Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Abortion has never been rare. Why is that an expectation now? [View all]PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
78 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
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
"covered by...single payer" is also setting a condition that is superfluous to the core concept.
Gormy Cuss
Nov 2013
#61
The group that supports " & rare" as a platform for discussing unwanted pregnancies aids pro-lifers.
Gormy Cuss
Nov 2013
#65
No, but if you said "I like chocolate and peanut butter" I wouldn't offer you caramel
Gormy Cuss
Nov 2013
#70
If you don't understand what the people on this board mean when they say rare by now
Revanchist
Nov 2013
#3
Is there mandatory wait period or reporting to another person? How far does someone have to
uppityperson
Nov 2013
#26
I never claimed abortions are "becoming more rare" and notice how YOUR chart shows it going back up?
uppityperson
Nov 2013
#33
Here is the page that chart is from and another, same source. Notice all the access restrictions?
uppityperson
Nov 2013
#41
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
There are any number of medical procedures that I think should be safe and legal
onenote
Nov 2013
#50
Ok, who sent out the memo to post flamebaiting, divisive OPs about "rare" abortions
kestrel91316
Nov 2013
#58
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
Because religion is more important to some people than women's bodies and autonomy
TransitJohn
Nov 2013
#77