Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PeaceNikki

(27,985 posts)
15. I will c&p a reply from my thread on the topic...
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:18 PM
Nov 2013

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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Perhaps one of the other dozen or so threads on this question could answer your question hughee99 Nov 2013 #1
The real question is, why do people feel the need to add rare as a condition of supporting choice? Gormy Cuss Nov 2013 #10
Do you see it as a condition? hughee99 Nov 2013 #19
Yes, when the slogan is "safe, legal, and rare" it is a condition. Gormy Cuss Nov 2013 #29
And yet you're arguing with DUers who have hughee99 Nov 2013 #47
"covered by...single payer" is also setting a condition that is superfluous to the core concept. Gormy Cuss Nov 2013 #61
It's not "setting a condition". hughee99 Nov 2013 #64
The group that supports " & rare" as a platform for discussing unwanted pregnancies aids pro-lifers. Gormy Cuss Nov 2013 #65
"And" is a conjunction, but not always necessarily as you used it. hughee99 Nov 2013 #66
No, but if you said "I like chocolate and peanut butter" I wouldn't offer you caramel Gormy Cuss Nov 2013 #70
True, but I gave you an example where "and" doesn't imply hughee99 Nov 2013 #72
With the new insurance coverage, birth control BlueToTheBone Nov 2013 #2
BC may be more affordable and available, but that doesn't change the effectiveness REP Nov 2013 #49
Which is why I think abortion should be on demand. n/t BlueToTheBone Nov 2013 #54
If you don't understand what the people on this board mean when they say rare by now Revanchist Nov 2013 #3
Because it is still trying to control what women do with their bodies. boston bean Nov 2013 #14
The rate of abortion is ~19.6 per 1000 women aged 15-44 in a population NoOneMan Nov 2013 #4
So one out of 50 women has an abortion every year gollygee Nov 2013 #5
"What's your point?" NoOneMan Nov 2013 #6
I was wondering why you told me that statistic gollygee Nov 2013 #8
Words like rare are arbitrary, especially without context NoOneMan Nov 2013 #12
Uhm, yeah gollygee Nov 2013 #13
It is a real question NoOneMan Nov 2013 #18
Is there mandatory wait period or reporting to another person? How far does someone have to uppityperson Nov 2013 #26
I understand all that. Where is the statistic that measures this? NoOneMan Nov 2013 #31
I never claimed abortions are "becoming more rare" and notice how YOUR chart shows it going back up? uppityperson Nov 2013 #33
Sorry, I meant to direct that at Gollygee NoOneMan Nov 2013 #38
Here is the page that chart is from and another, same source. Notice all the access restrictions? uppityperson Nov 2013 #41
"I do not see any way you can say it is not." NoOneMan Nov 2013 #46
You asked if access has been impeded gollygee Nov 2013 #28
Reading the news isn't a measurement for access. NoOneMan Nov 2013 #32
Yeah reading the news is how you'll find the proof gollygee Nov 2013 #34
In that time, how many other states improved access? NoOneMan Nov 2013 #37
There has only been one law since 2006 expanding access gollygee Nov 2013 #40
Yup, kill off enough, close enough small clinics and the few that stay open have good security. uppityperson Nov 2013 #42
I do not know how the number of abortion providers have fared in the last few decades NoOneMan Nov 2013 #48
No it isn't. It's 15.1 per the CDC REP Nov 2013 #55
Thanks NoOneMan Nov 2013 #56
You found old data REP Nov 2013 #57
Some statistics Revanchist Nov 2013 #7
I am aware of the statistics gollygee Nov 2013 #9
indeed PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #11
So you are suggesting access has made abortions more rare? NoOneMan Nov 2013 #16
I will c&p a reply from my thread on the topic... PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #15
You don't want a discussion newcriminal Nov 2013 #22
oh, yes... cherry pick one reply from a point of frustration PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #23
one reply? newcriminal Nov 2013 #73
lol, go stalk someone else. PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #74
I prefer that abortions be well done Orrex Nov 2013 #17
I'll step in it Lurker Deluxe Nov 2013 #20
My abortion was most definitely a positive. Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #68
OK Lurker Deluxe Nov 2013 #76
I've also had a child and that was also Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #78
blah blah rare blah blah Egnever Nov 2013 #21
It's so sad that you find this subject to be "getting old" boston bean Nov 2013 #24
Looks rare to me LittleBlue Nov 2013 #25
I am sure it is very RARE for 49% of the US population. boston bean Nov 2013 #27
Three out of 10 women has an abortion by age 45 gollygee Nov 2013 #30
So Hillary is part of the War on Women? LittleBlue Nov 2013 #35
Hmm well that's a jump gollygee Nov 2013 #36
Why do so many DUers feel this way? nt LittleBlue Nov 2013 #44
ignorance. PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #45
Because history is ignored. ismnotwasm Nov 2013 #39
Because getting an abortion sucks. n/t Dawgs Nov 2013 #43
There are any number of medical procedures that I think should be safe and legal onenote Nov 2013 #50
This whole 'rare' business started after Hillary testified before closeupready Nov 2013 #51
No, it started in the early 90's. PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #53
Abortion has never been rare. Why is that an expectation now? Snake Plissken Nov 2013 #52
Ok, who sent out the memo to post flamebaiting, divisive OPs about "rare" abortions kestrel91316 Nov 2013 #58
+1.. WTF? SomethingFishy Nov 2013 #62
It's been discussed for years. It was updated in platform in 2008, DU is late to catch up on this. PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #63
I go by my mother-in-law on this one, Benton D Struckcheon Nov 2013 #59
Double Speak One_Life_To_Give Nov 2013 #60
Best book ever on the subject is "Abortion in America" by James C. Mohr duffyduff Nov 2013 #67
Thank you! Added to my reading list! PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #69
Looks like you got the duty tonight XRubicon Nov 2013 #71
Coordinate what? Quantess Nov 2013 #75
Because religion is more important to some people than women's bodies and autonomy TransitJohn Nov 2013 #77
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Abortion has never been r...»Reply #15