Abortion should NOT be rare.

[Texasgal]

It should be a medical procedure available for all Women!

I am confused here DU. Of course we all want access to contraceptives and education but DAMN! Abortion should be safe legal option for women!!

When we start making it "rare" we start to deny Womens rights. Period.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Nobody on DU is advocating for lots of abortions, and nobody is trying to prevent access.

Women should have unencumbered access to abortion services, without question, period.

[Texasgal]

4. Read some the threads.

people are advocating that.

It's sad.. especially on DU.

[Revanchist]

21. Did you read those threads?

Because poster after poster defined what they mean by rare and it wasn't about restricting access or denying rights, it's about changing societal views and policy so that the number of unwanted pregnancies decrease, thereby lowering the need for abortion.

In other words no restrictions on access to all forms of birth control, better education in schools and no shaming of women, the end of the rape culture and forcing women into having intercourse. If we can get to the point where abortions are only needed due to birth control failures or medical problems then the number will decrease making the procedure, wait for it.... RARE!

[Agschmid]

58. Yup.

Rare... But 100% available for all women.

[freshwest]

63. +1

[PeaceNikki]

66. so... you want unwanted pregnancies to be rare? hey, me, too!!

Then we should say that.

[Agschmid]

77. +1

[IdaBriggs]

153. ^=== This. nt

[OwnedByCats]

156. You hit the nail on the head

That was what I was trying to advocate. Making abortion rare by reducing NEED, not by reducing availability and I think that's been misunderstood. Believe me, abortion is not a day at the park, there are physical and emotional risks involved there too, it should be encouraged to avoid by prevention. I don't think anyone should be denied an abortion, but I'm all for prevention. This is what I believe people like Hilary Clinton and others mean by "rare". It's about prevention of needing it done in the first place, not a system where only some women are allowed an abortion based on certain criteria. I will always try to convince women that the use of birth control is preferable to abortion. However if that birth control fails, then abortion is available. If a woman's life is in danger, abortion should be available.

[applegrove]

155. Abortion should be made rare by free access to birth control for all.

[CFLDem]

2. It shouldn't be common

and it shouldn't be rare. It should be what it is. Which is something solely between a woman and whomever she may choose the decide with. Period.

[DefenseLawyer]

3. I think the idea being conveyed is that we should have fewer unplanned pregnancies

Not that abortion should be a "rare" option for a pregnant woman. That's the way I always took it anyway.

[Yo_Mama]

7. And if women aren't getting access to birth control

You know you are going to have higher rates of STDs and disease.

There would always be some abortions even if all women had full access to medical services, but modern birth control is highly effective, and goes right along with good access to healthcare and good access to sexual comfort and knowledge, both of which have other highly beneficial health effects.

[NoOneMan]

24. It really doesn't take a genius to wrap one's head around it, but people are being obtuse purposely

Its part of some power struggle.

In my opinion--from a public health perspective--I'd like to see the percentage of unplanned pregnancies that end in abortion to increase, while simultaneously see the rates of unplanned pregnancies decrease (and thereby, the aggregate number of abortions go down and the procedure become more rare).

Around here, that makes me a right-wing nut bag I've been told.

[Revanchist]

34. If you're a right wing nut bag then was the entire Democratic party up until last year

The Democratic Platform for America: on Abortion


Pursue embryonic stem cell research

Pres. Bush has rejected the calls from Nancy Reagan, Christopher Reeve & Americans across the land for assistance with embryonic stem cell research. We will reverse his wrongheaded policy. Stem cell therapy offers hope to more than 100 million Americans who have serious illnesses-from Alzheimer's to heart disease to juvenile diabetes to Parkinson's. We will pursue this research under the strictest ethical guidelines, but we will not walk away from the chance to save lives and reduce human suffering.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.29

Support right to choose even if mother cannot pay

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.36

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Dem_Platform_2004_Abortion.htm

Edit, left on the page that contained the safe, legal, and rare phrase.

[PeaceNikki]

37. nope, rare was removed in 2008

Oddly, DU is to the right of the national party on this.

[Revanchist]

39. You're right, my google-fu failed me

However, the current platform states:

We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.

I see that as stating the same thing, only using a different wording. If you reduce the the need for abortions by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies doesn't help to make the procedure rare?

[PeaceNikki]

40. it's worded in a much better fashion. words carry weight.

And words can create stigma.

[Revanchist]

52. We are just interpreting the word differently

and it probably has do with different situations, especially since I'm male and never had to worry about access to abortion. I just see rare as a good thing due to a decrease in the underlying cause. I put it in the same grouping as I want type 2 diabetes to be rare due to healthier lifestyles and gun violence to be rare due to better access to mental health and decreasing poverty. There are many of us who aren't trying to restrict access or shame women when we say rare, but as I stated earlier, we are approaching the word from different perspectives.

[PeaceNikki]

54. that's why party altered it.

From a logical perspective, one does not typically fight to expand access to something they say should be rare.

We want unintended pregnancies to be rare. That's what we should clearly say.

[Texasgal]

55. No, no we are not.

A womans health procedure should be as common as any other procedure. Period.

[Revanchist]

64. When did I say otherwise?

And show me a direct quote, not a twisting of my words because you think I meant one thing when I said another.

[NoOneMan]

65. Yep, and since we want other invasive procedures to be more common, we should want abortion to be

[Yo_Mama]

5. When abortions are extremely common it means something else is wrong

Oh, there will always be quite a few unintended or problem pregnancies, but birth control is part of basic health and safety, and if women really do have full access to those services abortions will be less. Therefore I could not wish them to be "common".

[Texasgal]

6. it should be common in the fact

that Women should have complete access to them when needed.

[Yo_Mama]

8. Yes, nicely put. n/t

[Nye Bevan]

11. Except that "common" and "complete access to them when needed" have completely different meanings.

[Texasgal]

13. does it?

