see that you are trying to put the blame for your abusive actions onto someone else with this attempt at pretending you are doing something ethical by your repulsive prior statements?
This is the second time you've said something then pretended that what you said is not what you said.
actually, the third time, but who's counting.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I'm going to explain it one more time, and then you're out, because we are venturing a little too far, here, into lalala land.
First of all, "murder" is a LEGAL term and does NOT apply when it comes to an act that is not illegal. A person can commit a homicide and have it not be illegal at all. For instance, if you kill someone in self-defense, you've committed a homicide, but you haven't committed the crime of murder. You got that?
However, not only was my previous act of calling abortion murder incorrect because abortion is a legal act, but doing so hurt people. That is not, and was not, and will never be my intention.
Now, I've got to go. If you reply again, and tell me that there was a different meaning to my words, I won't answer you. I don't have the time or the patience.
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)GoneOffShore
(17,309 posts)I'm guessing it's a duck.
With very dark red plumage.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)but the real killer is that she didn't realize that she was trying to justify a pov by bringing in people like herself who are histrionic and abusive toward what is a legal medical procedure by asking... why subject a woman to that.
force her to give birth and bear the cost of raising a child even if she can't afford it b/c I cannot be a decent enough human being to keep my fucking right wing extremist position to myself.
and she still didn't get what she was doing.
GoneOffShore
(17,309 posts)She would appear to be that which she says she's not.
And she would also seem to be exactly what others have said she is.
I was making a point about about the nonsense that she posted.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)I thought you would know.
GoneOffShore
(17,309 posts)I should know better to post when I've had herbal butter.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Homicide is also a legal term. wtf
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)I am quite surprised the Admins okayed this. Wow.
(There is no real difference, except some states have murder meaning with malice, and homicide just plain old killing -- wtf.)
Skinner
(63,645 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 27, 2012, 10:46 PM - Edit history (1)
I have no interest in getting dragged into this discussion, but I would like to make something clear. I never told Th1onein that the word "homicide" is okay. I told Th1onein to stop using the word "murder." Homicide and murder are the same thing. Using either word to describe abortion is highly offensive and inflammatory.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)uppityperson
(115,674 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)You cannot believe that for other people, though. You cannot make abortion a crime and claim to be any sort of progressive or feminist. You may make whatever choice you wish to make for your own life. If you wish to dictate the choice of others, based on your personal choices, then you are in another category.
Reproductive choice is just that. It is a choice for each individual to make. Your wishes and beliefs apply only to you, and to you alone. Nobody will tell you that you must abort any fetus you carry in your own uterus. By the same token, you may not tell others what to believe or what they may or may not do with regard to their own reproductive capacity.
If you wish to do that, you've chosen the wrong political party and the wrong discussion forum, I think.
liberalhistorian
(20,809 posts)When I was faced with my unplanned pregnancy 22 years ago, I had people from both sides of the aisle trying to get me to do what THEY wanted me to do regardless of what I thought or wanted. Except that it wasn't their life, it was mine. And it wasn't their choice, it was mine. I knew that I, personally, could not and would not be able to go through with an abortion (I did give in to the family pressure to have one, then ultimately ended up leaving the clinic because I couldn't go through with it), and I'm glad that I didn't and I'm glad to have had my wonderful son (who's now a young adult), especially since it turned out that that was the only child I would ever have.
HOWEVER. That is true for ME and my life, and should not serve as the example for anyone else. That was what was good for ME. It may not necessarily be the right choice for someone else. Each case and each person is different and they have the right to make their own decisions based on what they feel is right for them. I had the right to make that decision for me. I didn't and don't have the right to make that decision for anyone else. I will say, however, that those who attempted to get me to have an abortion were just as annoying as those who insisted that I should not and never have one.
Tumbulu
(6,267 posts)2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Or for the one who agrees with you?
DeschutesRiver
(2,354 posts)the ability to make such decisions for oneself is one among many hallmarks of the feminist movement.
Is that what we are teaching women today? That a feminist is one who believes that women may no longer make the decision themselves with regards to terminating their own pregnancies? Bollocks.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)It doesn't matter how many times you and Patricia Heaton and her "Feminists For Life" group say it.
I understand you perfectly.
PERFECTLY.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Fla Dem
(23,352 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Heaton
Heaton is a consistent life ethicist and is supportive of pro-life groups and causes, opposing abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty. Heaton's advocacy became particularly visible during the debate regarding the Terri Schiavo case. In addition, Heaton is Honorary Chair of Feminists for Life, an organization which opposes abortion and embryonic stem cell research and supports other pro-life causes on the basis of feminism.
A confirmed Republican, Heaton openly supports gay rights, and has publicly stated that she is not against gay marriage
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)I know all about her beliefs, and how she is a leader of Feminists for Life, and thinks all abortions should be illegal.
She also has said some nasty stuff about LGBT folks, so that last bit you posted isn't really accurate.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Obvious
Of course it would be great if no one ever had an unplanned pregnancy, but until that dream comes true, we MUST keep it legal and readily available.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I'm simply stating my opinion, and where I stand on the issues, as many of us on DU do.
I'm aware that birth control is not available to all, but it should be. This is a problem we need to concentrate on finding a solution for. I am also aware that it does not always work flawlessly, but once again, we need to find a solution for that problem. I don't think that the best solution, for either of these problems, is abortion, do you?
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)and readily available abortion on demand as a backup.
Safe and legal abortion has done a great deal of good over the last several decades. I'm all in favor of it, as are all good feminists.
As they say ... Against abortion? Don't have one.
Also, if you're an anti-abortion man, you can go fuck yourself.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I am also a humanist, but I believe that abortion is wrong.
You know, you can jump up and down, curse, and tell me that if I'm a man and against abortion, I can "go fuck" myself. But it doesn't make your argument any stronger, and it seriously weakens your position.
This is a societal problem, and as long as we hurl invectives at each other, those who would use this issue as a wedge to divide us will win. Instead, we should have respect for each others' views, and sit down together to solve the problem.
hnfpd
(8 posts)it's that you actually want to outlaw that choice for every other woman. Who the fuck are you to play moral arbiter of everyone's wombs?!
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)To me, abortion is making a decision about whether someone lives or not. The only difference between you and I is that I believe that life begins at conception, so to me, that is a human being in the womb, and when you end that life with an abortion, you have killed another human being.
Look, we can call each other sorry MFers all day long, but it will get us nowhere. We are NOT going to agree on when life begins. That's a given. Let's accept that difference, okay? And stop lobbing hatred at each other. If we can't do that, we've created another problem for ourselves, because our enemies will use it as a wedge between us, and screw us to death on other issues. And, they are doing JUST THAT, by trying to take away birth control, for God's sake!
Let's look, instead, at ways that we can solve the problem of abortion. NO ONE is pro-abortion (well, most aren't, anyway). Let's use our energy, and our anger, to put into place education for young children, so that they have information about birth control, and information about their own bodies, so that they can use it properly, at a YOUNG AGE. BEFORE they even think about having sex. Let's work to make birth control affordable and available to ALL who want it.
Until we do that, really, neither one of us really has gained a proper moral stance to fight over abortion, because we can't say that we did everything that we could do to make it truly avoidable.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)People will continue to get pregnant when it's not intended. In case you haven't noticed nothing in this world is perfect or failsafe.
Therefore, we MUST keep it legal and available. End of story.
You will never know what it's like to be vulnerable to unwanted pregnancy. So, until you grow a uterus, I suggest you STFU.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I am a female.
And, until we start looking for a solution to the problem of abortion, and stop fighting each other over this wedge issue, we will never solve the problem.
Whether we will ever have a birth control method, short of sterilization, that is infallable or not doesn't really matter as long as we are NOT properly utilizing the methods that we do have right now.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)The procedure itself is the solution, not the problem
Guess you agree with Mourdock that pregnancy is a "gift" regardless of conception?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)NOONE sets out to get pregnant so that they can get an abortion.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Now you want to make it an "issue" since "problem" is getting uncomfortable.
You believe having an abortion is committing a homicide and participants should go to jail for that - now THAT'S a problem.
Furthermore I don't think you realize how awful your phrase sounds - "NOONE sets out to get pregnant so that they can get an abortion."
The fact remains however that shit happens. Having all medical options available when dealing with a medical condition so a patient and her doctor can decide what to do is imperative. You are trying to criminalize a medical option, a private medical option that's none of your business.
Lars39
(26,093 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Someone here said to me that I didn't have a right to have an opinion on this because I don't have a uterus. Those weren't the exact words, but the general flavoring of the statement.
I was responding to that statement.
Lars39
(26,093 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Strange stand to take.
Lars39
(26,093 posts)Any other meaning besides yours.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)And you want to end that life. Just as your finger on the trigger of a gun becomes society's business as soon as you point that gun at another with the aim of killing that person. Your rights end where another's begin.
Lars39
(26,093 posts)smokey nj
(43,853 posts)or not another person carries a pregnancy to term. I think it's creepy that you would want one.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)A woman's ability to control her own body is central to the idea of democracy - just as it is for a man.
Just because you have an extremist belief - so what. The problem is not abortion. The problem is that you refuse to recognize reality - that safe, affordable and rare abortion is not achieved by painting abortion as evil.
If you see this as a wedge issue, you really cannot appreciate the entire movement of history to free women from the chains of religious superstition.
I think religious belief that thinks women must be forced to bear children is evil.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)job of that. You can couch it in any terms you wish, but the issue of abortion divides the electorate.
Once again, I am not religious at all, and yet I am against abortion. Sorry, but those are the facts.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)If your belief is not religiously inspired - it doesn't come from the realm of medicine, either.
So, it's something you just decided?
This nation has never and will never be in agreement on all issues. That doesn't make something a wedge issue - that makes something a major difference in political philosophy.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I am a biomedical researcher, in my spare time.
But, for the fifth time, I will indulge you and tell you that I believe that life begins at conception. The fact that YOU believe that life begins at birth makes us different in our beliefs, do you understand that?
Abortion is, and has been a wedge issue for decades. If you can't see that, then we really are wasting our time here.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)It's a wedge issue because assholes are trying to restrict it and think they should be able to stick their ugly ass faces in the crotches of every woman.
All anti-abortion restrictions are unjust, harmful, and useless because they rest on traditional religious and patriarchal foundations. Laws kill and injure women, violate their human rights and dignity, impede access to abortion, and obstruct healthcare professionals.
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 thats all we need to regulate the process.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Hmmm. I think you just lost the argument.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Human life began only once: at the dawn of humanity, with the rise of the first human beings. Since then, there has been a continuum of human life: every sperm, every egg and every zygote have been full-fledged signs of human life, complete with all the characteristics of normal cellular activity, and all 46 human chromosomes. (Half of these chromosomes go unused in the case of sperm and eggs, but all 46 are there nonetheless.) The correct question is not "When does human life begin?" but "When does personhood begin?"
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Sorry, but YOU said that life begins at conception. Therefore, when you end that life with an abortion, you have taken that life. Period.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Strongly and unequivocally support Roe v. Wade
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.
SO.... call yourself a 'lefty', a 'liberal' all you want, but, on this matter, you're right up there... or worse than with those disgusting assholes like Paul Ryan, Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin.
It's shameful.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Listen to yourself--comparing me to Paul Ryan, Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin. Don't you have anything bette to come back with; say an actual logical argument? Those are ad hominem attacks; they do NOTHING to further your argument. Now, THAT'S shameful.
In fact, these kinds of attacks make your cause look bad. Do you not understand that?
Look, I know what the Democratic platform contains. I know what they support. You don't have to continue to tell me. Please, don't waste your time. And, don't waste mine, on empty rhetoric.
Do you really think that there are NO pro-life Democrats? Really? Do you really expect every single Democrat to fall in line, lockstep, with every single plank in the platform? Really? And if they don't, are you really ready to oust them, for this little thing here, or this little thing there, that they don't agree with? Are you willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)And my opinion of it.
And I stand by it.
I would have just as much contempt for you if you wanted to make gay marriage illegal. Or labor unions.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I also am a sexist liar, a racist birther, and a complete idiot? Does everyone who disagrees with you get called these kinds of names?
You do understand that calling people names does not further your argument, right? Nor does it further your cause, which you very obviously are passionate about.
How sad.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)And read my other reply for my opinion about how you could better "further your cause" without stirring (spewing) shit every time the topic comes up.
