Why no one should question my pro-choice position.

[MoonRiver]

I know many are angry because I would not bow down to PC bullying on an earlier thread, so I have decided to share the following.

My maternal aunt, who I never knew, died in an illegal abortion.

Another physician aunt founded Planned Parenthood in my home town.

I have had two abortions, one done in Mexico before the procedures were legal here, and one in the United States.

Both my daughters have had an abortion. One daughter I personally escorted into the Planned Parenthood clinic, surrounded by crazies holding signs picturing aborted fetuses, while screaming at us to save the unborn.

I am a long standing member of Planned Parenthood and ONLY vote for pro-choice candidates.

So if you don't like my using the term child, which I meant to represent a homo sapien existing post birth, rather than fetus, that's just too f'n bad.

[ScreamingMeemie]

1. First, everyone should question everything. It's the nature of humanity.

Second, if you're talking about smoking while pregnant with a fetus being equated to child abuse, I will find myself questioning your pro-choice position. Because that isn't a pro-choice position. Her body...her choice. Finding someone guilty of "child abuse" relating to something done before the birth isn't pro-choice.

That said, and in reference to your credentials, I am a writer/editor by trade. I've gotten into dozens of arguments with writers who claim as their defense,"But, I have a MASTERS in English, and I've taught English/Creative Writing/Etc. for years!!!" That doesn't make their submissions any less of a mess.

I mean this all with good intentions, but your earlier position is definitely not pro-choice. You wanna equate smoking in front of a born fetus (a living child) with abuse, then there might be a discussion.

[MoonRiver]

3. A child who has been damaged by a mother who smoked before the child was born

was abused, imo. The mother is not legally responsible for the effects of her behavior but she still abused the now born and breathing child.

[ScreamingMeemie]

8. No she did not. It was a fetus at the time. Not a child.

If you want to call your pregnancy a child, go on ahead, but you don't get to decide that for others.

[MoonRiver]

10. Not deciding anything for anybody.

[el_bryanto]

2. I didn't read the thread - as I tend to avoid the subject

But I do know that voting for pro-choice candidates and voting for pro-choice resolution is insufficient proof of commitment. I don't personally understand it myself; but my advice is to just let it drop and move on to things you can agree with people on.

Makes things easier.

Bryant

[PeaceNikki]

4. don't like people taking you to task for your choice of words?

Too fucking bad.

[MoonRiver]

6. Once again back at ya Nikki.

[PeaceNikki]

9. amen and hallelujah

[MoonRiver]

12. Hey we agree on something in addition to a woman's right to choose!

I call that progress!

[PeaceNikki]

23. OK, but i WILL question anyone who uses anti choice language.

Always. It's not something pro choice people do, especially while access to abortion is being more aggressively attacked than it has ever been in my lifetime.

That's not bullying.

[MoonRiver]

29. I do not agree that I used anti-choice language. That is simply wrong.

[JTFrog]

11. +1 n/t

[SheilaT]

5. I don't think anyone needs to justify a pro-choice position.

I do think anyone who believes in forced childbearing does need to justify that position.

My basic stand on the matter is: If you don't believe in abortion don't have one.

[MoonRiver]

7. 100% agree!

[seabeyond]

13. because you inaccurately used a word, and people were passionate because of continuous attacks on

our bodies by lawmakers, you decide they are bullies.

you... do not have to back down, using inaccurate terminology and that is cool for you. others though, passionately telling you, you incorrectly described the fetus using the same terminology anti abortionists use to guilt people into seeing the killing of a child, are bullies.

i read the thread, but wasnt into making a statement. i do have an issue you deciding that those opposed you using incorrect termonology for very pragmatic reasons are now construed as bullies, in your OP

[MoonRiver]

14. I did NOT use incorrect terminology.

I was referring to what happens to a born child. If the fetus was aborted, the whole argument becomes moot. OF COURSE every woman, such as myself and my daughters, have the absolute right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term or not. But if one chooses to carry it full term and deliberately engages in behaviors deleterious to the homo sapien she is carrying, then I think of that as abusive. I did not then, nor now, consider that mother's behavior criminal. I think it is just sad.