Why is that?

[tkmorris]

16. Because they simply do

You want them to be commonly available. Amen to that. However, commonly AVAILABLE and commonly DONE mean two different things. Maybe that matters, maybe it doesn't, but it's true.

[Texasgal]

49. well diabetes should not be common

and it is... should we deny insulin to people that need it?

[kdmorris]

120. This is getting so tedious

Look - there are so many freaking programs out there to help people at risk of Type 2 Diabetes to prevent Type 2 Diabetes - weight loss programs and education to help people learn to eat right and exercise, etc - BEFORE insulin becomes necessary. So, there are definitely things being done to try to make Diabetes less common/more rare. I would like to see the need for medications for Diabetes become super rare and uncommon, through the use of prevention programs. Once you get to the point of needing medication, you are in reaction mode and, frankly, it sucks.

No one (especially not my husband) is saying that we should deny insulin to people who DO get Diabetes (or abortions to women who DO get pregnant)....

VERY simply put - using your analogy - most of us would like to see unwanted pregnancies become rare/uncommon - BECAUSE of sex education that isn't abstinence education and access to birth control for women/girls who are capable of becoming pregnant (and also men/boys who are capable of getting women/girls pregnant). And then, if all of that fails and an unwanted pregnancy results, anyway - access to abortion should be safe and legal - just like insulin. In countries where birth control is fully accessible and sex education is taught to teenagers, the abortion rate is much less than ours. It is rare for them to have to have an abortion because prevention is practiced more than reaction.

You are becoming tedious in your attempts to make everyone who would like to see birth control be just as safe and legal (and accessible) look like we are anti-choice.

Before you excoriate me for "not understanding"... I am a woman, a mother, a Diabetic and have had an abortion.

[NoOneMan]

26. Ok, you are preaching to the choir

But please understand, you can both want unfettered access and yet, at the end of the day, the aggregate number of abortions to go down.

[Niceguy1]

68. Yes you can

Via good, free birth control that is readily available.


Who can deny that preventing the need for an abortion is better than having one?

[pnwmom]

60. I don't think anyone here is arguing otherwise.

But you are talking about access and being allowed to have abortions, which is a separate issue.

I think women should have complete access and control over whether they choose an abortion or not; but in an ideal world, abortions would still be rare. They're no fun!

And in an ideal world, a tooth extraction would be rare and we'd all die with our natural teeth.

[Texasgal]

70. Do you believe that anyone wants

diabetes? Wants cancer? Wants a heart procedure?

No. Women who are pregnant and make a decsion to abort are not throwing a a party for themselves. It's simply a medical procedure that should be available safely and legally.

[pnwmom]

74. No, I don't. No one with those conditions wants them.

But they all want access to treatment for them.

And in the same way, the vast majority of women faced with a pregnancy they're choosing to end would rather not have gotten pregnant in the first place. But they all should have free access to treatment (abortions) if they want them.

[PeaceNikki]

72. the party platform was changed to clarify.

The concerns are about sex education and access to contraception. They are not and should not be confused with "abortion".

I share your concerns but when we mix it with the language that abortions should be rare, it places the procedure as a very different type of health care. One in which the goal is reduced use rather than expanded access and enhanced quality. And this has contributed to the significant decline in the number of locations where abortions are performed in the United States. The result is also fewer physicians - good physicians - who are even taught abortion care. Less than half of all OB/GYN's residency programs offer training in abortion care.

Saying it should be rare legitimizes efforts to restrict access to abortion.

Prior to 1989, laws interfering with a woman’s right to abortion were ruled unconstitutional. The shift in the composition of the Court under the Reagan and Bush I administrations led to the 1989 and 1992 Webster and Casey Supreme Court decisions establishing a threshold of “undue burden” for the constitutionality of state-based restrictions. Under this new legal regime, states can demonstrate a preference against abortion through the implementation of waiting periods, parental
involvement, mandatory information, and scripted provider speech requirements; since 1994, almost every state has done so. These laws vary in their construction and studying the effects of these laws is difficult but suggests that additional barriers to abortion disproportionately affect traditionally vulnerable populations.24 For example, the most severe waiting periods require two in-person visits to the clinic with a prescribed time between visits. In a world where many women lack paid sick leave and childcare, access to a provider in their community, and affordable transportation/lodging, a two-visit requirement may be insurmountable to some women.

Using this phrase is a linguistic trick of affirming the right to abortion while simultaneously devaluing it is both harmful and ineffective as a strategy to securing rights. The desire to help an individual woman achieve her reproductive desires by avoiding an abortion is a laudable goal, not because it reduces the need for abortion, but because it is what that woman wants for her life.

[pnwmom]

113. Except that's not what "common" means.

Complete access does not imply common.

"Common" and "commonly available" do NOT mean the same thing.

[Nye Bevan]

9. You're *still* confused even after all the threads

in which the 75% of DUers in favor of "safe, legal and rare" explain their position?

I suggest you go back and read those threads.




http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023976002

[Texasgal]

15. Read the threads.

There are many that disagree.

[NoOneMan]

28. The usual shit stirrers bullying others in some word power struggle

That's what I see. But hey, I've been wrong a time or two.

[idwiyo]

111. The only shitstirring posts here are yours so far. Her body, Her choice. Deal with it.

The moment someone disagree with you (me for example) your posts become full of profanity, never mind your condescension.

[mythology]

122. I suppose the word shitstirring was ironic?

Or is the title supposed to be fully separate from the rest of the post?

[Brickbat]

10. Preventing pregnancy through birth control and education is cheaper and better for women than

medical or surgical abortion. Saying it "should" be rare puts a moral judgment on it, I think, but using it as a backstop rather than a primary form of birth control makes a lot more sense for everybody.

[Texasgal]

12. Birth control and education makes sense

for everyone.