Seriously, if you wanted to outlaw gay marriage I'd feel the same way. You're advocating that it be made a crime. How would you like to see doctors, women and their accomplices punished? Jail? Fines? Hard labor?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Come on, now, to be compared to the likes of Paul Ryan, Michelle Bachmann, and Sarah Palin? Really? You've got a guy who is clearly a sexist liar; an absolute nutcase, and a total idiot. These people are known principally for these traits. Being anti-abortion is simply a collateral stand with these guys. And, frankly? I don't think any of them really give a shit about the issue; I think that they are aligning themselves with the Christian right. All of their other policies are decidely anti-human.
I'd like to see abortion outlawed. I think doctors who perform abortions when it is outlawed should lose their license to practice medicine. As for the mothers, I'm not sure.
GreenEyedLefty
(2,073 posts)So basically, women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against their will... In other words, women should be reproductive slaves...
The "rights" of a fetus should supersede their host??? Precisely how does that jive with feminism? And how on earth would such a draconian policy further society, and human kind as a whole?
I don't see how you can reconcile this in your mind with "feminism."
In fact, I find your view on abortion morally reprehensible.
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)alive. Right? I have taken "life". Period. According to you.
so you can't be bothered to explain the basis of your belief but claim it comes from science.
hooooookay.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Have some respect!
Has anyone asked this person if she has any children? I refuse to communicate with he/she.
Care Acutely
(1,370 posts)OH SHIT THAT WAS FUNNY.
I'm so glad I decided to read some more of this thread because that, my friend, was hilarious.
.
.
.
I have teh Google too. That's why I'm a nuclear engineer . . . in my spare time. . .
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)that benefits others doesn't mean that others haven't done that.
My son was born with Cystic Fibrosis. He died of it. I raised my children by myself, and when my son started getting really sick with his disease, I started studying the disease. When he died, I couldn't stop, and I have studied that disease for over seventeen years. In my spare time. I have written papers on the disease, one indexed on Medline/PubMed, and one in a textbook for research scientists, called Cystic Fibrosis: Etiology, Diagnosis, and Treatments. I was the FIRST scientist to publish on the lactoperoxidase system in Cystic Fibrosis. In fact, there is a drug in clinical trials right now, called Meveol, which is based upon MY work on that system. I am currently working with a scientist from the National Institutes of Health, on the transport properties/substrates of the Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator protein. I have been approached now several times to work as a scientist in a lab that is working on a cure for the disease. I don't have time to do that right now, because I run a business, which I built. So, I study at night, as I have for almost two decades now. I don't make my living from doing biomedical research, Care Acutely. Because I do that in my SPARE TIME, but that doesn't make me any less of a scientist.
People can do all kinds of things, Care Acutely, if they put their mind to it. You'd be surprised what you can accomplish. What you shouldn't do, though, is make fun of someone who HAS done those things. And, in their SPARE TIME.
Care Acutely
(1,370 posts)Because this is the internet, and I have the spare time.
See? Now you know as much about me as I do about you.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=10310
Cystic Fibrosis: Etiology, Diagnosis and Treatments Retail Price: $220.00
10% Online Discount
You Pay:
$198.00
Editors: Paul N. Leatte
Book Description:
Cystic Fibrosis (also known as CF, mucovoidosis, or mucoviscidosis) is a hereditary disease affecting the exocrine (mucus) glands of the lungs, liver, pancreas, and intestines, causing progressive disability due to multisystem failure. Abnormally thick mucus results in frequent lung infections. Diminished secretion of pancreatic enzymes is the main cause of poor growth, greasy stools, and deficiency in fat-soluble vitamins. Males can be infertile due to the condition congenital bilateral absence of the vas deferens. Often, symptoms of CF appear in infancy and childhood. Meconium ileus is a typical finding in newborn babies with CF.Individuals with CF can be diagnosed prior to birth by genetic testing. Newborn screening tests are increasingly common and effective(although false positives may occur, and children need to be brought in for a sweat test to distinguish disease vs carrier status). The diagnosis of CF may be confirmed if high levels of salt are found during a sweat test, although some false positives may occur.There is no known cure for CF. This new book presents important research in the field.
Table of Contents:
Preface
Chapter 1. Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis, pp.1-28
(Anne Deucher and Iris Schrijver, Departments of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, and others)
Chapter 2. Cystic fibrosis and respiratory viral infections, pp.29-64
(Dennis Wat, Adult Cystic Fibrosis Unit, Papworth Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom)
Chapter 3. Cystic fibrosis, pseudomonas aeruginosa infection, and relevance of innate immune response: challenge for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation , pp.65-86
(Massimo Conese, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Foggia, Italy)
Chapter 4. Neutrophil elastase-mediated modulation of pathophysiology in cystic fibrosis lung disease, pp.87-112
(Xin Xu, German Luy, Janelle Chiasera, Amit Gaggar and Karen Bernard, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, and others)
Chapter 5. Genotypic hetereogeneity of the molecular basis of cystic fibrosis: the paradigm of lithuanian population genetic testing, pp.113-128
(Sergio Giannattasio, Antonella Bobba, Paolo Lattanzio, Nicoletta Guaragnella, Vaidutis Kučinskas, Ersilia Marra, CNR Istituto di Biomembrane e Bioenergetica, Italy, and others)
Chapter 6. Serum transferrin microheterogeneity in cystic fibrosis, pp.129-136
(E. Marklová, Z. Albahri, H. Vaníček1, V. Vávrová, Dept of Paediatrics, University Hospital, Hradec Králové, and others)
Chapter 7. Effects of the lack of transport of thiocyanate in cystic fibrosis lung disease, pp.137-142
(Melanie Childers, Alan Himmel, Jim Caldwell, Share International Foundation Sequim, WA)
But, you know something? You're not here to talk in a rational way about the issue. It's obvious, at this point, that you are here to harangue and disparage people who disagree with you.
I'm done with you.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)that your belief is grounded in science.
That still doesn't explain the basis of your thinking.
That still doesn't negate the fact that you are calling a legal medical procedure a homicide.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)No, really, she did. Context: I wore suede boots to a muddy football game and ruined them, and my mother had no sympathy, as of course I had to be the Q of S!
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)biology?
Or does it go into this type meaning?
Define the term.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)your beliefs on others by law. It is that simple. Your choice is your choice. Others may make different choices. It is not your place to dictate what others do with regard to their reproductive decisions. Not your place at all.
I don't mind if you believe that abortion is a bad thing. Not at all. If I were you, I wouldn't have one. You can, however, only believe that for yourself. Others' beliefs are their own. Passing a law outlawing aborting is imposing your beliefs on others. We don't support such things here on DU. We never have, and we never will.
Do with your own uterus what you believe you should do. Leave other people to make their own decisions, based on their beliefs. Thanks for your cooperation.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I don't think it's your choice when it takes another's life. Your uterus doesn't belong only to you when it holds another's life. Nope.
I vote Democratic. In fact, I vote a straight Democratic ticket. I do that, not because I believe abortion is anything but homicide, but rather because I believe that there are other policies, in the Republican platform, that probably takes more lives and create more misery, than all of the abortions performed in this country, put together. I believe that most Democratic policies save lives, and most Republican policies take them.
But, I don't stand outside abortion clinics and picket. I don't follow abortion docs around and make their lives miserable. Instead, I support sex education in schools, and laws that make it easier for women to get birth control. I do that because arguing the issue of whether abortion is right or wrong usually gets us absolutely nowhere.
This is obvious, just reading this thread.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)sensible moral judgment; we can trust doctors to exercise their professional medical judgment, and thats all we need to regulate the process.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Abortion should be illegal.
Enough said. We're not getting anywhere in this argument by repeating ourselves.
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)liberalhistorian
(20,809 posts)is really going to magically, suddenly stop them? Do you not know the history of abortion and how many thousands of women died and/or suffered horribly from illegal, botched abortions before '73?
Do you honestly believe that making something illegal is going to magically stop people from doing it? How's that drug war thing working out so far? No one ever uses or goes to jail for using or dealing drugs because it's illegal now, right? No one ever commits burglary or murder because it's illegal, right? Right.
My grandmother, who'd be 93 now, personally knew women her age who'd died of abortions when she was a younger gal. And so did my mother, aunts and cousins. My sociology professor had a student come into her office, in the late fifties, begging for help because she was bleeding to death from an abortion. She died before the professor could get her to the hospital. There are thousands more stories like this. And you have the unmitigated nerve to claim that just because abortion is illegal it will never happen and women won't be harmed. Right. Or maybe you don't give a damn about that. I remember attending a women's march in D.C. in the mid-80's and there were many older women there who could tell some real horror stories about themselves or other women they'd known. And I remember one woman with a huge sign, written in scraggly red letters to depict blood, that said "My mom had an illegal abortion. I don't miss the baby. I miss my mom." She talked about losing her mom over twenty years before, when she was fairly young, and how angry she'd get when people wouldn't say anything about her mom, but would only ask "don't you wish you'd had that brother or sister. That poor baby." Not a word about the mother she was close to.
And speaking of which, there's a DUer here who is the daughter of a woman who died horribly from an illegal abortion, who bled to death in her hotel room after being abandoned by her lover when things went bad. There's a famous picture of it, a graphic one, that was said to have helped galvanize the legalization movement back when it happened, in 1963. The picture is in this thread, if you even give a damn, take a good long look and then tell that DUer to her face why her mother deserved to suffer and die the way she did:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021189621
But chances are you don't give a damn because it would ruin your little fantasy of there magically being no more abortions once it's illegal. And because you probably think, like a lot of anti-choicers, that she "deserved" it or "brought it on herself". Totally ignoring the role of men in pregnancy, of course. And, pray tell, what do you think should happen to women who have abortions if it's illegal? Brand them with a huge scarlet A for the rest of their lives? Jail them for life? Hang them, like they did in Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale", hanging both the women and the doctors who performed the abortions? And your attitude is frighteningly like that frightening book, the Handmaid's Tale, which I just read this summer. You and the RW nutballs we've had to deal with lately sound just like the leaders in that book.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)There are legal standards for being brain dead, and all sorts of other legalities about the status of human tissue in the US. Whatever you choose to call that group of cells in a woman's uterus - embryo, zygote, fetus, human baby - the medical community in conjunction with the Supreme Court have made a decision that it is not a person.
Even if you want to call it a person, there are legal standards and methods whereby others get assigned legal status to make decisions about the life and death of "another's life". And YOU don't get to interfere in their business so your position is not absolute by a long shot.
The living, breathing adult woman IS a person and they get control over what happens to their body.
DeschutesRiver
(2,354 posts)been made illegal, women have still able to obtain abortions if they determine it is the correct thing for them to do. It is extremely hard and risky, but not impossible.
People who feel as you do have never once managed to prevent all abortions, nor will you ever succeed in that goal. You can put that law on the books, however briefly, make the process so risky that she may herself die, but you can never stop a woman from exercising the right to fully control all aspects of her body if she so chooses. Can't be done.
That said, it is up to the rest of us to continue to fight and make certain that a woman's right to choose is kept legal and safe in all circumstances.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)You can skip that sort of demeaning language. You don't even know me.
Second, what is and what is not a human being is not a fixed thing. People have all sorts of opinions about it, and our law says that a fetus is not a human being. Human beings have rights, and our rights begin when we are born. That is in the Constitution.
You're perfectly free to believe that at conception the fetus is a human being. I do not share that belief. What you may not do, as I said earlier, is impose your belief on me or anyone other than yourself. Abortion is legal in this country. The right to have an abortion is protected by our Constitution. The SCOTUS ruled that in Roe v. Wade. And there it is.
If you do not believe that abortion is moral or ethical, then do not have one. You can even counsel people not to have one, based on your belief. You cannot, however dictate to anyone that they believe as you do, and that's the bottom line here. If you think you can, then you are distinctly in the wrong place intellectually, ethically, and probably online. That's not up to me, though. I don't make rules about any of those things.
If you try to impose your beliefs on me or anyone else, though, you will find me opposing you. Those who will be supporting your plan will be people I don't care to associate with. Good luck with all that.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)with calling yourself a Democrat, much less a progressive or a feminist.
I just don't.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)One cannot be a Feminist or a liberal and be anti choice, especially if one believe abortion should be outlawed because it's homicide.
Tumbulu
(6,267 posts)in it is mine to care for or discard. It is none of your business. If you want to force me to give birth then you better damn well pay me for what I have produced within my body. It is mine and not yours and not the governments.
Producing a baby is a major accomplishment. Giving birth is life threatening and abortions are much safer to have.
Your arguments are pretty sad. It seems to me that you value the life of a potential human over the real one.
