Abortion has never been rare. Why is that an expectation now?

[gollygee]

Here's an older article about the history of abortion: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97may/abortion.htm

The point is that abortion has never been rare. Not when it was originally legal, not when it was made illegal, and not now that it is again legal. It is unlikely to ever be rare. It is a medical procedure a large number of women find themselves to need at some point in their lives for a wide variety of reasons, not all of which could be controlled by using birth control or even if birth control were 100% effective.

Since abortion never has been rare, regardless of law or stigma, it seems very unlikely that abortion ever will be rare at any point in the future. Why increase the stigma by saying we wish it were rare? It's like pointing a finger at every woman who has had an abortion and saying, "Did you REALLY need one?" She's one of the reasons why it is not rare. Is that a problem?

[hughee99]

1. Perhaps one of the other dozen or so threads on this question could answer your question

better than I could. Personally, I think some people unintentionally (or perhaps intentionally) consider abortion and "access to abortion" to be the same thing, when they're not. Most of the DU arguments I've seen to this point would like to see abortion become "rare" because unwanted pregnancies become more uncommon, with women having better access to those thing that would help prevent unwanted pregnancies (birth control, education, etc...).

[Gormy Cuss]

10. The real question is, why do people feel the need to add rare as a condition of supporting choice?

Hey, 100% effective birth control is a good goal. No one's arguing against that.

I suspect though that some hide behind 'rare' as a way to reconcile their personal discomfort with ANY abortions. Stipulating rare allows for a moral judgment, that abortion is wrong, to be tempered by a recognition that not allowing women to have the full range of reproductive choices is also wrong.

[hughee99]

19. Do you see it as a condition?

I haven't heard anyone say "if abortion is just safe and legal, I won't support it, "rare" has to be there too". Yes, some people (certainly politicians) do hide behind "rare" allowing some unsaid leeway for them to support it despite what might be personal objections. Other people interpret "rare" differently and don't use it to hide behind.

Until you define what "rare" really means to an individual, I don't think you can have an intelligent argument on the subject. Unfortunately, you can't take that argument and apply it generally to any else that uses the argument "rare" unless you can be sure they intend it the same way.

[Gormy Cuss]

29. Yes, when the slogan is "safe, legal, and rare" it is a condition.

"Safe and legal" is all that is necessary to support choice. Adding rare is setting a condition to that choice. As to what it means to individuals, it always comes down to a desire to limit abortion for themselves AND others.

Some parts of the country are rapidly imposing condition after condition to make legal abortions rarer in their jurisdictions. The goal is clear. Put up legal roadblocks to make abortion rarer because Roe v. Wade prevents states from an outright ban. That pattern is one of the reasons why 'rare' has become a flash point among pro-choicers.

[hughee99]

47. And yet you're arguing with DUers who have

explained that this isn't their interpretation of rare. If I said I supported abortion as "safe, legal and covered completely by a single payer health care system" do you think I would ONLY support it if we had single payer health insurance?

Some parts of the country are rapidly imposing condition after condition to make abortions rarer, but having an argument here, on the DU, you're not talking to those people. You're not even talking to people who have the same goals. The term IS ambiguous, as you yourself has acknowledged, and as I posted originally on this, some people have falsely tried to equate access to abortion and the frequency of abortion, when they are not the same thing.

Some people who use "rare" are seeking to limit one's access to abortion, no doubt. Others who use "rare" are seeking to limit one's need for an abortion by providing other alternatives that one MIGHT choose to use, but without seeking to limit ANYONE's access to the procedure if desired. This is why you would continually find people here who don't agree that it "it always comes down to a desire to limit abortion for themselves AND others"

[Gormy Cuss]

61. "covered by...single payer" is also setting a condition that is superfluous to the core concept.

It's a condition that I like, but nevertheless I'll take "safe and legal" without it rather than waiting for safe and legal only when it's also without fee. Similarly, maintaining "safe and legal" is more important than holding out for "safe, legal, and rare."

Although it may not feel like there's a moral judgment in adding rare because one means "less need by providing other alternatives" it is inherently saying there's something wrong with the choice. At one time access to birth control pills was limited to married women because single women didn't need them. See how that works?

And sadly, to your point that there's no need to argue about rare here, I can't assume that on a board for liberal to moderate Democrats and progressives that the use of the term 'rare' is benign. There are DUers who argue against legal abortions and who even identify themselves as pro-life.