Making abortion "rare" for Women in need is not.

Agree.

[NoOneMan]

20. Maybe when people say rare, they aren't talking about women in need

But instead, referring to having less women in need in the first place.

Just maybe. But I didn't mean to interrupt you. Carry on.

[Brickbat]

14. And having lived in a country where abortion was not rare -- where the average woman had 3 by the

time she was 25 and 6-8 was not uncommon for middle-aged women -- I can tell you they wished they could have relied on birth control instead, and gone through abortions much less often.

[Agschmid]

61. Got to ask where?

[Brickbat]

121. Russia.

[LittleBlue]

17. What are people going to do when Hillary

proclaims, once again, that abortions should be rare?

Will heads explode or will people accept it?

[Texasgal]

19. will not accept that

I am big on women having choices.

[NoOneMan]

18. You get an abortion! You get an abortion! Everyone gets an abortion!!!!!!!

For fucks sake! Lock the doors. The word police are out tonight

When we start making it "rare" we start to deny Womens rights

Hear, hear. No free contraception and sex education! We must encourage unwanted pregnancies to make abortion un-rare!!!

[Texasgal]

23. Well I never said that

but anyway...

I think that womens choices should be non-limited.

[NoOneMan]

25. There are a whole lotta arguments based on things people never said regarding this subject

A single world did not abort and has given birth to an endless internet meme that will not stop.

[PeaceNikki]

27. I've linked to two academic papers on the topic, the national party changed the language

And you're patronizing enough to call it "an internet meme"?

You're dismissive and combative nature make it clear that you're no friend of women's rights.

[NoOneMan]

29. "you're no friend of women's rights"

Case and point right there. Basically at this point, we are all just making shit up about what other people are saying to bolster our fictitious arguments

[PeaceNikki]

30. dismissive, combative and making really "punny" jokes.

Yeah, we see you.

[NoOneMan]

31. One more time, with a little more huff and we will believe you

Come on now. You can do it! Last wordsy time

[whttevrr]

32. You should chill...

Your posts on this subject are getting to be over the top and quite inflammatory.

[PeaceNikki]

33. amen

[NoOneMan]

36. After all the strawman arguments and ad hominems, the divisive painting of pro-choicers as rabid...

right-wing lunatics, this thing has become a joke to me. Funny how that works.

And seriously, people are still posting these threads? Are these "hey, look at me threads" at this point? I don't get it.

You are probably right. I've pretty much lost respect for people who can't follow the simple logic and would rather just accuse people of being anti-choice. Frankly, I am someone here who would love to see the percentage of unplanned pregnancies that end in abortion increase, and yet I'm still being chastised and harassed. I started in good faith trying to explain a pretty simple concept, but come on now, the same core group of people have worked tirelessly to insult by pretending Im saying things I'm not.

So yeah, Ill will chill simply because I can't do anything but make jokes at this point.

[whttevrr]

38. That was a joke?

Uhmmm... where is the funny in this?

18. You get an abortion! You get an abortion! Everyone gets an abortion!!!!!!!

For fucks sake! Lock the doors. The word police are out tonight


When we start making it "rare" we start to deny Womens rights


Hear, hear. No free contraception and sex education! We must encourage unwanted pregnancies to make abortion un-rare!!!

[NoOneMan]

42. You don't watch Oprah much?

[whttevrr]

44. What?

That makes no sense. No, I don't...

What does watching Oprah have to do with the lack of humor or civility in your posts?

[NoOneMan]

46. Ug. The car give away

Forget about it. When you have to break it down it gets tedious.

[whttevrr]

47. When you have to break it down...

It just isn't funny.

What part of your insulting attitude is supposed to be funny?

[NoOneMan]

51. The part that rejects the seriousness of redundant, divisive threads

But hey, to each their own. People have all sorts of tastes.

[Texasgal]

53. reduntant?

Are you a Woman?

Wait... don't answer.

[PeaceNikki]

59. they're only divsive to people who can't discuss it like adults.

I've had plenty of great conversations resulting from this topic. Including people who said they'd not thought about it like that and would change their language.

Others who disagree have just moved on.

Then... There is you.

[whttevrr]

62. The only one I see being divisive is you...

You have this unhealthy fixation to argue with any woman who posts that she would prefer if people did not use the word 'rare'. You are badgering and rude. When called on it, you say it's a joke and insinuate that others are not clever enough, or informed enough to get your 'joke'?

Why don't you relax, take a breath, and think about how dismissive you are being to the women who post these threads. It's almost as if you have an ulterior motive that goes beyond just expressing your opinion on an internet message board.

[NoOneMan]

69. You see, this is another example

You have this unhealthy fixation to argue with any woman who posts

Check out my post history on this subject going back more than a day and you will pretty clearly see where I started. I would appreciate that you apologize for this mis-characterizations. It is actually after a series of mis-characterizations--which most definitely do not seem like a civil way to debate a subject--that I have reciprocated. Yes, I should not have stooped to their level.

[whttevrr]

76. Where you started is immaterial...

...it is where you are now that matters.

I have seen you posting for days on this subject. Each post is getting more and more argumentative. They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Some of your replies evoke an image of you frothingly bashing your keyboard to get your point across. And in the end it is just coming off as rude and dismissive. If that is not your intention, perhaps you should rethink your methodology.

If you really believe in supporting a woman's right to choose what is best for her, why don't you take a break from these threads.

[NoOneMan]

86. Its interesting. While you simultaneously engage in mis-characterizing me...

You are attempting to take the higher road by telling me not to be argumentative and dismissive after being continuously mis-characterized. Nice!

If you really believe in supporting a woman's right to choose what is best for her, why don't you take a break from these threads.

How would you feel if I told you to stay out of abortion threads as well? Do I have that right?