I do not. I value a grown woman over a potential for life and thank goodness so does our civil society.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)It will never be moot while pregnancies exist.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)When we have fail safe birth control, it will. When we have decent sex education for our children, it will. When we see to it that every child is a wanted child, and every child is amply provided for, it will.
waddirum
(976 posts)There will always be a need for abortion provider services. Even wanted pregnancies can go bad, requiring an abortion for health and other reasons.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)And the one where we have antibiotics, surgery, computers, and all that stuff?
If you asked someone one hundred years ago, if all of these things would be possible someday, people like you would say absolutely not. But they are possible, and they are here. And, abortion, like many other societal ills, will one day be a moot issue, if we work at making it that way. Certainly it won't though, if we continue to fight each other, instead of fight to find a solution.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)No, they do not.
Likewise, no matter how much we evolve as a society, there will never be a 100 percent success rate in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Therefore, it must remain legal and available.
Also, even if your dreamworld comes to fruition and all unwanted pregnancies are stopped every time, then there's no need to outlaw abortion because nobody will ever have the need for one.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)What I'm saying to you is that what you think is impossible now is often not impossible later on. And, by the way, for the most part? Sterilization is pretty good at preventing unwanted pregnancies.
You said: "Also, even if your dreamworld comes to fruition and all unwanted pregnancies are stopped every time, then there's no need to outlaw abortion because nobody will ever have the need for one." DING DING DING! We have a winner here! THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)You want abortion to be classified as a homicide by law and this.... wowza.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Have you ever read Buck vs. Bell?
RainDog
(28,784 posts)females have limited biological cycles compared to the millions of sperm that could potentially be a human life. it would be more cost effective to castrate males rather than try to ensure that every female is sterilized. They can only have children once a year. Men can impregnate, literally, thousands of women a month.
even with all the misogyny in the anti-choice debate, if it came down to actual legislation, the state would go for the most cost-effective form of control.
unless, of course, the goal is to simply make a female the equivalent of a state-mandated incubator.
waddirum
(976 posts)... how "science and technology" will detach a blastocyst that has implanted on a fallopian tube and cause it to relocate safely to the uterus.
I'm sorry, but abortion IS the science/technology that saves women's lives from ectopic pregnancies.
Abortion is not a "societal ill". Rather it is a "societal good" which saves women's lives. I will continue to fight attitudes such as yours, because abortion IS the solution (not some imaginary, to-be-determined technology that you dream up in your head).
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)"Decent" sex education will never reach fundie homeschoolers.
A child conceived as a product of "uncle" forcing himself on his 13 year old "niece" will never be wanted, nor should CHILDREN'S lives be jeopardized to satisfy a bizarre notion that abortions are homicides.
It will never become moot.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)that's a hell of a stretch there, pardner.
Look, I have no problem with abortion where the mother's life is at stake. And, it's definitely at stake, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. But, I'll tell you this--without exception, anyone who is NOT working to make the issue of abortion moot IS a part of the problem.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)That's like saying appendectomies are a "problem".
No, they are both legal medical procedures that fix problems.
waddirum
(976 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Why would an agnostic, who doesn't even know if there is a supreme being or not, believe that, in the case of rape, a supreme being is the cause of a child being conceived?
And, really, we both know that this statement is very INFLAMMATORY. Is that what you want, in this discussion? Rage? Get everybody all pumped up so that they can't discuss this issue with any degree of rational thought?
Let's make some conclusions that we can both agree on: Those who are "pro-choice" will never agree with those who are "pro-life." Right? Isn't that a true assessment of the situation?
Once that's agreed on, where do you go from there? You still have the problem of abortions. No one wants to have an abortion; no one does it for fun. They do it because there is no other solution. And they'll do it whether it's legal or illegal; whether it's safe or not.
Now, we've had people here say that there is, and never will be, any form of birth control that is foolproof. And that may or may not be true. But, even if it were true, we still have a system where the birth control that we DO have is not utilized properly.
That's a starting place, wouldn't you say? To solving the problem? Can we agree on that?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)A safe, legal, moral, positive solution.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)And an issue which separates the electorate. Therefore, it is a problem.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)problem is abortion.
For individuals, the problem is unwanted pregnancies. Wedge issues arise when there is a disagreement between the two factions. Wedge issues are usually never resolved, but instead used to divide the electorate. People are so busy fighting each other, they never solve the problem.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I have yet to see anyone advocating for abortion per se. I have yet to see someone holding a sign saying they want an abortion. No one wants an abortion. Those who choose to have one do so for their own personal reasons, usually having to do with the quality of their life or that of the child that would be if they carried it to term. But they aren't ever looking forward to having one. Using right-wing framing loses the argument for you as far as I am concerned.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Oh Gawd.
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)That should give women enough time to get pregnant so they can participate. Neat door prizes also!!!!!!
You mean "pro-abortionists" like that?
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)... I would totally terrorist fist bump you for that
Excuse me while I go wipe the coffee off my screen and try to stop giggling like a loon.
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)a problem with it?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)And... there will never ever be a point where birth control is USED 100% of the times or is 100% fail-safe.
I know you don't want to hear that, but it's true. Abortion is not an evil or immoral choice. Abortion is a moral and positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, and protects families.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)In the case of rape, Plan B should be used. I don't disagree with that.
But the rest of it? It's just rhetoric, and empty rhetoric at that. You have stated your position; I have stated mine. Where did it get us in terms of resolving the problem of unwanted pregnancies? Nowhere.
Abortion being a huge issue is another example of our society paying on the back end. We pay on the back end when we do nothing about poverty. Instead, we let children be raised in poverty, don't give them an education, or a means of making a living, and we are shocked when they turn to crime. And we pay on the back end by spending billions on prisons to lock them up.
Same thing with abortion. We have very little in place to help the mother who wants to keep her child, but can't because of finances. We don't educate our children about birth control at a very early age, and our advertisers use sex to sell everything from perfume to inline skates. We pay on the back end with abortions, or with parents who can't take care of their children, and they end up in prisons.
We never really address the problem of unwanted pregnancies in any real way, and instead curse each other for supporting it or being against it. Such a waste of time and life.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Do you have pro-life friends? I assume you're a leftist, but what about your friends?
What do they think of how the Republicans treat ex-fetuses (babies) of poor people? Of the whole Sandra Fluke thing? Did they have anything to say about Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock?
I really do want to reach across the aisle and find some common ground.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)And, they are all Democrats, as well. We all work VERY hard at educating and converting any Republican family or friends that we have (or anyone that we meet, in fact) into Democrats. The fact that we ARE pro-life often convinces them that they don't have to have to accept the Democratic party platform in it's entirety; that there are differences; ones that we can work through, but the main goal of our party is to work for a decent life for all Americans, and for all people of all nations.
As for Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke, I have personally written to Limbaugh's advertisers and boycotted their products because of what he said about Fluke. Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock are idiots, in my opinion. As pro-lifers they do nothing but hurt the cause of pro-life, because of the asshole way that they act. They are extremists and misogynists.
I really don't think that we are going to resolve this issue unless and until we do find a common ground. Until that time, those who would make us all slaves, the corporatists, will use abortion as a wedge issue to divide us. I really wish that here, on DU, we could talk about this issue without barraging each other with insults. I have been a Democrat all of my life, and will always be a Democrat, no matter what the party's stand on abortion is, as long as it is a party that cares about the 99%. But I will always be anti-abortion, too, and anti-capital punishment, and anti-war.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)You want made illegal.
There is no common ground with that inflammatory language and turning it into or framing it as a crime.
There just isn't. So, being a reasonably intelligent human being and knowing that full reproductive choice is a tenant and core value of the party, if you really and truly want common ground, you should check that shit at the door.
But I think you just want to shove your judgmental bullshit down our throats and bring some trojan horse assholes with you.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Not all homicides are crimes, PeaceNikki. Nevertheless, there are people, like myself, who want to outlaw abortion.
I'm not checking anything at the door. I agree with most everything that the Democratic party stands for, and I have all of my life. I'm NOT going to fall into lockstep with you, or with anyone else, merely to fit in.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Felony murder with mandatory prison times? Three strikes?
Follow it through for us.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)congress. That's why we pay them, after all, isn't it?
And, by the way, don't you think that your characterization of what I might pick as punishment is a little incendiary?
Hey, PeaceNikki? I'm done with you. I'm tired of the insults. If you ever want to talk about the issue in a rational manner, that's fine. But I'm simply not putting up with this anymore. You are going on ignore.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)You know what? The Democratic Party has moved far enough to the right already and we don't need it pushed even further on an issue that was decided upon years ago.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)You find abortion is sometimes "justifiable homicide" - your view of the situation, not mine. In the case of rape or the health of the mother.
So you do agree that there are reasons to keep abortion safe and legal and that women who have abortions are not murderers.
I think you owe people here an apology because you have mis-stated your position.
You're pro-choice - you just don't like it that abortions occur and it bothers you that others don't view the issue in the same way.
However, you are able to concede that there are cases when abortion is medically necessary. So the issue is really between a woman and her doctor - who are the only ones who are capable of assessing such situations.
I find your position even more illogical - it's okay to take a human life, but only if you approve of the way in which someone got pregnant. That's you inflicting a value judgment, not having a consistent position about what constitutes a moral position regarding abortion.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I'm not pro-choice. I believe that, when it is a matter of the life of the mother or the child, an abortion is a medically necessary procedure to SAVE A LIFE. In the case of rape, abortion is not necessary; Plan B is.
I'm not going to reply to anymore of your posts, RainDog. I'm sorry; I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not into repeating myself.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)because both sides see the opposition as the worst violation of human rights, ever. Pro-choicers see pro-life as advocating slavery for women; pro-lifers see pro-choice as condoning murder. It's hard to imagine getting past that because one's paradise is the other's hell. Frankly I am at a loss to imagine how this issue can be discussed without verbal warfare.
Now I'm not trying to push an ideology. I'm just trying to engage in some straight talk. Put up a stop sign if I get dogmatic, 'k?
What EVERY sensible person on both sides should be able to agree on is that reducing the number of abortions depends on improving the standard of living of women, and making the prevention of pregnancies as effective and easy as possible. We all agree on that, right?
This is what bugs me about groups like Feminists for Life, they're not willing to budge an inch. They appear to oppose the passage of the ACA over abortion, ignoring everything else that meets their stated goals for improving women's lives. I oppose the Individual Mandate, loudly and vehemently, but that wouldn't stop me from voting for the ACA if I were in Congress. On the other hand I can't say anyone should be jumping for joy if the ACA contained some US Supreme Court-approvable restrictions on abortion. There's too much of this letting the perfect be the enemy of the good going on, and both sides have their strong reasons for being ready to do so. In either case the Republicans would have gained had the respective opposition groups realized their goal of nuking the ACA.
What I can say, personally, is if embryos can be grown to infancy, not one should ever be destroyed. Perhaps that means trouble with fertility treatments. I'm going to openly say that you can't profess to know science and say a human embryo is the same as a dog embryo, a cancer cell or mere sperm and eggs. That's just silly. But then you do share my terror at the idea of women dying from illegal abortions, I hope? The problem here is that a woman is involved for 9 long months: as long as that is true, the claws are almost always going to come out. Once a woman doesn't have to be involved, though, it's a whole new game, a whole new argument. Once the issue of a woman's autonomy is no longer necessarily involved, we can revisit the issue of pre-birth personhood without threatening women's freedom. Because of this, I eagerly watch the rapid evolution of medical technology, as it is going to seriously take the hate factor in this debate down a few notches.
so you think the future will require females to donate their fertilized eggs to religious organizations so they can harvest babies? Oh, that should work out great.
that attitude really isn't abusive to women, either, in the assumption that they must contribute genetic material to the state or the church or whoever is supposed to manage this brave new world.
Since this is your proposal, what will happen to the millions of fertilized eggs that are spontaneously aborted and shed in a monthly menstrual cycle with no knowledge on the part of the female that conception has even occurred? If females must donate fertilized eggs under threat of criminal charges, will you also be supplying pregnancy tests to women and monitor her menstrual cycles and sort through all menstrual blood to make sure an actual "god abortion" rather than a human one occurred?
There is a VAST VAST difference between a fertilized egg and a viable fetus. We already have a law that acknowledges this difference.
I am able to understand what it means to be a sentient being and what it means to be a fertilized egg. I understand what it's like to be a woman who knows what it is like to give birth and to raise children.
Pre-birth personhood is a legally untenable idea. It's preposterous unless you want to turn into a nazi birth camping theocracy.