[hughee99]

64. It's not "setting a condition".

Setting a condition implies without this, one wouldn't support it. "Safe and legal" is fine. I'd support that. "Safe, legal, and universally accessible" works too. So does "Safe, legal, and covered by health insurance", and "Safe, legal and none of your business". Personally, I'd like to see it be MORE that just safe and legal, though those would be my absolute minimum requirements. Is there some reason wanting more on this issue than just "safe and legal" is a problem? Rare is an ambiguous term some politicians have added which enables them to play both sides because people have different definitions of what "rare" should mean. One group of the people that support "rare" would like to see other issues addressed and give women access to things that might reduce unwanted pregnancies in the first place, but not seeking to limit access to abortion if one chooses it. If the goal is to improve women's lives, isn't giving them more options a good goal? The OTHER group that support "rare" is looking to limit access. That's the group you should probably be arguing with, but they don't seem to be getting involved in these threads.

[Gormy Cuss]

65. The group that supports " & rare" as a platform for discussing unwanted pregnancies aids pro-lifers.

"And" is a conjunction with specific meaning, namely that all parts of the statement apply when connected by it. Therefore, one who supports abortion as "safe, legal AND rare" is supporting it only under the condition that all three qualifiers apply. Also, unless there is some language to differentiate the importance, all three qualifiers have equal weight.

Framing the argument is important, and the word 'rare' is problematic.

[hughee99]

66. "And" is a conjunction, but not always necessarily as you used it.

Though that is one meaning.

Regarding candy (Halloween has been tough for me), I like chocolate, peanut butter and caramel. It's a list where "and" is commonly used before the last member of the list. To say this another way, I like chocolate, I like peanut butter, I like caramel. I like all three of these things, but I'm not suggesting I'd pass on a peanut butter cup because it has no caramel.

[Gormy Cuss]

70. No, but if you said "I like chocolate and peanut butter" I wouldn't offer you caramel

unless and until I knew how you felt about it. I would offer you the other two because you've told me that both are acceptable choices.


Would you like a Reese's ?

eta: that's me saying we seem to be at an impasse but at least we're discussing it like adults.

[hughee99]

72. True, but I gave you an example where "and" doesn't imply

one member of a list is conditional on another. If you read "safe, legal and rare" as a list of conditions for supporting abortion, I completely understand what your saying. I even understand that the fact that it COULD be read this way is damaging to the pro-choice argument. My point is that people seem to be arguing with people who aren't reading it this way, as if they were. When asked to clarify their position, I haven't seen anyone (in these DU discussions) argue that access to abortion should be restricted to make it so that it is rare.

Some people have taken to attacking those who use the term "rare" to characterize them as not being "on board" with women's rights or health issues (and I'm not accusing you of doing this, as discussions on this topic seem to go, ours seems to be very civil). I think perhaps a better tactic might be to suggest that based on one's definition, rare MIGHT seem okay, but it's use hurts the overall cause, because it isn't clear enough what people are fighting for. When fighting for women's issues, ones platform/slogan SHOULD be clear and unambiguous and to that end the use of "rare" hurts far more than it provides any value. I suspect that's why the democrats dropped it's usage in 2008.

[BlueToTheBone]

2. With the new insurance coverage, birth control

should be more effective thereby making abortions less necessary; but abortion should be on demand and as needed and wanted.

[REP]

49. BC may be more affordable and available, but that doesn't change the effectiveness

From the CDC:

Copper T intrauterine device (IUD) — Typical use failure rate: 0.8%.

Levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG IUD)— Typical use failure rate: 0.2%.

Implant— Typical use failure rate: 0.05%.

Injection or "shot"— Typical use failure rate: 6%.

Combined oral contraceptives— Typical use failure rate: 9%.

Patch— Typical use failure rate: 9%.

Diaphragm or cervical cap— Typical use failure rate: 12%.

Male condom— Typical use failure rate: 18%.

Female condom— Typical use failure rate: 21%, and also may help prevent STDs.

Spermicides— Typical use failure rate: 28%.

The ones I have put in bold are among the most popular and result in 6-12 pregnancies per 100 women per year per method.

[BlueToTheBone]

54. Which is why I think abortion should be on demand. n/t

[Revanchist]

3. If you don't understand what the people on this board mean when they say rare by now

Then you're never going to get it. There are multiple posts in multiple threads were myself and others rationally explained what we mean by using the word rare but this seems to be ignored.

[boston bean]

14. Because it is still trying to control what women do with their bodies.

It's not rare, and the reasons it's not are are not just centered around access to contraception and healthcare or education.