To be honest and to give you a very open explanation: I believe there is a contingent of people on DU who work together to divisively bully people and shut out dissent--even with fellow political allies--over petty issues as some form of a power struggle. And the question arrives: how do you respond to bullies? Submit and Run? Is that what all men, and even women, should do?

[whttevrr]

99. It's not an attempt, it is what it is.

I was looking through the threads and kept seeing your name. When I saw it here I noticed how many sub-threads you were in and the one I commented on seemed to be over the top and inflammatory. If it never happened before I probably would have ignored it. But you really seem to have a vested interest in defending a patriarchal viewpoint that is increasingly becoming rude and dismissive.

Like I said: It is what it is. If you want to argue some more, go for it. But the reality is; your words are reading in a way that does not comport with your stated previous intentions. You really should take a break from these threads. You're getting too emotional.

[idwiyo]

116. If YOU really believe in supporting a woman's right to choose, you will let HER decide what is best

for her. You know, Her Body, Her Choice, it's really that simple. Not what YOU think is best for her, but what SHE thinks is best.

[idwiyo]

158. Your post history definitely makes it clear that you are rude and insulting

to anyone who disagree with you. whttevrr doesn'r have anything to apologise for, as every word in that post is true.

Now, do please write a silly reply that only you find clever, and don't forget to add some profanity, accusations of "patriarchal hatred", and crying of being misunderstood.



Don't forget to announce whom you are putting on ignore this time.

[idwiyo]

114. Can you carry a conversation without switching to profanity the moment someone disagree with you?

[PeaceNikki]

22. thank you

I had no idea that so many on DU were so soft on support of women's reproductive choice.

[jrandom421]

35. You're wrong

Contraception should be safe, effective and available to all women. Contraception should be so effective and available to all women that abortions should be only needed rarely. But for those times it's needed, it should be safe and available to all women. THAT's what I mean by abortions should be rare, by only being needed in certain circumstances, not by law.

[Texasgal]

45. Heart meds should be available

safe and effective to all that need them. Heart surgery and all of the millions of heart procedures world wide should be rare.

So, um. Why should a womens health procedure not be readily available? Why should it be rare?

[PeaceNikki]

48. that's exactly it. you don't want to expand access to a thing you

insist should be rare.

That's why the national party changed the platform. DU is sadly way behind.

[Texasgal]

50. It's amazing isn't it?

I'm floored!

[jrandom421]

157. Let me explain

Contraception should be so effective and available to all, that abortions to terminate a pregnancy shouldn't be common. For those circumstances where contraception fails, or when there is such critical medical issues with the pregnancy, it should be freely available. That's what I'm talking about. If a woman decides to have abortions to terminate pregnancy instead of using contraception, it still should be freely available, but hopefully she would know it tends to be rougher on her health than contraception.

[whttevrr]

41. I wish we had gender symbols...

I would like to see how many guys are arguing against the women here. It baffles me that anyone without a uterus would have anything to say on this subject other than: "How can I support your choice?"

I agree with the OP!

'Rare' seems like doublespeak to me.

[Agschmid]

67. I'll own up to being a male...

100% in favor of women's choices.

ETA: Hell I'm gay so really do whatever you want.

[whttevrr]

82. I did not know that the Democratic Platform chose to remove the word rare from the platform...

It just makes it all the more reason for me to believe this word is being used to judge, rather than empower women.

[agent46]

43. Yes available to all

but rare because the entire population would be knowledgeable of their rights, have access to affordable healthcare and be educated about sexual reproduction and the prevention of pregnancy and disease. Rare is an aspiration the way I see it.

[pnwmom]

56. Of course it should be rare.

Just like tooth extractions should, ideally, be rare. And cancer, ideally, should be rare.


Since the vast majority of women would prefer not to have gotten pregnant in the first place over having an abortion, (just as they would prefer not to have an infected tooth pulled, though usually with much more fraught emotions), I think abortions should be rare -- because most women, given their druthers, would rather never have found themselves in the midst of a pregnancy that needed to end. I also we should make reliable contraception freely available to women (and men) so they don't end up starting a pregnancy that they will then have to finish. In other words, the vast majority of women, going through the vast majority of pregnancies, would prefer to have stopped an unfortunate pregnancy (either an accidental pregnancy, a forced pregnancy, or a wanted pregnancy with a fetal or maternal health concern) before it even began.

OTOH, whenever a woman, for whatever reason, decide to discontinue a pregnancy, than that woman has a 100% right to end her pregnancy. For a woman who wants an abortion, it should never be rare for her to be allowed to get one -- she should always, 100% of the time, be able to make that choice by herself.

[Texasgal]

57. For a woman who wants an abortion, it should never be rare for her to be allowed to get one -- she

she should always, 100% of the time, be able to make that choice by herself.

Hence not rare. That's my point.

[pnwmom]

71. No, that was MY point.

You were saying in the OP that abortions should not be rare -- period. What are you saying? That abortions should be common? That's an entirely different thing than to say they should be easily accessible and affordable.

I was saying that abortions should be rare because the vast majority of women would prefer not getting pregnant in the first place to having to go through an abortion. In an ideal world, there would be no unplanned or complicated or distressful pregnancies and abortions would be rare -- because an abortion isn't like a sneeze. It's a significant procedure that no one wants to go through if they could have avoided the pregnancy (or pregnancy complications) in the first place.

But if a woman wants an abortion, it should never be rare for her to be allowed to get one. We do agree on that.

[Texasgal]

73. I'm saying that abortions

should be treated like any other medical procedure.

No one WANTS cancer... ya know?

[pnwmom]

75. Yes. And ideally preventative medicine will make many

health conditions, including cancer, rare.

Cancer SHOULD be rare, ya know?

But in the meantime, we should offer cancer care and abortions as needed, with the decision to be made by the patient.

[Texasgal]

78. But cancer is not rare

unfortunately. Neither is unwanted pregnancy.