Over my dead body.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)so you think the future will require females to donate their fertilized eggs to religious organizations so they can harvest babies? Oh, that should work out great.
I'm not sure how you got that from what I said.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)if you think the govt should have the right to regulate fertilized eggs - your "pre-birth personhood," how do you think such a scenario would play out in a nation of religious extremists?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)then they won't need pre-birth personhood to fuck up America. They'd have already cooked all our geese.
The Constitution does not even allow laws that would force women to donate their fertilized eggs to religious organizations, pre-birth personhood or not. The religious right would have to alter the First Amendment, which means, as I said, we'd be one hell of an even MORE fucked country than we are now.
Your scenario makes no sense. Miscarriages are not induced abortions. If artificial wombs existed and the woman wanted to get rid of the embryo (and by the time she knows she's pregnant, he/she is already an embryo) there'd be somewhere for the embryo to go.
None of us want coat hanger abortions but you seem to seriously have a need to go out of your way to concoct some wild "fucking get rid of it!!!" scenarios even if abortion wasn't necessary because of technological advances.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)I don't think you have really thought this through other than some airy fairy "future."
32 states enacted laws to interfere with women's reproductive health since 2010.
What do you think a pre-birth personhood law would be?!?!?!?!
Why would such a law even come to fruition unless it was sponsored and forced upon women by religious extremists?
Why do people who make these arguments deny they say what they're saying... do you just not realize what you're saying, maybe?
You still didn't bother to explain how you think "pre-birth personhood" should be part of the law. Explain. Please.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)You do remember the concept of viability, right? It's dependent upon technology. Otherwise preemies wouldn't be viable. We're saving preemies at younger and younger ages. Your entire argument falls apart at its premise.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)yet again.
A fertilized egg isn't a preemie. It's not viable.
you present no valid scenario, within the law, yet again.
you cannot claim the argument fails at the premise because you have never explained what "pre-birth personhood" is.
What is it? What do you think should happen if women do not want to forcibly donate their genetic material - because, yes, fertilized egg is composed of half of a woman's genetic material (DNA) whether you like it or not.
your evasiveness leads me to believe you are unwilling to admit the extremism behind your "wish."
It is, honestly, one of the most authoritarian and horrific ideas I've ever seen posted here.... yet you claim it's a good thing.
One more way that the anti-choice crowd has no concept of how their position is so offensive, I guess, or maybe you do if you're not willing to claim it.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)That's not being evasive. That is being factual. That is a valid scenario.
The ruling of Roe vs Wade defines personhood as viability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability#Legal_definitions
Do you see that phrase 'artificial aid'? That means technology. Technology has since pushed viability below 28 weeks. And it's pushing it lower and lower all the time.
Moreover women miscarry all the time and there are even stillbirths. None of that gets prosecuted.
Your argument STILL fails at its premise. You're not debating on a foundation of facts here.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)But you have never explained what "pre-birth personhood" is, nor how you think your idea would actually be implemented.
so, a woman "donates" a fertilized egg... no one wants it... a corporation buys it and does product testing? what?
when you want to claim something - you have to explain how that situation would play out - which you have not done.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)The situation would play out the same as it would play out with any minor. If you are viable you are a person, you can't be bought by a corporation. Where the hell are you getting that?
RainDog
(28,784 posts)you would seek to make abortion illegal after viability, even knowing the strictures placed on abortion now, in terms of viability?
if the health of the mother was at stake, would she need a court order to have an abortion?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Who said anything about outlawing abortion or overturning Roe vs Wade? I just said that technology will render the issue moot, and I'm looking forward to that. If she wants an abortion they can take it out and incubate it elsewhere, that's the same as terminating her pregnancy, or are you so hot of temper that you want to fume over that, too? What the shit. She wants it out, technology is moving toward a point where it can safely take it out without killing the embryo or whatever. You do realize that, logically speaking, this means if her health is involved, they can take it out and incubate it elsewhere. You do know that, right? Or are you just so pissed off that you're not seeing this?
Call it airy fairy if you want, but 109 years ago we didn't even have powered flight and now we have a space station in orbit. Technology does progress.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Who is going to pay for the cost of gestation, who is going to adopt these harvested zygotes, etc?
I'm not hot of temper.
You have simply never explained how this brave new world would work beyond thinking that it would be possible to remove a zygote and gestate it in a test tube.
What happens when no one wants to adopt the child that results? Massive orphanages - who pays for them?
What I think is airy fairy is the idea that you can bring all these pregnancies to term and then... what?
Who pays for this option?
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)give them?
Abortions are not just gotten by women living in poverty, without education, criminals. Educated intelligent rich women get abortions also.
"We never really address the problem of unwanted pregnancies in any real way". Oh bull shit. Most of the work organizations like Planned Parenthood do are addressing the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Most of use advocate for easy access to contraception, to education and jobs. You may focus on "abortion is homicide" but not the rest of ous.
Tumbulu
(6,267 posts)and people won't realize they cannot go through with a pregnancy? Thye won't get cancer and need chemotherapy? They won't have any medical reason to abort?
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)If any woman wants to terminate a pregnancy for any reason, I have no issues with it, period.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)none of my cotton-pickin' business. And we sure as hell aren't going to run out of people on this dog-forsaken mudball anytime soon.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)protects families.
waddirum
(976 posts)For instance, taking antibiotics along with BC pills can render them useless.
Ultimately, your pro-life/anti-abortion views apply only to your own reproductive organs. Your opinions have no relevance to anyone else's body.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)The majority of people who are against abortions are also against birth control and sex education as well. So, your dream world is just that; a dream world. It'll never happen.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)A woman has a pregnancy where the child will be born to live a short life filled with nothing but pain and suffering. The woman, having gone through this with a previous child, knowing how bad it is, knows the only answer is to have an abortion.
Now this is the hardest decision she has ever had to make. Because the condition is rare and genetic, it takes time to get the test results back. It's getting close to the 2nd trimester. Should this woman, already distraught, have to go in front of a judge and plead for him to allow her and her doctor to make this choice?
This is just ONE example of that slippery slope that is the "pro-life" movement.
This choice needs to always be with a woman and her doctor and ONLY with the woman and her doctor.
Tumbulu
(6,267 posts)limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)This:
...Sort of redefining pro-life and campaigning on reducing abortions by education and maybe poverty programs and stuff like that.A smart Democratic candidate can steal some of this vote by demonstrating the effectiveness of progressive policies in reducing abortion rates and by expressing pro-life positions.
BanzaiBonnie
(3,621 posts)and for privacy between a woman and her doctor in considering any medical procedure
No one I know is FOR abortions.
Hitchens statement is true enough, but he puts himself in a position to point out the sad reality that we already know and have considered. His statement is condesending to say the least.
I think it must be the saddest decision someone would ever have to make. And if it is not... then I would rather they not be a parent because they would likely not take it on as the most important job they'll ever have.
Mme. Defarge
(7,982 posts)"Choice" is a euphemism for abortion. Economic consumerism and social consumerism, or "choice", are flip sides of the same coin. Both lead to grotesque excesses, and economic and social harm.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)And abortion is a legal medical procedure. Abortion is a moral and positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, and protects families.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)There are other lives than the life of an embryo/fetus.
There are other choices than the choice to have an abortion.
The issue was and is always about one thing: abortion. Each side of the debate simply likes to use their own flowerly terms in order to try to gain an rhetorical advantage on their side and to further demonize the other side. Hence, you get "anti-life" and "anti-choice." But who can hate life? Who can hate choice? They might as well call themselves "pro-sunshine" or "pro-puppy" while they are at it.
And you are indeed correct when you say abortion is a legal medical procedure. But in terms of public debate and questions of morals and ethics, it is one that will continue to draw heavy debate for eons, whether it is legal, illegal, with restrictions or without. Let's be honest here: no one is talking about the legal right to have a masectomy. As medical procedures go, abortion is one that brings to the table a complex host of questions without a lot of easy answers.
However, I've been around both sides of the debate long enough to realize that the "debate" has devolved from logical and rational discourse into who can put forward the best bumper sticker slogans and make the opposing school of thought look as horrible as possible.
Mme. Defarge
(7,982 posts)"Pro-life" is a euphemism as well. As for making abortion illegal, I fear that would be a catastrophe. If it comes to that, it means that those who believe unborn human life is sacred have failed to make their case.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Pure sophistry.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)This statement should be against TOS.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)I never understood why anti-abortionists were allowed on DU, and it's always royally pissed me off that they are. It's always been a right-wing philosophy that is harmful to women that has nothing to do with the sacredness of a fertilized egg and everything to do with controlling women.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)NO PLACE here at all.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Just sayin'
Response to Mme. Defarge (Reply #9)
Post removed
athena
(4,187 posts)Banning abortion leads to the deaths of women.
If you want to talk about grotesque, first consider what is really grotesque.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/way-it-was
When a woman does not want to be pregnant, the drive to become unpregnant can turn into a force equal to the nature that wants her to stay pregnant. And then she will look for an abortion, whether it's legal or illegal, clean or filthy, safe or riddled with danger. This is simply a fact, whatever our opinion of it.
patrice
(47,992 posts)The ability to choose to do, or not to do, something is called freedom; it isn't predicated on 0 consequences, but upon the ability to choose to act despite whatever consequences.
If freedom is an essence -tial trait of human life, anything that prevents the development of an essential trait of life, e.g. interferes with freedom, is anti-life, not pro-life, no matter how many fetuses it conserves.
Some of the things that interfere with essential elements of life such as freedom are economic slavery, the perpetuation of ignorance, and oppression of autonomous behavioral choices.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Sorry. You can be "against abortion" all you want, however, telling OTHER women how they should handle pregnancies in their bodies is not a progressive position.
Freddie
(9,232 posts)It may be an immoral or unthinkable choice for YOU, that's fine. So discourage abortion (short of outright lying). Make it easier for the parents to keep the baby. Prevent abortion, something the other side refuses to consider. But the moment you legally impose your view on others by making it illegal or impossible to obtain, that's where the "pro-life" side is wrong.
A 12-week limit would stop most abortions due to adverse prenatal testing, as that is often too early for test results. This is an extremely personal matter and it is up to the parents (or mother) how they wish to handle the results of prenatal testing. ***No one else.***
You often hear "life of the mother" as the new dividing line. Not "health", but her life must be in danger. How many women will die because her life was not in "enough" danger until too late? When things go wrong in pregnancy (pre-eclampsia, placenta previa) it can happen very fast. If the doctor will lose his license for performing an abortion outside of strict guidelines, chances are he will take chances on women's lives rather than risk losing his livelihood.
I'm too old for this to be a personal matter, but I have a daughter and a granddaughter. And I am terrified for their lives when the government decides that zygotes are more important than they are.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)want to use government to tell other people to do or not do all kinds of things.
I don't think the line dividing progressive from non-progressive is based on telling other people what to do. That's more like libertarian and non-libertarian.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)mike_c
(36,214 posts)+1
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)hnfpd
(8 posts)but I'm with you on this one. Well done sir.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)but my statement there is completely consistent with everything I've said for the past 8 years, here.
Mc Mike
(9,107 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:13 PM - Edit history (1)
but I see you took care of it.
Response to Mc Mike (Reply #147)
Post removed
CthulhusEvilCousin
(209 posts)was to say that the government ought to come in and govern a woman's body. It seems to me the author was offering a middle ground, in accordance with what he claims are norms in Europe, which reject the "anything goes" mentality but also rejects the absolute political meddling of the female body.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)StarryNite
(9,366 posts)The ones of us that are Pro Choice are not Pro Death.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 24, 2012, 07:28 AM - Edit history (1)
You don't see women sitting around making judgements on prostate exams or erectile dysfunction. You don't see large groups of women or the press condemning men for wanting more testosterone (sorry I've been seeing commercials all weekend for testosterone spray/pills for men). You don't see large groups of women or the press judging men for having a vasectomy--which is pretty much creating an abortion every time that man has sex afterwards because he's refusing to let his sperm implant in an egg. Why don't the right and politicians and the press and Rush Limbaugh rail on men who get vasectomy's? And if they don't want to give women affordable access to contraception, then they should be demanding that men line up at their doctor's to have their tubes snipped/tied.
What happens between a person and their doctor is solely the business of the person. It's really not even the doctor's business, the doctor is just there to do a job they were trained to do.
On edit:
When I'm talking about "large groups of women or the press" I meant women who could do anything legislatively to take away individual health rights.