So, when one wants more access to birth control and healthcare, they ought not link it to abortion.

It also places an undeserved moral judgment on persons who have had an abortion. Wanting them rare is, as far as I can see, from the threads here on DU, is because it's traumatic for the woman, they don't want women to have to go through the procedure, they think the woman didn't use contraception, or didn't have access.. those are all judgments that are best left at the door when discussing abortion.

The only right answer in my humble opinion, is it's none of my business why she wanted on or why she needed one.

[NoOneMan]

4. The rate of abortion is ~19.6 per 1000 women aged 15-44 in a population

[gollygee]

5. So one out of 50 women has an abortion every year

That isn't rare. What's your point?

[NoOneMan]

6. "What's your point?"

I posted a statistic. Did I need to accompany it with an opinion or interpretation?

[gollygee]

8. I was wondering why you told me that statistic

I am aware that about one in 50 women has an abortion each year. I'm wondering why you decided to expend the energy to type that out. You must have wanted to tell me that for some reason.

[NoOneMan]

12. Words like rare are arbitrary, especially without context

How can you even discuss a notion of magnitude/incidence without any real numbers?



Abortion is seemingly "more rare" now than in the 80s. Has access been significantly impeded since then?

[gollygee]

13. Uhm, yeah

Is that a real question? Yes, watch the news or something.

[NoOneMan]

18. It is a real question

How do we measure access to abortion objectively?

[uppityperson]

26. Is there mandatory wait period or reporting to another person? How far does someone have to

travel to get a safe legal hygienic medical abortion? How long to do they have to wait? These are things to look at to measure access.

When I was a youngun', they were legal in CA and NY. You had to travel to those states, quite a distance, time, financial impact for many. Then providers became more common and pregnant females were able to get more timely, affordable abortions. Then parental and spousal notification started. Then a waiting period where you get your exam, and have to come back 3 days later, just in case you didn't take time before that to think about what you were doing. Clinics closed due to very real fears. Mandatory hospital privileges started in some places, further limiting access.

To measure access objectively, look at how long it takes, how far a person must travel, what the costs are, who else must be informed, and what other fucking hoops they have to jump through. It really isn't that difficult of a concept.

[NoOneMan]

31. I understand all that. Where is the statistic that measures this?

While I think I literally asked how it could be measured (doh! I didn't mean to ), I meant to rather ask how can we be certain of this measurement. Where is the graph? Where are the statistics? Is there an index for abortion access? Is there a graph?

If you are claiming access to abortion is in decline (thus contributing to abortions becoming more rare), are there numbers that show this?

[uppityperson]

33. I never claimed abortions are "becoming more rare" and notice how YOUR chart shows it going back up?

19.4 to 19.6 means something went up in recent years. It would be nice if you'd put a source for charts, and something that tells what the x and y axis' mean. Otherwise a chart is just a drawing. Thank you.

Introduction to off-topic chart that looks impressive.

[NoOneMan]

38. Sorry, I meant to direct that at Gollygee

And it appears that objectively, abortions are more rare, as a percentage of the population, that they were in 80s. Their argument is that its due to restricted access (not other things like social trends or improved access to birth control or better sex education and reduced unwanted pregnancies)

The orange graphs came from http://www.guttmacher.org/ (just from a google image search)

[uppityperson]

41. Here is the page that chart is from and another, same source. Notice all the access restrictions?

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

The number of U.S. abortion providers remained stable between 2005 (1,787) and 2008 (1,793). Eighty-seven percent of all U.S. counties lacked an abortion provider in 2008; 35% of women live in those counties.[2]

Read through this to see how access is restricted.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf

Access is restricted and getting moreso. I do not see any way you can say it is not. If you are simply arguing % women getting an abortion change from 1980 to now, that has no bearing on much of anything. Access is restricted and getting more restricted. As far as clinics experiencing violence? Many have closed because of that threat, further limiting access. Including the one I used to work at. And no, there is none that opened to replace it. For local women? Nearest is nearly 3 hours away.

[NoOneMan]

46. "I do not see any way you can say it is not."

I am not saying it is not. Im not saying either. I'm just asking for how you (or the other poster) can prove that it is.

Read through this to see how access is restricted.

I get all that. I guess what would be useful is to see a time line to see if such restrictions correlate to a drop in the rate of abortion, as Gollygee suggested that there should be a relationship. If those were all in place since the 80s, then they should have no bearing.