[pnwmom]

81. That's not the issue. The issue is whether it SHOULD be rare.

And if patients had their wishes, it WOULD be rare.

Unfortunately, we don't live in that ideal world.

[Texasgal]

85. Exactly.

So cancer patients have access to care easily where a medical procedure regarding Women will be harder and harder to obtain.

Do you ever hear anyone saying that access to cancer care should be RARE?

[pnwmom]

94. Have you seen ME anywhere say that ACCESS to abortions should be rare?

NO!

I disagree with the rightwingers who say that.

I think that access to abortions should be universal. BUT that in an ideal world abortions would be rare because women wouldn't find themselves in the position of an unplanned, forced, complicated, or otherwise difficult pregnancy that needed to end.

[Texasgal]

97. Please, do not get all wired up here.

I am discussing this issue.

I disagree with you. No medical procedure should be RARE. That's all I am saying. No one wants (IE: Throws a party) to have a legitimate medical procedure preformed.

Why is this difficult?

[pnwmom]

105. Many medical procedures ideally should be rare. But ACCESS to them should not be.

Why is this difficult? Of course ideally cancer would be rare.

Pap smears, for example, have already made cervical cancer rare. Better preventative care will hopefully make other cancers rare.

What I'm saying is that a medical procedure for cancer (or abortions) should be rare because the need for it does not arise -- not because access is being blocked.

[NoOneMan]

108. Funny analogy regarding Obamacare...

If the ACA improves access to all medical procedures but its preventative measures reduce the usage of such access, will the ACA be bad because it made cancer treatments more rare?

[pnwmom]

112. Yeah, I know.

I'm not sure how anyone could think we're arguing (or anyone on DU) that access should be rare.

Abortions, like the pulling of rotten teeth, should be rare. But access to them should be freely, 100% available as a choice. What is so hard to understand about that?

[NoOneMan]

101. I feel that the very implication that pro-choicers are referring to access is insulting and divisive

This narrow frame being pushed here essentially refuses to acknowledge that fellow pro-choicers who do not use the new language believe in full, unfettered access. Im appalled that it keeps coming back to this. Does anyone on DU really think access to abortion should be restricted in any conceivable way?

[Texasgal]

103. Read the threads.

it's all over.

[NoOneMan]

106. Which ones?

Which threads state that access to abortion should be restricted? What restrictions are they referring to?


As long as I've been on DU, I haven't seen anything but an outlier suggest such. No one is even in favor of forcing a woman to look at an ultrasound first.


Do you have any links to all these people who want access to abortion restricted?

[NoOneMan]

118. Did you get a chance to find threads with DUers who want to restrict access to abortion?

I've checked and haven't seen them all over.

[idwiyo]

159. At least one poster openly stated they want a repeal of Roe vs Wade.

They are openly anti-abortion and don't bother to hide it.

Guess you didn't bother to check properly.

[NoOneMan]

89. Well stated. And the state should ultimately seek to make a more ideal world

And in such a world, all medical procedures would be more rare.

[pnwmom]

96. Exactly. nt

[PeaceNikki]

79. yes, just like unwanted pregnancies should be rare.

We don't say we want chemo/radiation/oncology rare. We want cancer rare and treatment widely and readily available. See the difference?

[Texasgal]

80. [phone]

[pnwmom]

83. That's exactly what I've been saying.

But I'm glad Peacenikki got through.

[PeaceNikki]

87. but the mantra "safe, legal and rare" is wrong and harmful

[pnwmom]

90. Why? It should be rare because hardly any women

would prefer an abortion over being able to avoid the situation of an unwanted or complicated or difficult pregnancy in the first place.

But access to it should never be rare -- it should be freely allowed, with 100% of the decision belonging to the woman.

[Texasgal]

92. Again.

No one wants cancer, no one wants heart bypass surgery.

[PeaceNikki]

93. ugh

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024004413

[Texasgal]

91. It is. Very much so.

Thank you for that. You understood me!

[freshwest]

84. The focus on the word rare is wrong. Choosing to birth or not belongs to those who give birth, eom

That being said, the focus on surgical abortion was created by rightwingers to keep a private matter public,when other options were always available.

Abortions are not painless, and turn a private matter into something it should not be. Abortion is not a sacred medical treatment, nor should it be the public spectacle they made it to be.

The RW has kept this in the news for decades so they could make a show of women running through a gauntlet of protestors like little girls trying to go to school in Afghanistan. And to make them easy prey for RWNJ politicians.

Women world wide used abortifacients for centuries and it is a private matter when handled that way. The morning after pill should be available to all women to have on demand. It is not even an abortifacient within 24 hours, as conception has not occured. But wingnuts have brainwashed people into thinking it is abortion.

Even if it was, it is none of anyone's business. IMHO, not even the man who is involved. He does not have a birth contract with the woman, she is not a brood mare even if she is married. Getting pregnant is not her responsibility until she agrees to do so.

[PeaceNikki]

88. no, the USE of the word "rare" in that context is wrong.

Which is why our national party platform dropped it.

[freshwest]

110. Then what's with all the talk about the word 'rare' in reference to choice? I've seen at least 3 OPs

But I have an extensive Ignore List for which I make no apologies.

In the past, I believe the use of the word 'rare' was the view that everyone should get sex education in school (not abstinence only stuff) access to family planning, contraceptives, and social services.

And economic opportunity to avoid oppressive groups who had members who forced them causing them to become pregnant or have no place to live. We need a social democracy system where health care and reproductive rights are not treated any differently than anything else; with prenatal care, child care, stipend, etc. so that if a woman does want a child, she is not stigmatized any more than for not wanting to have one.

Education is also key, as it has been shown that the higher the educational level a woman has, the less likely to be forced into marriage or think that motherhood is the only role a woman is meant to play in society. That the Democratic Party is the party of women's rights is no surprise. Democrats weren't confused about safety net implications of the word rare.