RobinA
(9,878 posts)What Hitchens thinks of abortion? Pffft.... Every time I see a bunch of suits lined up to sign an abortion/contraception bill I want to pick up a weapon. Nothing makes me that angry on such a visceral level. It's a biochemical reaction.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)So yeah, some women do sit around making judgments on some men's health issues (actually it's boy's health issues really since the controversy is over circumcising male infants).
The phrase "teeny tiny turtlenecks" comes to mind.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)choice, contraception, etc. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I don't see huge numbers of powerful women trying to legislate your example.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Evidently now it has to be "huge numbers of powerful women" sitting in judgement rather than just women as you stated earlier.
Bear in mind that these women are commenting on an issue related to male sexuality on what is purportedly a liberal/progressive site, if men were to make similar comments supporting female genital mutilation they would be gone from DU posthaste.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)When I was talking about "large groups of women" I meant women who are capable of writing laws. I couldn't care less what the everyday guy says, cause for the most part, aside from voicing his opinion, there isn't much he can do about it. It's mostly male dominated legislative bodies making decisions about women's bodies/health. Those are the people that are worrisome to me.
I tend not to voice my opinion on things that have no bearing on my life, male circumcision has no bearing on my life. That said, what little understanding I have of the subject is that it was long thought to keep things "down there" healthier. The thinking within the health community is changing it's mind on this, yes? And does a single mother have the right to make this decision in your opinion?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Circumcision was originally promoted in the USA as an anti-masturbation measure.
Does a single mother have the right to have her female children's genitals mutilated or is that only for male children?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)You can be personally 'anti-abortion' and work hard to build a society that reduces the number of abortions via education and contraception, but the minute you try to limit MY choices or push YOUR beliefs on me or anyone else, you can piss right the fuck off, TYVM.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)No man or woman has any right to the choices a woman makes for her own body.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)(Which is an inside joke too, because LAWS in this case has a double meaning, meaning not only legislation but the Leavenworth Animal Welfare Society).
One example that impinges on my own life is, that in the city of Topeka it is illegal to leave your dog in your car. And groups like LAWS are trying to spread that kind of legislation. Legislation which would take away my choice, my ability to give my dogs a ride anywhere, other than a pointless joyride or a trip to a dog park. Ironically, the people pushing for these laws think they are being "pro dog". I guess it is somehow their belief that dogs would be happier if only they didn't go on any car rides.
Of course, there are perhaps 1,000 dogs or maybe even 10,000 who die every year because they are left in a hot car, and it is important for some people to ruin the life of EVERY dog in order to save the lives of those thousands of dogs.
Also, if you read the OP. Your argument seems to be based on selfishness. It is about MY choices. Progressives usually limit the choices of the individual for the larger good. We make our arguments not based on me, myself and I, but on the larger good, on society.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)who have had one.
So there's that bit of legal bullshit from this angle.... I don't see laws that incarcerate women who have had an abortion as being "good for society".
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)as being good for society. Many people are incarcerated right now for things like smoking pot, and not every Democrat opposes that. The question is about progressives more than about Democrats or DUers.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)This a discussion about health care choices that affect the rest of women's lives, not something as trivial as taking my dog with me.
Solly Mack
(90,740 posts)Iggo
(47,489 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)Basic rhetoric.
If you support keeping abortion as a legal right, you are an abortion rights supporter. If you oppose abortion as a legal right, you are anti-abortion rights.
The issue is abortion.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)shoes.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)Thank you for recognizing the proper context. Now please don't insult my intelligence.
retread
(3,752 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)Unfortunately, this is a minority position amongst abortion opponents, but fascinating nonetheless.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)liberalhistorian
(20,809 posts)she's anti-death penalty as well and makes no bones about it. So at least she's consistent, unlike so many others of her so-called "pro-life" viewpoint.
sadbear
(4,340 posts)and quite and asshole. But to equate atheism with being left-wing is just as inaccurate as equating pro-life with being right-wing.
bullwinkle428
(20,627 posts)sadbear
(4,340 posts)Part of the reason why I dislike most atheists in my area (deep red Texas) is that most of them are libertarian assholes.
I now prefer the company of liberal Christian Democrats.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)My daughter is nothing like Ayn Rand. Just because someone is an atheist does not mean they think everybody should be on their own with no help. There are lots of atheists out there that support social programs.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)When categorized by religiousity. Of course there are rightwing assholes like rand, but there aren't a lot of them.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Wider access to contraceptives would help reduce the number of abortions. I strongly believe that men who don't want kids should think about a vasectomy. Reproductive responsibility should be put on both genders.
The Republicans want to have it both ways, to be against abortion and contraceptives. That doesn't make sense. Abortions should be legal and safe.
I am pro-choice and of course a Democrat. My mom is pro-life and a Democrat. We just don't see eye to eye on the issue.
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)Thats just my opinion.
I BELIEVE, it is womans right to make her own decisions on what is best for her.
retread
(3,752 posts)SQUEE
(1,315 posts)What I think.. My opinion has no bearing on anothers choices. I BELIEVE in the sanctity of a womans choices considering her body.
I may argue over what I think, I will actively fight for what I believe.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)You can call it whatever you like but the Democratic position is that a grown woman is allowed, by law, to make her own medical decisions in consultation with her doctor.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)As long as you are not trying to tell anybody else what to do, or restrict their choices, that's fine, it's a position I can respect.
Where I get annoyed is when people are trying to make unwilling people be parents. Kids need parents that are up for the job, nothing less will do.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)"Lefty," my ass.
Thanks for putting yourself on the radar screen. Enjoy your visit.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)It's none of your fucking business what a woman wants to do with her own body.
The Magistrate
(95,237 posts)If you think abortion is wrong, and do not have any, you can remain as much a person of the left as anyone.
If you think abortion is wrong, and if asked by someone for advice on the subject, say so, you can remain as much a person of the left as anyone.
If you attempt to impose your belief on anyone else, whether by proffering unsolicited advice, or working for laws to compel others to act in accordance with your view of the thing, then you are no longer a person of the left, but an ally of, or member of, the extreme right.
And by the way, citing Hitchens as a leftist is a joke in poor taste...
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)grantcart
(53,061 posts)Mc Mike
(9,107 posts)the 'pro-life' l'il bush let drown during Katrina.
'Pro-life' politicos' policy positions are simple: government-enforcement is used to keep the 'person' alive for month 0 thru 9, then let the little welfare fraud die.
Santorum opposed ALL pre-natal care, as a gate-way to abortion, all EXCEPT for the 'mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasound' pre-natal procedure.
The 'pro-life' base double-thinks around all the unpleasantness easily, without batting an eye. They jump right on board putting these swine into power, because the swine expressed their 'moral' 'concern' for 'helpless little living people'.
Hitchens was exposed as a fraud and repug intel operative when he spun his bull-shit April Glaspie narrative, to 'explain' Poppy bush's war, when Desert Shield became Desert Sword (then Storm). Now you post under a 'mechanistic materialist' handle, reintroducing a post from a Fundamentalist Moslem, who fondly remembers a pro-life atheist that 'turned' repug because of fundy Islamicists -- and he fondly remembers Hitchens because 'the Hitch' thought that the pro-life fundy Christians were right.
The writing's on the wall. It's obviously time for Dems to rethink their committment to reproductive civil rights, and switch over to backing the position espoused by Romney-Ryan-Akin-Walsh, since everyone thinks they're right. Everyone from fundy Christians to Atheists to fundy Moslems to "fans of an 'evil-horror-style' novel mythos which features an 'atheistic' nihilism that paradoxically promotes worship of 'fallen angel' aliens as deities". If Dobson, Hitchens, Hasan, and Lovecraft are all in agreement with the repugs, might as well surrender now, two weeks before the elections.
The biggest laugh is that the 'pro-life' repugs have long been positing a conspiracy that has radical feminists in bed with fundy Islamicists in an attack on America. In reality, the women ARE America, and the repugs are attacking.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Mc Mike
(9,107 posts)Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)I don't see too many "pro-life" people marching in those areas for those "babies", where they would perform a much better public service.
Mc Mike
(9,107 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:26 AM - Edit history (1)
The GOP crowd spends all their time trying to figure out how to be the most wrong in every way possible, on any given issue. In the '90's, we had an infant mortality rate in Pittsburgh hitting our black inner-city population, that was worse than Bangladesh's, which was the poorest country in the world. While we were an 'international medical capitol', and were cherry-picking or brain-draining newly minted doctors from Bangladesh. Malnutrition, poor access to pre-natal care, and industrial environmental-degradation factors are to blame. Corporate profit medical rationing 'death panels' in action. Ignoring this, the 'pro-lifers' turn out every Labor Day to create a gauntlet all we union trade marchers have to pass, full of giant posters of 3rd trimester abortions, to show how 'pro-life' they are.
The OP and 'Hitch' ignore that there are no 'bones', 'hearts', or 'brains' destroyed by the emergency contraception pill, but 'pro-lifers oppose it anyway. And the t-v ultrasounds are necessitated because a standard ultra would not show the 'truth' as 'terrible' enough for the pro-lifers, who are 100% sure that zygote is a person, but who have to make fake lying movies like 'Silent Scream' to prove their point. So moral and religious, but they always have to lie to 'prove' their points.
liberalhistorian
(20,809 posts)(I'm white) and have lived on two others, and the infant and child mortality rate is absolutely horrendous. What's really sad is that no one outside of the reservations seems to give a shit. Certainly not those who claim to be "pro-life".
Iris
(15,632 posts)Mc Mike
(9,107 posts)redqueen
(115,096 posts)Mc Mike
(9,107 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)They are absolutely not a liberal.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts).....then it's pretty much a non-issue.
yardwork
(61,418 posts)Lots of people are anti-choice.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)But the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" (and by proxy, "anti life" and "anti choice" are nothing but rhetorical inventions by the respective sides of the abortion debate. Fit for a bumper sticker but little else.
Besides one breathing and having one's heart beat, just about everything one does in life is a choice. "Choice" plays well (as does "life" but in reality, those two terms are woefully overbroad.
In the end, the abortion debate will always be about one thing: abortion.
yardwork
(61,418 posts)It's easy to call these attacks on women's freedom and rights "rhetorical inventions" that have no meaning when it's not your life that is on the line.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)And both sides have framed the issue using terms that they believe to most positively reflect their point of view, even if they are not accurate and narrow identifiers.
And whether or not one advocates the preservation abortion as a legal right in the interest and beliefs of protecting lives of women, it does not change the fact that "choice" is an overbroad rhetorical device. And the same could be said for those who oppose keeping abortion as a legal right claiming they are acting in the interests of protecting human life using the word "life" knowing that there are many other lives than just the life of the fetus/embryo.
yardwork
(61,418 posts)The Republicans seek to remove all choices from women. Anti-choice sums up their position very well.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)No one is trying to remove the right to choose what shirt to wear, what to eat for breakfast or what type of car to buy.
Every day you are faced with thousands of choices. Having an abortion is just one choice out of trillions.
I'll fully agree with you that Republicans are being dishonest when they claim to be pro-life. They're not. However, that does not give one the liberty to use an equally deceptive term towards them on a single issue. It certainly doesn't help one's own position in the end.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Mc Mike
(9,107 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:14 PM - Edit history (1)
When I think of the actual Jesuits, I think 'poor bastards', because Cardinal Ratzinger's crowd subsumed their organization. Their rank-and-file are duck and covering more than any time since Death squad Salvador, so they won't be endorsing Sisters Simone Campbell and Pat Farrell, like the Franciscan order did. Interesting because of the 'Latin American Dentists' whose investment capital Romney used to get Bain up and running.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)The anti-abortion side will claim the abortion issue isn't actually about "choice." The abortion rights proponents will claim the abortion issue isn't actually about "life." The anti-abortion folks will object to being called "anti-choice". The abortion rights supportes will re-coil at being called "anti-life" or "pro-abortion" or "pro-death." And so forth and so on, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
It's all bullshit semantics, and while it's great for the bumper sticker business, it's not accurate in terms of reality.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Anyone who claims being Pro Life is Anti Choice.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)There are other lives than the life of a fetus or embryo.
There are other choices than the choice to have an abortion.
Whatever side you come down on, the ultimate issue is abortion, period.
NYC Liberal
(20,132 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)The issue is abortion. Not a vague cloud of "choice" or "life" but abortion. Using such broad terms to try to cover such a narrow issue is akin to placing a square peg in a round hole.
NYC Liberal
(20,132 posts)everyone knows what is meant. "Choice" (or pro-/anti-choice) is vague when used without context, but is a perfectly apt description when the meaning is clear.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)...recognize that as referring to the side that opposes abortion as a legal right, even though one can argue it is not always an accurate label for each and every one of those individuals.