[JTFrog]

15. "I did not then, nor now, consider that mother's behavior criminal."

Child abuse is criminal.

Again, words have meanings.

[MoonRiver]

17. It depends on the type of abuse.

Smoking while pregnant, while potentially damaging to the future child (assuming the future child is not aborted while a fetus), and thereby abusive, never results in criminal charges. At least not to my knowledge.

[JTFrog]

18. Because smoking while pregnant isn't "child" abuse.

That's probably why you haven't seen such criminal charges. For some inexplicable reason, you sure seem intent on using the verbiage that right wingers who would like to make it criminal use. And you do so unapologetically.

[MoonRiver]

21. If you were the born child, disabled by a smoking mother, yes it happens,

you might disagree that your mom's behavior was not abusive.

[JTFrog]

25. I'm sorry, I can no longer

engage in conversation with someone who uses right wing terminology.

[MoonRiver]

28. What a strange statement, but ok.

[moriah]

30. As I said in the other thread, my little brother and sister were very damaged by their egg-donor.

She drank and smoked crack with both of them, along with cigarettes. I want to beat the fucking hell out of her, and as I said, if I ever met the woman I'd have a very hard time restraining myself from at the very least cussing her up one side and down the other.

They will never live independently. My little brother cannot fly on a plane because of his heart defects. My little sister has the mentality of a 13-year-old in a grown woman's body, which has led her to run off with truckers because they gave her money and did things that "made her feel good". She is on court-ordered Depo-Provera because she simply doesn't understand the consequences of those things that "feel good".

Believe me, I'm well aware of the consequences of prenatal substance abuse. And I deplore it.

But it is not "child abuse". it should not be criminal. That is what stops women from actually getting help when they are addicted and get pregnant -- the fear that laws like those in Tennessee will hold them culpable even if they try to quit. We should address the issue by education and supporting the pregnant woman trying to beat substance addiction, not calling it "child abuse", which implies it should be criminal, or doing like Tennessee does and actually criminalizing prenatal substance abuse.

[DrDan]

22. hmmm - not sure that is accurate

humiliation and ridicule can be considered emotional abuse - but not sure they are criminal

[JTFrog]

24. If the humiliation and ridicule result in serious emotional harm, then it's child abuse.

Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect in Federal Law

https://www.childwelfare.gov/can/defining/federal.cfm

Federal legislation provides guidance to States by identifying a minimum set of acts or behaviors that define child abuse and neglect. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C.A. § 5106g), as amended by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, defines child abuse and neglect as, at minimum:

"Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation"; or


"An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm."

This definition of child abuse and neglect refers specifically to parents and other caregivers. A "child" under this definition generally means a person who is younger than age 18 or who is not an emancipated minor.

While CAPTA provides definitions for sexual abuse and the special cases of neglect related to withholding or failing to provide medically indicated treatment, it does not provide specific definitions for other types of maltreatment such as physical abuse, neglect, or emotional abuse. While Federal legislation sets minimum standards for States that accept CAPTA funding, each State provides its own definitions of maltreatment within civil and criminal statutes.

[DrDan]

26. my point is that humiliation and ridicule can reach the point of serious harm - yet not be

considered criminal - the impact may not manifest itself for years

and children are affected differently

I don't think all emotional/psychological abuse is considered criminal - some definitely is, but not all

physical and sexual abuse is easier to categorize

[Rex]

16. I respect your right to say what you want to, without feeling the cutting edge of censorship.

Not all of us wake up on the same side of the bed everyday. You want to call that 'bun in the oven' a child...more power to you!

[Logical]

19. I think you are over reacting. Calm down. nt

[leftstreet]

20. This holier-than-thou crap makes DU look stupid

I mean no offense to anyone, but FFS give it a rest

A woman has a right to choose whether or not to carry a child to term
A woman has a right to choose whether or not to smoke while doing so

DUers have a right to call out the language of rightwing rhetoric when they see it

[JohnnyRingo]

27. I wouldn't question someone's anti-choice position

...as long as they don't impose it on the rest of us.

Abortion one way or another is a deep conviction for most, but it should be a personal decision.