Meaning a woman would not be denied anything to give her opportunities to decide when or if she wanted to be pregnant.

AFAIK, most unwanted pregnancies are the result of women being denied many more choices than just the final one to have an abortion. There are a lot of choices in life that impact a woman choices, to make sure she is really free one way or the other.

[PeaceNikki]

115. the general discussion is about the antiqued "safe, legal, rare" mantra.

Many here insist on still using it despite the stigma and harm it causes.

[freshwest]

119. It may be a function of age. IIRC, it was Gore's saying. We knew in a liberated society, abortions

would not happen very often. I consider the use of abortion to be the signs of an ignorant society that is not doing the upfront work to guaranteed full equality.

Abortion is used to gloss over the big picture that is not being addressed. Being told that you can get a legal abortion helps in an emergency in one's life, not necessarily a medical emergency.

It is an economic or social one, or one to escape the oppression that should not be happening in the first place. So many women are not being allowed to live up to their potential due to discrimination, dogma and economic evils, and these must be addressed or women will not be free.

Having an abortion to take care of the most extreme forms of economic or social oppression is letting society off the hook. It is permitting a chaotic and repressive social order escape responsibility for not providing preventives to having to endure such a painful procedure. The fact that the RWNJs are also against contraception, child care, supporting the woman confronted with a pregnancy, stigmatizing the poor, shows they are using anti-abortion laws to harm women, mainly poor women. They have no right to do this.

While I can censor myself and not use the word 'rare' at DU, abortion should not be common as it is inhumane to women. I am not saying that in some kind of patronizing, fuzzy fundamentalist amateur psychology way.

It's a hard procedure to undergo. The RWNJs who say women get abortions to keep their figures shows they don't know a damned thing about having one. No one volunteers for it.

I'll avoid the word rare if it this new Democratic way of not letting the RWNJs set the terms of the debate.

Al Gore used it, so it will continue to come up. I've never seen a Democratic candidate find any fault with his phrase

Peace Out.

[phleshdef]

95. And no Democrat/liberal etc who ever said abortions should be rare, meant it in that context.

Come on, you know better.

"Abortions should be rare" means that birth control that prevents unplanned pregnancies in the first place should be easily available and widely used.

[Texasgal]

100. It's been an unfortunate coversation on DU

as of late.

[99Forever]

98. Seems that someone, either intentionally or not...

.. is talking passed each other.

My view?

Abortion should be readily to all women, at all times, for whatever reason they choose.

The need to use that service should (ideally) be rare.

I make zero apologies for my opinion. The Word Police can stick it where the sun don't shine.

[Texasgal]

102. Well, it's not word police

unfortunately.

[99Forever]

107. The fuck it isn't.

I'll be go to hell if I'll cower down to every self-appointed schmuck that gets offended by twisting the meaning of something then acts all butt-hurt when everyone doesn't prostrate themselves to their latest whinefest topic.

[NoOneMan]

109. In two posts you've essentially captured what I've been tripping over words for

Hats off to you....




Cowering to this is something that I find repulsive; no man or woman should allow themselves to be bullied and mischaracterized from people who twist their words, despite knowing full well what they are saying. Likewise, standing up to it in my horrible way has probably attracted a great heap of hate and made me care far more about this BS than I should have initially. I would of been best served to simply laugh it off right away.

[WillyT]

104. It Is NOBODY'S F*N BUSINESS... Therefore It Cannot Be Deemed Common, Nor Rare...

[liberal_at_heart]

117. trashing thread.

[Sheldon Cooper]

123. Heh. I love when people announce, in the thread, that they're trashing the thread.

It's such a comical thing to do - I can't bear to see this being discussed, and I'll make sure you all know about it before I hide it. lol

[Vashta Nerada]

139. ...okay.

And you had to make a big announcement why?

[Lancero]

124. You got a dictionary?

Look up rare - Lets see what the definitions are?

Here! I'll get them for you!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rare

1. Infrequently occurring; uncommon: a rare event; a plant that is rare in this region.
2. Excellent; extraordinary: a rare sense of honor.
3. Thin in density: rarefied: rare air.

See what number 1 is? Infrequently occurring. Uncommon.

You give better access to contraceptives and education, and thus unwanted pregnancies will happen less. Less unwanted pregnancies, less abortions - Making them a infrequent occurrence, making them uncommon... Making them rare.

[PeaceNikki]

125. So - you really want unwanted pregnancies to be rare? Hey, me, too!! We should

clarify that so we never have to diagram it that way. Oh, wait - the national party already has. It's weird that DU is so far behind.

Oh, also - rare in medical terms has a very different meaning. How far could the US reduce the number of abortions and would that meet the threshold for "rare"?

The answer to this question employs the standard set by the NIH Office of Rare Diseases Research which defines a rare disease as one having a prevalence of fewer than 200,000 affected individuals in the United States. Currently there are 1.2 million abortions per year in the United States. Thus the number of abortions would need to decline by 83 percent to meet this threshold. Such a reduction is both unrealistic at a practical level and impossible with current conceptive options. All contraceptive methods have failures—both due to the method themselves and due to user errors. Currently 54 percent of all abortions happen to women using birth control. For the purposes of this argument let us assume that all women used contraception perfectly over the course of their sexual lives when not trying to get pregnant and used the method with the very lowest failure rate, the intrauterine contraception or IUC. With 61 million women of reproductive age and a desire for an average of two children per woman, the number of unintended pregnancies would still be greater than 200,000 per year.

The Netherlands provides an example of what might be more realistic and possible. With one of the lowest abortion rates in the world at 8.4 per 1,000 women, there are still over 34,000 abortions per year—not meeting the incidence rate for “rare” given the population of only 16 million. While held up as a model for family planning and sexuality education, abortion happens routinely in the Netherlands. And U.S.-based pro-life groups remain loudly opposed to abortion in Netherlands.