We get that, but the bigger question is why does anyone need to "brand" an issue? Why do you need to use flowery language and appeal to more abstract concepts instead of debating the actual issue at hand.
As I said before, with the exception of those who espouse the consistent life ethic, the abortion debate is not about the lives of death row inmates. The abortion debate is not about the right to choose to get plastic surgery. The abortion debate is about one thing: abortion. And I refuse to get bogged down by either side's efforts to make the debate about which side has the best bumper stickers.
NYC Liberal
(20,132 posts)The point is about choice. That's what the debate is about. It's about whether women have the right to make that choice for themselves, or whether they shouldn't. That is the fundamental question behind the entire abortion debate. Saying "I support women's right to choose to have an abortion" is not any better or more elucidating than simply saying "I am pro-choice" when the meaning is obvious in context. Nobody, nobody thinks of plastic surgery when they hear "pro-choice." Maybe you get confused but almost everyone else does not.
And of course we should have a substantive discussion of the merits and the issues; saying "I am pro-choice" is not a substitute for that nor is it meant to be. Objecting to the term "choice" because it could refer to the "choice" of getting plastic surgery is like objecting to the word liberal because liberalism is not about being a "liberal eater." Just as everyone knows when you say you're a "liberal" in this country you mean the modern American political ideology, everyone knows what you mean when you say you are "pro-choice".
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)And yes, I know that when someone says "pro-choice" then that means they support the legal right to an abortion. Just as when someone says they are "pro-life" it means they oppose abortion as a legal right (in part or in whole), regardless of whether you or I believe that to be an accurate descriptor. The debate has been going on for decades and the terms have become part of the political vernacular. And I haven't been living under a rock in that respect.
But that's all beside the point. The respective sides perform no service to rational discourse by attempting to frame the issue in their own unique way. In the end, all it is is appealing to some sense of higher authority--personal liberty on one hand, the notion of God and inception of human life on the other. Both sound great, which is exactly why they do that. But in the end, it's all groupthink. It's all designed for the purpose of self-aggrandizement and the demonization of the other. The truth is all on their side, and as for the others, they wallow in perpetual darkness and malevolence.
In my lifetime, I've had the opportunity to be in close contact with both sides of the debate. I'm a Catholic; I'm a Democrat. I have Catholic friends staunchly on the anti-abortion side, and I have Democratic friends staunchly on the abortion rights side. And I have a fair amount of crossover to boot. And I'm amazed, but maybe not, how good and honest people on both sides are. They instrinsically believe what they do as a matter of heartfelt principle and not as an excuse to bash the other. They believe they are acting in the interests of women, or conversely, in the interests of what they believe to be innocent human life. But all that goodwill and principle gets lost in the ever heated rhetoric that has enveloped the debate. And suddenly, they--in the eyes of their opponents--become either bloodthirsty proponents of child murder, or alternately, troglodytes hell bent on subjecting women out of their own misogyny. And it's a damn shame that good people have been painted into little caricaturistic boxes like that, but that's the sad state of affairs that we are in.
The only thing of which I am certain when it comes to the abortion issue is that it concerns one thing: abortion. And that abortion is a medical procedure, but an extraordinary medical procedure. And whether one believes it should always be a legal right, never be a legal right, or--as in the vast majority of Americans--that the answer, if there even is one, lies somewhere in the vast spectrum in between. And if one is honest with him or herself, they will recognize that the issue carries with it additional ethical matters that your routine medical procedures do not carry. The fact that you do not see people protest offices of plastic surgeons is proof that the issue is not merely about making a choice regarding a medical procedure about one's own body and nothing more. This is not to say that those who oppose abortion are right or wrong in their position, but let's not blind ourselves to think that the issue is just so common sense and so black and white beyond all rational debate. Because you know what? Those who are anti-abortion think exactly the same thing about abortion rights proponents. And so long as we fall into the "life"/"choice" thinking trap, we will remain in this clusterfuck of a stalemate and all rational and reasonable arguments that ought to be discussed will fall by the wayside.
Mc Mike
(9,107 posts)but the top politicos and activists from the anti-choice side still oppose it, and the rank-and-file keep backing those pols, which makes their 'thinking' about abortion rights proponents far far easier to ignore.
The repugs want to nationalize American womens' reproductive systems, and even ban hormonal forms of contraception. The 'devout' Randall Terry's acolyte assassinated doctor Tiller in Church on Sunday. The only way our side could match that level of extremism would be to grab every pregnant woman and force an abortion on her, like some rogue organ harvesters leaving victims in ice-filled hotel bathtubs without a kidney. Then you could make an equivalency between our 'pro-abortion' and their 'anti-choice'.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)The position from some in the anti-abortion movement who also oppose the MAP and hormonal birth control, I believe from what I gather, is that they can act as an "abortifacient" in that they can prevent implantation. However, a whole host of factors can prevent implantation, so I personally don't buy that argument. Moreover, in terms of hormonal birth control pills, if they work properly and without interference, it should never get to that point.
But here's the thing about opposition to birth control. It's far less devisive that the abortion issue. It's far less devisive because public opinion is far more supportive in terms of access to birth control than it is to access to abortion. It's not at all uncommon to find someone who considers him or herself anti-abortion but does not oppose access to birth control. Furthermore, there is no mainstream movement to out-and-out ban birth control. You have some--such as the archbishops--who oppose any public funding towards such birth control (which, in my opinion, is mindnumbingly counterproductive since easier access to birth control logically results in fewer abortions). But any movement to outright ban production and sale contraceptives would be met with heavy public opposition, and it would likely die a swift death.
Regarding your second point, I'll agree with you that there is no true equivilant in the abortion rights camp to the actions of some in the anti-abortion movement who have murdered obstensively in the name of what they believe to be their "cause." But I would caution yo against importing the deranged actions of a few to an entire school of thought or movement or side of a debate. Just ask any decent, honorable, law abiding Muslim how much truth there is to that type of thinking.
Mc Mike
(9,107 posts)you argue from the theoretical point of view of a rank-and-file 'pro-lifer'. The actual rank-and-file on that side double-think all ways, all the time.
The single cell zygote is incredibly hard to sell to the average American as 'a child, not a choice', but that doesn't stop the top level management of the movement from opposing hormonal contraception and the morning after pills. Management is the extremists like Randall Terry, James Dobson, Ralph Reed, and Ratzinger-'Benedict', on the organizing front. It's all the extremist repug candidates like Mourdock, Akin, Walsh, Romney Ryan, Tom Smith, Santorum, on the political front. It's the extreme propagandists like O'Reilly and Limbaugh on the 'news' front. All of them have pushed insane opinions with absolutely no resulting drop off or pull back from the rank-and-file membership. R & Fs 'keep their eyes on the prize' and keep backing these atrocious leaders.
By saying 'opposition to birth control is far less divisive', you're saying that the extremist leaders haven't swayed a significant portion of the population to adopt their view. But they have that view, and will do what they want, and the average follower won't stop following them. Roe v Wade was settled decades ago, but repugs never let a loss go. They wait, then come back and re-litigate it. They're doing it with Jim Crow, labor rights, Social Security, Medicare, trickle-down economics, and reproductive rights, right now. In order to consolidate their attack on women's rights, they have to say the zygote is a 'person'. They have to say there is no rape, there is no pregnancy from rape, rape is like bearing a child out of wedlock, 'god intends' pregnancy from rape, the electorate wants no exception for incest, pregnancy never threatens the mother's life, the pill isn't used for non-contraception medical purposes, you have to take a pill every time you have intercourse, all insane lies. The rank and file backs these swine, anyway.
But you say there's no mainstream movement to outlaw contraception. There's no actual 'mainstream' movement to outlaw abortion, either. Just a powerful group of fringe extremists with a double-thinking rank and file. When l'il bush got in, he campaigned on 'compassionate conservatism' and America staying out of world affairs. Everyone knew he was going to attack all social programs and go to war, everyone who was being honest with themselves. It wasn't just me who knew it, I'm not Nostradamus. During his swinish pro-life reign, I can't count the number of times individual Dems I talked to decried some horrible war move or draconian slasher attack on any program that helps the American people, and I said to them 'You knew he was going to do this when he got in'. Not to shut them up, but to commiserate with them on the awful truth of the issues. And they always agreed, they knew. But you don't know the actual impetus motivation driving-force thinking goals results and policy of the people in charge of your theoretical pro life rank and filer's movement. 2 + 2 = 4.
The attack on Sandra Fluke was a mainstream 'pro-life' attack on contraception, whether your theoretical rank and file pro-lifer agrees with the move, or not. The repug media, pols, religious leaders, movement leaders, all agreed and agree with it. The rank and file came out of it backing Fox, repugs, and the religious Right. I'm baffled by who your theoretical mainstream rank-and-file pro lifer can point to as influential to the movement but not on board with the anti-Fluke policy and goals, or what they could point to as something the movement has done besides the anti-Fluke attack, or the 18 zillion state and Federal level legislative attacks by repug politicians on women's rights, because the movement 'twisted' the repugs' arm. Oh, I forgot, the movement has done another thing. It spawned in-your-face physically threatening people who range all the way up to assassins, with wanted posters and national broadcasts against 'Tiller the Baby Killer.'
We'd be better off verbally hashing this out, or you could d.u. mail me for a back and forth, because this thread is getting huge.
But Tiller's murder is not a one-off for the 'pro-life' mainstream. The killer was well-involved with Terry and pro-life movements. After the murder, my former bishop, Wuerl, met with Terry in D.C. The mainstream pro life repug media, politicians, religious and movement leaders still have the same rank-and-file followers, and the same goal. To shut down the last abortion clinic providing life-saving service to women in the whole state of Kansas, though it's established law by the highest court in the nation that women have that right. Oh, the guy got killed. Women he treated may die. Too bad. 'Pro-life'.
I'm a Catholic, so it's ironic that you can counsel me to 'not tar all the members of the movement with the same brush', as your way of advocating for the movement the church inspires, and aspires to fulfill. If you're a Catholic and don't speak out against the movement, as a continuing rank and file member, you're culpably indictable of its worst acts. All members of religious Muslim sects that inspired violent attacks are to blame if they stay with that congregation and don't forcefully oppose that violence, in the precinct of worship and among coreligious. If I took your advice, and didn't speak against it, I'd be a theoretical mainstream rank-and-file Catholic pro-lifer, who could be tarred by the same brush and indicted for my religious extremist group's actions. Opposing the aims and moves of Zubic, Wuerl, and Ratzinger is the only way to stay untarred. You encourage me to get tarred by warning me not to tar others. Har dee tar har.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)Not that there's any point in arguing with someone whose only interest is splitting hairs.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)so, anti-choice.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)uppityperson
(115,674 posts)bullwinkle428
(20,627 posts)the Repukes tried to do with Pres. Obama on the Benghazi attack. Somehow, there was a HUGE difference between "acts of terror" and "terrorist act" in their minds...
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)I believe the abortion issue is ultimately about one thing: abortion.
I believe that both respective sides of the debate have used rhetorical terms ("life;" "choice" as emotional appeals, but in the end, I think the use of such terms is overstated.
So how exactly am I playing word games by stating that the debate as to whether--and to what extent--abortion should be considered a legal right is about abortion?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)your body, thus they can prevent you from having an abortion and also force you to have one, for the choice is theirs, not the person's.
got it.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)hunter
(38,264 posts)The term "Pro-life" is a term created to disrupt rational conversation and rational thought about this issue.
I'm a man. Politically, I'm a left wing, birth control advocating, social justice Catholic heretic.
In my perfect world healthy pregnancies would end with a happy mom and a happy baby.
But this is not a perfect world, and more importantly, it's none of my business, nor is it any business of my government.
From an entirely practical, secular, wall-between-Church-and-State, perspective safe abortions must be available to every woman.
The issue of abortion is quite clearly a religious debate and our government has no business imposing specific religious beliefs upon those who believe differently.
kiranon
(1,727 posts)efhmc
(14,709 posts)not a lefty, a progressive or a liberal.
renate
(13,776 posts)But I can understand the opposing view being genuinely held, not because of a religious agenda or anti-woman agenda but because someone can honestly believe that a fetus is a life.
This is not my view--I'm pro-choice all the way--but if somebody feels differently, having thought the question through for themselves and not just parroting what their party or religion tells them to believe, I absolutely respect that opinion, 100%. (As long as they're like Joe Biden and don't try to legislate anybody else's choices, that is.)