In any case, has not access to birth control and sex education similarly reduced unwanted pregnancies in much the same way that would correlate with the abortion rate dropping? Teen pregnancies are certainly down. Honestly, I do not know if prevention programs are more or less prevalent than the 80s.

Many have closed because of that threat, further limiting access.

Do you have a graph of number of providers since 70s? I couldn't find anything like that.

On edit: here is a graph of the number of providers:



There is a significant decline. But it almost appears to be entirely from hospitals, right?


Oh, hear is another interesting graph:



Countries with liberal abortion laws, and presumably better access, have lower abortion rates than the others. Though, this may also correlate with them having better prevention programs or completely different demographic makeups and social trends

[gollygee]

28. You asked if access has been impeded

which can be very easily objectively determined by reading the news or something. Google "war on women" and see how many laws have been passed in various places impeding access to abortion. This isn't rocket science. "Go read the news or something" was a serious answer to your serious question.

[NoOneMan]

32. Reading the news isn't a measurement for access.

Thats called reading the news.

Look, I grew up in the late 80s/90s. The news was always full of idiots with signs with fake aborted fetuses, bombings at abortion clinics, that Rudolph guy who hid out on the AT, venomous politicians spewing their crap, the catholic right to life marches, the rise of the evangelicals who put the issue front and center as they flexed their political muscles, etc. That was the news then anecdotally. If anything, I see far less mention about abortion these days compared to that utter mess.

"Go read the news or something"

This isn't proof of a social trend whatsoever. Look, I am not denying what you are saying (that access is more restricted now than it used to be in the last 2-3 decades). I'd just like proof before I believe something.

[gollygee]

34. Yeah reading the news is how you'll find the proof

Tons of new laws that restrict abortion = restricted abortion.

[NoOneMan]

37. In that time, how many other states improved access?

One thing that is an interesting social trend is that violence against abortion providers has sharply dropped (still ridiculous) compared to the time when I was growing up:



In any case, no, reading the news is not a concise, mathematical measurement of access to abortion.

[gollygee]

40. There has only been one law since 2006 expanding access

and many many laws restricting it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/10/california-just-passed-americas-first-law-expanding-abortion-access-since-2006/

[uppityperson]

42. Yup, kill off enough, close enough small clinics and the few that stay open have good security.

And you consider this...good?

[NoOneMan]

48. I do not know how the number of abortion providers have fared in the last few decades

How could I consider anything good or bad without evidence. Honestly, I wish every town could support a provider of course. Having people travel for procedures induces self-rationing of medical services and prevent access.

[REP]

55. No it isn't. It's 15.1 per the CDC

http://www.cdc.gov/Reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/

[NoOneMan]

56. Thanks

That's easier. I wonder if Guttenmacher uses different methodology.

[REP]

57. You found old data

[Revanchist]

7. Some statistics

Abortion rates have been declining since their peak in the 1980s

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.html



According to the WHO

n the USA, where nearly half of pregnancies are unintended and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion [1] , there are over 3,000 abortions per day. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies in the USA (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. [2]

http://www.worldometers.info/abortions/

How many abortions would be necessary if we reduce those unintended pregnancies through birth control and sex education? Truthfully, the statement should be abortions should be safe, legal, and less prevalent, but that would just confuse too many people.

[gollygee]

9. I am aware of the statistics

If they are more rare than a few years ago because women who want them lack access, that is a bad thing and not a good thing. They are still not rare and rarity isn't necessarily a good thing.

[PeaceNikki]

11. indeed

Thank you

[NoOneMan]

16. So you are suggesting access has made abortions more rare?

Interestingly, the rate of adolescent pregnancies have also dropped:

[PeaceNikki]

15. 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.

[newcriminal]

22. You don't want a discussion

Star Member PeaceNikki (19,536 posts)

102. In conclusion: back off with the 'soft support'. If you don't fully support abortion rights, STFU.






"Being gay is natural, hating people for being gay is a 'lifestyle choice'."- John Fugelsang


Reply to this post

[PeaceNikki]

23. oh, yes... cherry pick one reply from a point of frustration

Disregard every other thing I write.

[newcriminal]

73. one reply?

Star Member PeaceNikki (19,546 posts)

58. Oh, that's bullshit.





Last edited Fri Nov 8, 2013, 11:23 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

I am 'harping' because I feel passionately about it I don't give a shit how old or how much you have or think you have supported abortion rights. The language is harmful.

Do you not see, even a little, how using the "rare" language can be harmful?