So.. yeah, we should be careful how we use it when talking about abortion. It's unrealistic.

[Lancero]

126. Forgive me...

I though Democrats were supposedly educated enough to know how to read a dictionary, and were in possession of - at least - basic reading comprehension skills.

It isn't, directly anyway, making the procedure rarer - It's making the necessity of it rare.

That said, pregnancy isn't a disease. So try again.

[PeaceNikki]

127. Here you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4014529

[cleanhippie]

128. If sexual education and contraception programs are working, then it most certainly should be "rare".

[sir pball]

129. Is THIS grammatically acceptable to you: "Unplanned pregnancies should be very uncommon"?

I.e. education and access to contraception should be expanded by orders of magnitude, so that unplanned pregnancy becomes uncommon, let's say 10% of current levels. And, along with that, reproductive rights are fiercely protected so that abortion is available on demand, with no questions or conditions whatsoever...at 10% of today's rates. Not because of any social engineering, or legal restrictions, or generated stigma, but simply because unplanned pregnancy has become far less common. In the same way that treatment for heart disease should be easily available - and a well-informed populace provided with the right tools to prevent heart disease in the first place should RARELY need to make use of the completely legal and available procedures.

You keep saying "no medical treatment should be RARE." What does "rare" mean to you, exactly? In my mind it simply means "uncommon", but you appear to define it more broadly. Please help me understand what you mean by "rare".

[PeaceNikki]

130. nope. please refer to the party platform.

[sir pball]

131. So you feel unplanned pregnancies should be common,

Gotcha.

Like I said, I don't say "abortion should be rare" personally. I don't debate abortion at all as a rule, it's not my choice to make.

But logically, I do agree with the statement in a vacuum, since I believe that unplanned pregnancy should be rare (adjective - 1. (of an event, situation, or condition) not occurring very often. "a rare genetic disorder" synonyms: infrequent, scarce, sparse, few and far between, thin on the ground, like gold dust, as scarce as hen's teeth) and consequently abortions, available with no restrictions whatsoever, should be less common.

Please help me to understand how this is a patriarchal and/or misogynistic opinion to have. I literally cannot understand in the slightest how reducing "oopsies" and, purely consequentially to that, abortions, is an objectionable societal goal.

[PeaceNikki]

132. read the platform

[sir pball]

133. I agree with the damn "platform" 100%. Answer me.

Abortion should be available with zero restriction. Full stop. That is how I feel. So do YOU feel that unplanned pregnancies should be RARER than they are currently? If you do, then you also believe that abortions should be rarer. Reduce the former and the latter will drop, inescapable consequences.

Am I infringing on my fiancées right to an abortion when I wear a condom? That IS my choice, but it is an action that directly prevent her from having an abortion...though why that's a problem is going farther over my head than the ISS.

[PeaceNikki]

134. ho. lee. shit. you need to fucking relax.

here's how i feel: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4014529

[sir pball]

138. *chuckles* I'm perfectly calm, I just don't like non-text replies that don't say much.

Sitting here browsing pictures of cats, drinking tea, and passing the time on DU.

I hadn't seen your explanatory post. That does answer my questions. Like I said, "abortion should be rare" is not a statement I actively make - but if asked whether or not I agree with it, I must say Yes, since I DO publicly espouse the position that unplanned pregnancy should be much less common, and as a consequence of that, yes, abortions should also be far less common. Just because of reduced demand, it's not supply-side economics by any means.

I don't think the majority of DUers/libs feel otherwise, even the ones that do say "abortion should be rare"; I think, watching this play out, that some people on all sides are more invested in simply fighting about it. Beats daytime TV for entertainment value.

[PeaceNikki]

141. Like I said, I also don't think it's INTENTIONALLY harmful, which is why I like to engage in the

conversation with supporters of choice. For real. I brought a Democratic woman here in WI who wants to challenge Walker to task for using the phrase recently.

FTR in this thread, this is the altered platform:

Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose. 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.


See? It's possible to support all of the things we discussed and leave the frequency out of the policy discussion to avoid the confusion and/or potential harm.

Ideally, abortion rates drop as a byproduct of the rest but we keep the focus on what it should be. We typically don't fight to expand access to something we want to be rare.

It's not that controversial.

[sir pball]

146. WRT "fighting for access", one can both fight for a cure and still want to reduce the disease*.

We typically don't fight to expand access to something we want to be rare.

Depends on what the access is for...I believe in free access to (single-payer) healthcare for all, but at the same time I'd like to see people educated and concerned enough to take care of themselves and consequently make, say, diabetic treatments or heart transplants rarer. Hell, I'd like band-aids be rare in my life, doesn't mean I want CVS to stop selling them to me.

It has less to do with controlling access to treatment and more with reducing the undesirable condition that is being treated. I'd like to see more healthy people using birth control, so I'd like to see heart transplants and abortion become "rare".

* - no, unplanned pregnancy is not a disease! Just an analogy.

[PeaceNikki]

147. Well, couple it with the massive sweeping restrictions on abortion.

I think we need to change the narrative.

[sir pball]

148. Like I said, it's not my slogan but I do agree with it when fully expressed.

I think the problem is that it's left unqualified, in the name of making it into a sound bite. "I believe unplanned pregnancy should be rare and therefore freely available abortions should be rare as well" isn't objectionable, but it doesn't make a handy slogan to put on a bumper sticker.

Stupid ADD-ridden modern society.

[PeaceNikki]

149. And I discuss it when expressed, even/especially when coming from a pro-choice supporter.

It's all good... enjoy the rest if your day.