Spazito
(49,768 posts)What the hell are "pro-life" positions? The ones who espouse the supposed "pro-life" positions are the same ones, with all too few exceptions, who cheer when the social safety net for poor children is cut, who fight to stop school lunches. They would force a woman to carry the fetus to term but react in horror when anyone suggests they adopt the child afterwards. They love the fetus, hate the child. That is the antithesis of what one would be if they were actually supportive of life, imo.
Using the term "pro-life" is disgusting for the reasons I stated above. One is pro-choice or anti-choice. One believes in a woman's right to privacy or they believe they have the right to refuse a woman her right to privacy.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)women who aren't pregnant. Cretin doesn't even know what a D&C is, without which a miscarriage may endanger the woman's health and life. Akin's the name.
Choice is Democrat/Progressive-Liberal/Left. Forced childbearing is Republican/Fundamentalist/Right. I know it's not that easy in reality. But if it's gray area, the host must make the decision.
But let's hear it for cooperation on contraceptives...and that includes all women regardless of income. Thank you, President Obama.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/akin-abortions-women-not-pregnant.html
Paladin
(28,204 posts)And yet in a Gungeon poll, taken during the lead-up to the 2008 election, 45% of them indicated their willingness to vote Republican on the basis of gun policy----bless their sweet little single-issue hearts.....
dawg
(10,610 posts)I am pro-choice all the way up to the point of viability. After that, I'm not so sure ...
Tikki
(14,539 posts)any other Woman's right to chose.
Can you believe that there are those who think their abortion was special
somehow but no one else is special enough but them.
Crazy, huh?!
Tikki
Politicub
(12,163 posts)As a man, it's not up to me to make this choice or put roadblocks in place for someone else to make the choice.
When you take away the ability for women to control when and if they want to have kids, you chip away at one of the underpinnings of women's liberation.
The continuing emancipation of women is one of the most important movements in human history. There is still work to be done, but I hope women never give in an inch on the rights people have worked hundreds of years to secure.
The far right wants to control women. Otherwise, they would be the leading advocates for expanding access to birth control since empirical studies show that contraception availability reduces the number of abortions.
But I have yet to see a right winger champion birth control. If given control over the womb again, the right will never let it slip away. It's up to all of us to make sure this never happens.
hamsterjill
(15,214 posts)You're prolife? Or whatever the correct moniker is for the point you are making. That's fine. That's your right. You don't ever have to have an abortion if you choose not to. No one is ever going to make you abort a child if you choose not to. And if you were pregnant and chose to continue the pregnancy, I'd be the first to support your choice.
BUT...what I or any other woman do is OUR business. Not yours...not the government's...and not any one else's business who thinks differently than someone choosing to have an abortion thinks. The right of the mother transends the right of a fertilized egg. End of story in my book.
I, myself personally, see this issue as the very definition of who is liberal. How can one really be a liberal, and not support personal choice? I don't get it. Your right to be "prolife" ends on this issue with YOUR body. You have no further rights than your own body. You do not have the right to force your beliefs on any one else.
NYC Liberal
(20,132 posts)If you're anti-abortion and pro-choice, that's a different story.
usregimechange
(18,373 posts)Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Brilliant!
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)Next!
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...that you yourself are morally opposed to abortions and you won't have one, then sure, you can be a lefty.
If by "pro-life" you mean that women should be forced to carry their pregnancies to term and give birth regardless of their own wishes or well-being, then no, you are not a lefty.
So which is it? Are you someone who will not yourself have an abortion, but who still thinks women should be able to make that choice for themselves? Or are you a member of the forced-birth brigade?
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)MuhkRahker
(104 posts)Thread trashed.
babydollhead
(2,231 posts)The Face book exchange I just had with my husband's 21 year old cousin
3 hours ago via mobile.
SHE: "It's really insane to me that our culture now considers anybody that doesn't support abortion " to extreme". I mean seriously? God is totally the God of restoration and forgiveness for those that have walked that road but let's accept that, move forward, and set a standard for our generation and the ones to come."
ME: it's not about supporting abortion, it's about a woman's right to reproductive health. It's about not knowing the horrors that some woman (and girls) cannot bring a baby into. Its about the girls who don't know that having sex is how babies are made. We can't know every story all we can do is be support each others right to women's health.
35 minutes ago
SHE: I am all for women's rights to healthcare but murder isn't healthcare. It's easy for all of us to sit here and ignore it but what if our moms had chosen abortion for us? It wouldn't seem so casual then.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)I am sick of being told "Yes, it's your body but a baby's not part of your body!". Maybe, maybe not; but MY uterus is very definitely part of MY body.
I am sick of being labeled "selfish" for not loving the idea of legally forcing women to do something that will be detrimental to their physical and mental health, against their will and without their consent.
I am sick of being told "I loved my pregnancy so you should too!".
I am sick of being presented with a list of celebrities as if their opinion determines what a human right looks like. I am also sick of being presented with a list of early feminists who opposed abortion at a time when multiple births were heavily pushed culturally and abortion was still a deadly operation. Times have changed.
I am sick of the idea that abortion for "lifestyle or career" reasons is considered "pandering to a system devised and run by men for male convenience., but having a baby, which men support in much higher numbers, is not.
I am also sick of this holier-than-thou "pro-life persecution"ness in general. No one cares particularly if a person is personally "pro-life" or not. We care when they try to legislate it. If you're trying to legislate your personal anti-choice agenda on other people, knowing full well and conveniently ignoring that there is a live human woman involved, then you do lose the right call yourself a progressive. So I'm sorry, Mehdi, but if that's what you're pushing for, then yes it does make you less of a lefty.
Iris
(15,632 posts)high numbers" - this is probably not true. Republican men might support this in high numbers, although I think a vast majority never think about the issue at all. But the reason why I'm quibbling with this point is that most studies indicate men are generally MORE pro-choice than women.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)this was the last time I checked.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107458/Abortion-Issue-Laying-Low-2008-Campaign.aspx
the breakdown is 49% men supporting abortion rights vs. 50% women, vs a 46%/43% split against. I remembered the statistics backwards. Sorry about that.
Iris
(15,632 posts)Still scary.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)but the subject matter got on my nerves. Open mouth, insert foot. Thanks for pointing it out.
Iris
(15,632 posts)There are like 3 threads about this subject right now all full of men who think they have the right way for a woman to handle a pregnancy (and I'm purposely not saying "unplanned" because even planned pregnancies can involved decisions about whether to continue or not."
efhmc
(14,709 posts)These people (men) do not have a clue what is means to be pregnant and to have a child and they have no rights where this subject is concerned. NONE!
Mc Mike
(9,107 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)you can be on the left and be anti choice, as some are pro gun, and other wedge issues. but, you are not any more pro life than many other liberals. that is a rw meme.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)I call it forced birthing.
Mc Mike
(9,107 posts)Let me try to pull a 'Hitch'. Imagine there's a powerful pro - reproduction women only gang composed of twisted mutants on the scale of James Dobson, Ted Haggard, Ratzinger, Romney Ryan Akin Walsh Mourdock, Hitchens, the Ayatollahs, Taliban, and Lovecraft.
Those women are in charge, and at random force millions of men into a physical situation that matches the act of conception and child bearing. To simulate this, we're looking at physical insertion into (or intrusion of) the man, wanted or not, and maybe a tourniquet around the gonads to promote 9 months of eunich style weight increase. (Crass and not an attempt to demean child-bearing through caricature, just offered for the purposes of approximating physical feeling, and getting into mens' reproductive business.) At the end of 9 months, the guy is presented with one of the infants currently in the foster-adoption system, told 'you provide for this little person. Sayonara.', and kicked out the door.
I keep getting stuck mentally in my attempt to assemble likely suspects for the woman version of the juggernaut of men mutants in my first sentence, grasping at straws. I think Schlafly, Coulter, Christine O'Donnell, Palin, Angle, then have to reject them one by one as being on the other team. I find it impossible to build the juggernaut by thinking of any strong noted Women's Rights power wielding women. Maybe Starhawk could fill in for Lovecraft, that's about all I've got. I shot my bolt. All the top Women thinkers, religious, poltiicos, power holders on our side just say to the other side 'Mind your own business. Stop enforcing your insanity on others.'
So imagine Freidan, Smeal, Pat Farrell, Boxer Pelosi Baldwin McCaskill, Maddow, and LeGuin were representing the woman power gang. They enforced the 'pro-reproduction probes \ tourniquets \ child-rearing' initiative on men, and I chime in, backing or playing the part of K. vanden Huevel, (like the O.P. here backs or plays the part of 'hitch'), writing a little introspective piece that says 'unfortunately, the woman junta has a point'.
Zero women would jump on board to second that emotion here on this site, or in the general public. I'm pretty sure I could guess how many guy post-ers would be on board with backing the idea for 'political gains' or 'personal moral convictions' or 'survival of the species', even without taking a poll.
No matter how many times I roll my 20 sided dice and invoke Chthulu, I have failed to become vanden Huevel, and the Mc Mike vanden Huevel combination fails to score any advocacy points on behalf of the interests of the powerful womens' junta. My post advocating 'mandatory probes - tourniquets - orphan rearing' results in some butt cheek clenching and scrotum guarding by fellow DU ers, but no serious discussion, and sinks into oblivion. So my attempt to pull a 'hitch' fails. Sorry for the long-winded waste of time.
It would have been much shorter and simpler to say the repug 'pro-lifers' are full of shit, don't have a leg to stand on, and retail-sell transparent 3rd rate balderdash to advocate their cause.
Iris
(15,632 posts)n/t
athena
(4,187 posts)After all, there is no question as to the presence of a heartbeat there.
Or do you think that in this case, it would not be humane to let a person (especially a man) go through a painful and potentially dangerous procedure with long-term consequences against his will?
In fact, consider this: how about having women undergo forced organ donation but not men? Perhaps you'd be OK with that? After all, you're OK with women undergoing forced pregnancy and birth. It's OK to force women to undergo painful and dangerous things against their will, but not men -- don't you agree?
It's amazing how "pro-life" people so conveniently forget about the existence of a living, breathing human being (a woman) who may not want to go through pain and discomfort for nine months, and then risk her life against her will.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)As simple as that.
Autumn
(44,762 posts)Pro life is nothing more than a RW term IMO. As a Democrat I am pro choice. What a woman does with her body is none of my business, none of your business, nobody's business but hers. And any medical procedure is between her and her doctor.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)Women are not walking incubators.
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)Is reproductive slavery. What's left about that?
I work in health care. For instance, I often provide dialysis, I've seen all kinds very poor outcomes from pregnancy up to and including disability and death (its not even my field), and every pregnancy is a risk. A distinction needs to be made on whose life we're being all 'pro' for. Because it does come down to that.
We have a NICU, where nurses and practitioners work incredibly hard to save, say a one pound infant.
A sonogram is emotional only if you have a reason to invest emotions. And those emotions are the business only of the women involved
Premies touch the hearts of everybody, not only because of their fragility, and how close they can be to death or permanent disability, but because a woman and whoever she has involved in her business has made a personal and profound choice. You can call that pro life.
Megahurtz
(7,046 posts)Bettie
(15,998 posts)Counsel those around you not to have them.
However, the procedure should be legal and women should not be charged for terminating a pregnancy.
We should have comprehensive sex education, easy access to birth control and access to early childhood resources for mothers.
All of these things will decrease the number of abortions over time.
However, there will still be unintended and unwanted pregnancies; there have been since the beginning of time.
Making abortion illegal won't stop it, but rather, will drive it underground again, causing more death.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If you'd like women to be forced to bear children they don't want, you have to take care of those children.
So, how many unwanted children have you adopted?
Once you manage find homes for all the kids who don't happen to be white infants, then you can start making a coherent argument against abortion.
Until then, you're just trying to force women to do you bidding, and then face the consequences of the decision you forced upon them.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)If you assume they are, and you wish to legislate YOUR control over them, you are much less of a lefty.
If you vote for republicans, or advocate against and/or withhold your vote from Democratic/progessive candidates because of your anti-choice positions, then you really are much less of a lefty.
Believe what you want. If you don't believe you are capable of making decisions about your own body functions, or are anti-choice for religious or other reasons, that's your prerogative.
It's simple: just please keep your laws and religions out of my body.
And I really don't believe a Democratic candidate running on an anti choice platform would be a rock star to the general progressive female population.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)kiranon
(1,727 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)Stay out of other people's decisions. It's very simple, really.