The widespread endorsement of “rare” in context of abortion both produces and reproduces stigma. A recent review of mental health and abortion found profound psychological implications of stigma. According to experimental studies stigmatization can create negative cognitions, emotions, and behavioral reactions that can adversely affect social, psychological, and biological functioning. Societal stigma is seen as particularly pernicious because it leads to internalized stigma in which women adopt the negative societal beliefs and stereotypes about themselves.

Maybe you go around using the term "rare" in context of other medical issues, but society certainly doesn't. Not like this. And, if it were coupled with massive sweeping restrictions on other medical procedures and attacks from the religious right, I could buy into that theory. For now, we ALL know 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.

If you cannot see that and refuse to discuss it, move along. The next generation is here to take back our rights we've been losing since 1989 while you've been coddling the right with your 'rare' mantra.

Star Member PeaceNikki (19,547 posts)

42. Awesome. Step aside, there's work to be done to restore women's rights.





see ya.


Star Member PeaceNikki (19,548 posts)

118. Wisconsin. You?





Honestly, if after reading this OP and my responses in it, you're still lost... Just move on.

[PeaceNikki]

74. lol, go stalk someone else.

[Orrex]

17. I prefer that abortions be well done

For safety reasons, of course.

[Lurker Deluxe]

20. I'll step in it

Mostly because this is getting tired.

Abortion has always been rare. Always.

Take the number of women in the country and the number of abortions every year and do the math.

It is rare, unless your definition of common is a really small percentage.

The number of abortions are trending downward as access to better birth control becomes more common. And that is a good thing.

Birth control = common
Abortion = Rare

It is a pretty direct correlation, and as that access to birth control gets even better than the number of abortions will continue to drop. And that is a good thing.

An abortion is not a positive, it is a negative, and helping to curb the unwanted, or unhealthy, pregnancy will continue to drive those numbers down. Better birth control, better access to birth control, better ... wait for it

HEALTH CARE!!!!

We will continue to see the number of abortions drop if more effective, free, and widely available contraception becomes the normal. If they develop a male version of the pill that number will drop by huge percentages. And that is a good thing.

[Luminous Animal]

68. My abortion was most definitely a positive.

[Lurker Deluxe]

76. OK

So I am assuming that you never used any form of birth control after that in order to repeat that positive experience, correct?

I know the positive experiences I have I attempt to repeat.

So you are saying you are happy that you got pregnant and terminated? WOW! Guess it's your body, you can accomplish that like 3 times a year ... if your "lucky".

Good luck!!!

[Luminous Animal]

78. I've also had a child and that was also

a positive experience that I have only done once.

The unwanted pregnancy was not a positive. The abortion was.

[Egnever]

21. blah blah rare blah blah

this shit is getting old

[boston bean]

24. It's so sad that you find this subject to be "getting old"

I've seen the same discussions happening on DU for years.

What makes this one subject so objectionable?

[LittleBlue]

25. Looks rare to me

based on the statistics provided above.

Really, who cares if most people think it should be rare? No matter how much you talk about it, people will make judgments about the unfortunate nature of the outcome.

[boston bean]

27. I am sure it is very RARE for 49% of the US population.

Non existent, most likely.

[gollygee]

30. Three out of 10 women has an abortion by age 45

That isn't rare.

And attempts to make it rare make up most of the "war on women." There are constant attacks on abortion in an attempt to make it rare.

[LittleBlue]

35. So Hillary is part of the War on Women?

Didn't Bill Clinton also say that?

Are they part of the right? Is DU?

[gollygee]

36. Hmm well that's a jump

The war on women is the laws that have been passed restricting women's rights, often access to reproductive rights.

The Clintons said what they said to try to get people opposed to abortion to vote for them. They're politicians.

[LittleBlue]

44. Why do so many DUers feel this way? nt

[PeaceNikki]

45. ignorance.

[ismnotwasm]