[sir pball]

150. Glad we actually worked it out

S'pose I'll just have to start saying the entire mouthful. You have a good one too

[treestar]

135. This is starting to seem like a non-issue that can be used to

divide people on the same side. Many posters have explained the distinctions in this thread alone.

[newcriminal]

136. No, abortion should be rare.

[karynnj]

137. Saying rare was all about contraceptics being available

No Democrat saying that EVER meant that access to abortion should be denied.

I don't think it helps anyone - including the women directly involved - to say it is just a medical procedure. For a very few, it may be seen as just that - for many it will be the hardest decision they ever have to make.

[Vashta Nerada]

140. Abortions should be common.

If a woman wants to get one before lunch, every day, she should be able to.

It's none of my business, and it's no one else's.

[whistler162]

142. AH the weekly, don't teach people

how to have safe sex thread! Instead support a invasive operation to end unwanted pregnancies!

[PeaceNikki]

145. whooooooosh

[pipi_k]

143. That's not what "rare" means

in this instance.

Just like I tried to explain in another thread on this subject...a similar way to look at it might be to say that surgery for skin cancer should be rare because people are proactively doing what they can to avoid it.

That doesn't mean we want to deny skin cancer surgery to people.

What we want to do is make the NEED for it uncommon (rare) because people are being smart.

Same with abortion.

It should be legal and accessible for all women.

But so should birth control, which would make the NEED for legal abortions rare.

I know someone who has had at least four abortions. Nice she could have them, but WTF is wrong with using birth control??? Which I know she was NOT doing even though she could have.

With conventional birth control so easy to come by...

condoms/spermicides/the pill, etc....

there's no reason on earth a woman should have to use abortion as a means of birth control.

I dunno...maybe it's me...

take a pill...squirt some foam...make the man use a condom...whatever...easy and painless

vs

pain...bleeding...sadness...guilt...or whatever

am I missing something here?

[PeaceNikki]

144. I will c&p a reply from my thread on the topic...

My intent was never to 'drive a wedge', 'be the word police', or 'be divisive'.

I wanted to discuss the harm, stigma and confusion that can be caused by the words we choose. ESPECIALLY with people who support choice and may not realize the potential harm or that the party has updated the language. The words in question of this thread are "safe, legal and rare" - specifically taking note of the word rare. In context of abortion (not unwanted pregnancies, abortion). The national party removed it because of the fact it's open to interpretation... and all of the reasons outlined in the OP.

*I* get that you and other liberals are very very likely to fully support choice. *I* get what you *MEAN* by rare. We *all* want to make unwanted pregnancies rare... but do you not see, even a little, how using the "rare" language can be harmful? There have been massive attacks in every state on abortion since 1989. And they are getting worse. And, as such, I feel it's incredibly important to discuss how our language forms our societal beliefs and vice versa. To quote LeftyMom from another thread...

LeftyMom
19. That's the political genius and moral cowardice of the phrase.
To pro-choice people it means "unplanned pregnancies shouldn't be common, for women's sake." To the mushy middle it means "abortions for deserving women but not for those trampy other women." To anti-choicers it means "let's whittle away at legalized abortion even if we can't get a ban past the Supremes yet."

It's a political Rorschach ink blot. It means what you want it to mean.

I have had at least 2 conversations here with people who literally said, "oh, hey. wow - I really hadn't thought about it like that, I will change my language". Others have been nasty, combative, dismissive and rude. And there's been a lot in between.

Bottom line - it's a discussion. This is a discussion board. It's an important topic to me and I thought to many other DUers. Again- the word that causes confusion, anger, harm, etc was REMOVED from the party platform for these reasons. It's just weird that so many DUers are fighting it.


Here is this is the Democratic Party altered platform (with "safe, legal, rare" removed):

Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose. 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.


See? It's possible to support all of the things we discussed and leave the frequency out of the policy discussion to avoid the confusion and/or potential harm.

Ideally, abortion rates drop as a byproduct of the rest but we keep the focus on what it should be. We typically don't fight to expand access to something we want to be rare.

It's not that controversial.




Carry on.

[Decaffeinated]

151. There is a difference between rare and something to be lauded or encouraged...

[Swede Atlanta]

152. I do wish abortion to be rare.....

An abortion should be a last resort to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. But when it is the choice of the woman then it must be both legal, safe, and financially and geographically available. Period.

I fully support the right of a woman to choose an abortion to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

What I do not support, however, is the use of abortion as birth control. A fertile woman knows that having intercourse without taking precautions can lead to a pregnancy. A woman who does not take steps to prevent an unwanted pregnancy is using abortion as birth control.

Women should have ready access to family planning including birth control pills and other means of prevention, including access to condoms for their partners. Women (and men) should have comprehensive sex education both in terms of prevention of pregnancy but also prevention of the transmission of sexually-transmitted diseases.

So yes I want abortion to be rare BECAUSE I want women to have access to adequate education and methods of birth control that allow them to decide when, if anytime, is the right time for them to start a family. I want women to be so in control of their sexual lives that abortion is rarely needed except in cases of medical complications, genetic issues with the fetus, rape, incest and the like. But I want abortion to be available to women, without delay, should they have to make the decision to terminate their pregnancy.

As well we should ensure that options to adopt out are readily available to women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. There are many individuals and couples that are unable to conceive. Carrying to term and giving that gift of life to a family that wants it should always be an option available to a woman, if she wants it.

[gollygee]

154. I think the real issue is that abortion never will be rare and never has been rare

So saying you want it to be rare is to set your argument up for failure and to beg criticism from the right-wing when it isn't rare.

Even when illegal, abortion wasn't rare. Abortion has always been needed and always will be.

[bluestateguy]

160. Suit yourself

But I don't think it is a good thing when abortions are commonplace in nations that value boys over girls. India and China come to mind. You have parents that abort simply because the child will be a girl. That is not a healthy thing for a society. You can still believe this and still be pro-choice when it comes to government policy.