DonRedwood
(4,359 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Attack the issues that lead most women to get abortions. Attack poverty, increase sex ed, make contraception available, have a better social network for children, etc...
There is more to this issue than Roe v Wade. If all you do is concentrate on that fight, you are not attacking the roots of the problem. Both sides are guilty of this. Banning abortion won't stop abortion. And making it legal still doesn't solve anything.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)It's so nice to know you have the omnipotent power to pass judgement on me when you know nothing about me or my circumstance. I applaud your desire to reduce unwanted pregnancies through sex ed and access to birth control. I too am for reducing unwanted pregnancies through sex ed and access to birth control, but there will always be the need to have access to abortion as well.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)You know, I've got to tell ya, it really IS nice to have that omnipotent power to pass judgement on you and others like you. Especially when I know nothing about you. I really relish it. On a daily basis, too.
Sometimes, I just sit here, in front of this computer, and I exercise my omnipotence. Just exercise and exercise it. Sometimes, I get a little carried away and POOF! There goes my uterus! I done gone through three or four uteruses in the past hour or two. Damn it, I hate it when that happens.
But, you know, that's what happens when you got this here omnipotence skill. Yep. Yessiree, Bob!
You're on ignore, dear. You have nothing to add to this conversation except putdowns.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I had planned on staying out of the whole thing but as someone who has had an abortion I found it offensive that you think you have the right to judge me when you know nothing about why I had done so. You may have left out the word murder but your intention is still quite clear.
Mc Mike
(9,107 posts)Nobody is making it legal. It IS legal, and the losing side of the fight is expending a ton of money, energy, legislative time, effort trying to win the fight they lost, decades ago. Instead of spending any time trying to reduce the number of people who need abortion, they're spending a ton of time trying to reduce the number of people who can access the abortion they need. You telling the pro-choice end to stop spending time fighting off the attacks -- and spend it at battered mothers' shelters, low-income free care clinics, soup kitchens, or cleaning up toxic sites near low-income population areas -- dodges the issue of who is wasting all of our time.
The caliber of the pro-life response to your suggestion is predictable: Paul Ryan and Ann Romney will show up to a shelter for battered women and their kids, wash some already-cleaned toddler sippy bowls for the cameras, then leave, still the heroes of the 'pro-life' movement establishment.
Telling the pro-choice side to get out there and work on 'the issues' is ignoring the dynamics of the situation. They're attacking, we're defending. This IS the issue. At the best, your statement is facile, at the worst, it's a disingenuous attempt to make us shut up through guilt inducement about all the things we haven't said and work we haven't done.
cecilfirefox
(784 posts)RainDog
(28,784 posts)and, honestly, to pretend you are is a joke.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Biden said it very well in the debate when he said that personally he is against abortion, but that he would never impose his beliefs - that come from his church - on others.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)advocate for abortion in case of rape? After all, aren't all embryos/foetuses created equal? Or are some of them more equal than others? How can you possibly justify such hypocrisy and still insist that you are "pro-life"?
Your stated position reminds me so much about this excellent article:
The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion
When The Anti-Choice Choose
By Joyce Arthur
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
PS. Just to make it clear.
My position on this issue always was and always will be: Her Body, Her Choice.
johnnyrocket
(1,773 posts)Abortion should be LEGAL.
Period!
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Is anti-abortion. Marcy Kaptor of Ohio. And to think, we lost a strong liberal voice in Dennis Kucinich.
Very sad.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)They usually answer in ways that many here would describe as "pro choice"
Just my 2 pesos
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)many Republicans, I might add.
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)If the answer is yes, then it is logical that this person has rights which must be taken into account. It is in such a case no longer a question of a woman's right to her own body, since it is no longer only her body, but also the body of someone else, who came into the situation of being dependent only due to decisions that were made by other people.
If the answer is no, then abortions are of no significance, and it doesn't matter whether you have none or one or twenty.
I think there is no definite answer to this question. It will always be a question of philosophical nature, which to a large degree depends on personal opinion. There is no definite scientific answer, since it at the end of the day depends on what definitions you use. Historically, people have defined infants below a certain age as "incomplete" humans, for reasons which were plausible at the time (mostly high infant mortality). Nowadays, a fetus of only a few months of age can be considered "viable".
I think because of these difficulties a compromise is sensible. A policy that starts with abortions being freely available, no questions asked, for the early stages of pregnancy, but becomes progressivly more restrictive as the pregnancy progresses, to a point were in the very late stages of a pregnancy there must be valid health concerns to justify an abortion. This is mostly what is done in Europe, and I think this is at the end of the day the best one can do.
Also, I don't buy the idea that being "anti-choice" is mostly men wanting to control women's bodies. From my personal observation, it seems like there are just as many women who judge other women for having abortion. I would even go as far as to say that very many men don't give a shit either way, especially if they are not the father.
DHelix
(89 posts)1) I don't believe life begins at conception because life is more than a heartbeat. This is why when people we know are in a vegetative state it's not murder to remove them from life support if we believe they're vegetative. Fetuses are vegetative. It's about quality of life and a 80 day fetus is the size of a bean and doesn't have much quality of life and certainly isn't missing anything because it hasn't experienced anything of significance. If a mother wants to abort it's her decision because she is the one who has to undergo everything afterward and it's the woman that the bean is connected to until it takes its first breaths on its own and becomes a proper member of society.
2) Abortion is legal right now and has been for some time. We live in a society where we've created laws to live and abortion is legal right now.
3) In a freakonomic study there was a strong correlation between countries that were pro-life and crime rate and they discovered this because some countries made the switch. In their study, 18-21 years later after abortions were illegal in countries the crime rates rose. The theory was that more children were being forced into birth to mothers that resented them and absentee fathers. These kids then turned to drugs, violence and crime and became drains on the system in numerous ways. So a case could be made that when you force women to give birth at all times you may be encouraging crime and violence later on from those forced births. These unwanted children could easily join gangs or do harm to others. You might say that these moms should give the kids up for adoption but you can't exactly force that on them too, can you? You never know what kind of dangerous relationship you're creating when you force a woman to birth.
3) If you draw the line at conception why can't others draw the line at the life building elements of sperm and egg? Every single sperm has the potential of creating an entirely different human being. It could be a male or female, tall or short... It's all there in the sperm and yet men routinely masturbate and end the building blocks of life. Men get vasectomies and wear condoms. Seems strange that the same God often driving the pro life argument would be okay with a man surgically altering his life giving penis so that he could no longer create babies if God was so concerned about life being created. Seems like that same God wouldn't be too happy about people engaging in baby making acts at all with deliberate intent to not have a baby if you take the reasoning to its furthest extreme. God has many reasons to be angry at all humans at the moment not the least of which is the fact that we are overbreeding and depleting the earth of its resources. God did a face palm on Earth's humans a long time ago and left to go watch some other beings he created who have more empathy and less greed. We need to quit being a slave to ideas written by men in the name of God 2000 years ago.
4) We shouldn't be forcing religious beliefs on aethists. We live in a society where non-believers have just as many rights as believers of any religion.
Those are enough reasons to make it an easy decision for me and the provisions of rape and health of the mother are only there to make it appear as though the Right Wing is compromising when in reality it's to dodge all of the above issues. There's no debate at all in times of rape, incest or health of the mother... That's a strawman argument to seem like they're open-minded because those were the easiest cards pro choice people kept playing in debates like this over the years.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)i won't agree with you
but i will take you seriously and listen
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)reasonable to me, in these days when babies can be kept alive at just a few months of age. 12 wks is plenty of time to find out you're pregnant & decide what to do about it (I say this having been pregnant a lot of times).
Struggling with the issue and deciding not to abort for ones self is different from making that decision for someone else.
But there should be more tolerance of the struggle with this issue.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Or, to anyone else.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)It's debatable if the samething goes for you being a lefty. You sound more moderate on this issue. You're right on contraception in reducing abortion but we still need an all of the above position on the issue because no form of contraception is 100%.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)She needs to be Tombstoned, pronto.
Scroll down to the bottom ...
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=80013.0
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)craigmatic
(4,510 posts)considered democrats. That's what seperates us from republicans who sign contracts on different ideas.
mstinamotorcity2
(1,451 posts)it always takes us back to whether a person is pro life or pro choice. Let's all be real for a second. What position a woman takes with her body is about circumstances with her personal choice. A pro life woman can be pro life and still need an abortion. This is a very silly argument. Silly ignorant Michelle Malkin said vote with your girlie smarts instead of your girlie parts. For my sake I hope her girlie parts are on birth control because another little image of her is too much to even think about. Horrible thought for me anyway.
A woman's body and what she does or does not produce with it, is not our business. That is the whole fundamental problem with this argument. When you put Abortion on the table it is not about the Medical Procedure, it is about someone's religious beliefs. Which has no place in this discussion. Its like that and that the way it is. When this is done you are trying to force your own religious values on people of different religions. This is a country of religious freedom or so it says. Most women don't like it when a man or a woman invades their personal space. and I think a woman's Vagina and Uterus are as personal as it get. And while you have all these pro-lifers with their beautiful outcomes of a rape victim's destiny with child,it would be nice to hear the other side. And most pro-lifers are pro-life because the challenge of despair has not yet walked up to their door and knocked.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)Yes it does make you less a lefty because you wish to restrict other's freedom to make their own choices...you don't have the right. I have never had an abortion and maybe I don't even like abortion (who really does) but every woman has the right to make such choices for herself...and contraception is expensive and the GOP wants to make it less available...these personhood bills would eliminate the pill and the IUD. You are not a lefty and stop calling yourself one. I feel strongly about this as victim of the pro-life movement...I had a miscariage in Georgia...my doctor was pro-life and waited for blood work...even though ultrasounds showed nothing remained of my baby...I went to him the last day and told him I felt very badly...he told me to go home and wait...that night I hemorraged on my kitchen floor...thankfully my eight year old called 911 or I would not be here...I was taken to the hospital and placed in a room in the ER where my doctor (if you could call him that) asked for a rush on the blood work..and let me lay there in a puddle of my own blood...mostly unconscious and just for the record ...loss of blood is a lousy way to die. Thankfully my husband who was out of town made it to the hospital in time..he found me unconscious in a gurney soaked in blood and began screaming...He fied the doctor on the spot and told the hospital...get someone now...they did and I was rushed to emergency surgery...where I received blood and platelets..and spent several weeks in the hospital...my doctor who could not remember my name but held my life in his hands came to visit and to tell me how sorry he was but I needed to understand the importance of life...damn him...he needed to understand the importance of life...my life. He finished by telling me I would have other children..but of course I had been rendered infertile thanks to his lack of care so there would be no more children for me...a simple D&C done after the ultrasound would have prevented all of this...what people don't understand is that pro-choice is about a woman's health as well as the right to choose and without such a law to stop the doctors like mine. Consider that if abortion was illegal in Georgia at that time...I woudl have died as no doctor would have been able to treat me. Women will die if Roe is overturned, and if we don't stop the assault on abortion rights at the state level.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)I was raised in the sort of evangelical family where abortion is the number one political issue. I grew up believing that abortion was murder, and when I stopped identifying as pro-life I initially still believed that. Why, then, did I stop identifying as pro-life? Quite simply, I learned that increasing contraceptive use, not banning abortion, was the key to decreasing the number of abortions. Given that the pro-life movement focuses on banning abortion and is generally opposed advocating greater contraceptive use, I knew that I no longer fit. I also knew that my biggest allies in decreasing the number of abortions were those who supported increased birth control use in other words, pro-choice progressives. And so I stopped calling myself pro-life.
My views on fetal personhood and womens bodily autonomy have shifted since that day, but when I first started blogging a year and a half ago I was nevertheless very insistent that the pro-life movement should be taken at its word when it came to rhetoric about saving unborn babies from being murdered. I insisted that the pro-life movement wasnt anti-woman or anti-sex, and that those who opposed abortion genuinely believed that a zygote/embryo/fetus was a person with rights in need of protection just like any other person. I believed that the pro-life movements actions were counterproductive, but that they were merely misinformed. I wrote a post with practical suggestions for opponents of abortion. I believed that the pro-life movement was genuine in its goals, but simply ignorant about how its goals might best be obtained.
I have come to the conclusion that I was a dupe.
What I want to share here is how I came to this realization. And if you, reader, are one of those who opposes abortion because you believe it is murder and you want to save the lives of unborn babies, well, I hope to persuade you that the pro-life movement is not actually your ally in this, that you have been misled, and that you would be more effective in decreasing the number of abortions that occur if you were to side with pro-choice progressives. If this is you, please hear me out before shaking your head.