39. Because history is ignored.

The term “abortion” is from the Latin abortus (ab- “amiss” + oriri- “appear to be born, arise”).b
The Egyptian Kahun Papyrus (1850 B.C.) suggests crocodile feces either for preventing conception or as an abortifacient. In Arabic medicine, elephant feces were frequently recommended. The Ebers Papyrus (1550 B.C.) contains several recipes that “cause a woman to stop pregnancy in the first, second, or third period.” One recipe for a vaginal suppository includes combining the unripe fruit of Acacia, colocynth, dates, and 6/7 pints of honey and pouring the mixture onto a moistened plant fiber.f
Modern Arabic women still take colocynth as an abortifacient, though one woman who took 120 grains in a powder died 50 hours later.f
Debates over when life begins are ancient and enduring
While there has never been complete agreement about when a fetus becomes a person, the major sentiment in ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Roman thought was that there could be no living soul in an “unformed” and/or “unquickened” body and, hence, the law of homicide could not apply if a fetus was aborted before that time. However, other scholars, such as Basil, the bishop of Caesarea in Asia Minor (c. A.D. 330-379), called feticide murder at any point of development.f
Aristotle suggests that the conceptus had a “soul” after 40 days from conception if a male and 90 if female (for a similar differentiation, see Leviticus 12:1-5 in the Bible). Later, Aristotle says that the fetus develops “little by little” and that one cannot make fine judgments.f

http://facts.randomhistory.com/2008/12/14_abortion.html

[Dawgs]

43. Because getting an abortion sucks. n/t

[onenote]

50. There are any number of medical procedures that I think should be safe and legal

but also would like to see become less frequent. This includes both elective procedures and non-elective procedures. Liposuction and breast augmentation should be legal and safe. But I also would like to see our culture change so that body image and the objectivization of women's bodies declined. I would want various treatments for cancer, including radiation and chemotherapy to be legal and made as safe as possible. I also would like to see people take greater care to prevent cancer from occurring or to detect it early enough so that some of the more invasive treatments are not needed as often.

And when it comes to abortion, it is safe and it should be legal. So are other ways of addressing unwanted pregnancies, including steps that can be taken by a couple to minimize unwanted pregnancies. Those steps also should be legal. And, yes, if i had to say which of these options, both of which should be legal, I wanted to be more commonly employed (i.e., less rare), it would be family planning that avoids unwanted pregnancies.

[closeupready]

51. This whole 'rare' business started after Hillary testified before

Congress about whether abortion would be a procedure subsidized by US foreign aid, and she said that she believes abortion should be, among other things, 'rare'.

[PeaceNikki]

53. No, it started in the early 90's.

"Safe, legal and rare" was removed from party platform in 2008 after have been debated for years as harmful.

[Snake Plissken]

52. Abortion has never been rare. Why is that an expectation now?

because a couple billionaires from Texas think it should be.

[kestrel91316]

58. Ok, who sent out the memo to post flamebaiting, divisive OPs about "rare" abortions

all the hell over DU the past few days??

Seriously. It's like it was the assignment of the week.

[SomethingFishy]

62. +1.. WTF?

Now someone has found a way to divide "pro-choicers".. And people are falling for it. It's crazy.

[PeaceNikki]

63. It's been discussed for years. It was updated in platform in 2008, DU is late to catch up on this.

And here is a reply I posted in another thread about this... and yes, I started one myself the other day:

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 really not that controversial.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

59. I go by my mother-in-law on this one,

may she rest in peace.
In Mexico, when she moved to a new town, first thing she did was locate the local abortion provider. Well, maybe not the first thing, but according to her, it was at the top of her list of priorities. Just one of the things you did as a matter of course.
Abortion still isn't legal in Mexico, far as I know. Point being, her point being, actually, if you're a woman, it's just one of the things you have to do, kind of as insurance. You just never know.
Up here in the Northeast US, this isn't much of a problem. Living in a suburb of NYC has all kinds of advantages. Not everyone has that advantage, and it shouldn't be a prerequisite to a decent life.

[One_Life_To_Give]

60. Double Speak

Rare in that usage is ambiguous enough that it has different meanings to different people. Allows an individual to Waffle as to what it was they just said. Principally in current use is to placate the crowd worried there are too many (whatever that means) abortions for their liking. So when you hear it look at the person and the audience. That will usually indicate what and to whom the message is supposed to be.

In other words. If they came out and told people what they actually mean, then some would not vote for them. So they allow individuals to draw their own conclusion and hence believe the individual and the politician have the same position when they may or may not.

[duffyduff]

67. Best book ever on the subject is "Abortion in America" by James C. Mohr

Published years ago, it is the definitive account of the history of abortion and abortion law in the United States.

[PeaceNikki]

69. Thank you! Added to my reading list!

[XRubicon]

71. Looks like you got the duty tonight

Are you guys taking turns each or do you have two or three to coordinate?

[Quantess]

75. Coordinate what?

Losers looking out for everyone else's loser posts? That would entail you.

That means me too, unfortunately by definition, since I'm commenting.

[TransitJohn]

77. Because religion is more important to some people than women's bodies and autonomy

In other words, "Because GAWD!!"