How Democrats Can Win the Abortion Argument

[c-macdonald]

This is a great article by Planned Parenthood:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ABORTION/5ways.html

We need to get over the fact that anti-abortionists call themselves Pro-Life. We can all agree that abortion isn't "right" because I don't know anyone who would wish an abortion on anyone else - we all inherently believe something is "not right" about abortion.

We've been arguing that "life doesn't begin at conception" but that's only arguing on their terms. We can talk about "protecting a woman's right to choose" but again that's an argument they can win by bringing up phrases like "murder" and "killing babies" - also, the numbers are on their side. Over 1,000,000 abortions are performed each year (or as they say, "babies are killed") - how can we say that number is a good thing for America?

So here's the change: instead of arguing about the "rightness or wrongnes" of abortion, instead talk about the number of unwanted pregnancies. There are OVER 3 MILLION UNWANTED PREGNANCIES every single year - almost HALF OF ALL PREGNANCIES!! That's where we need to step in and talk about how we are "Pro-Life" because we value the lives of children and we want to make sure that no unwanted child is brought into this world - and the way to do that is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. If we can decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, we can decrease the number of abortions.

That way we change it from "Pro-Life" vs "Pro-Choice" to something different...I'm not sure what terms to use.

Any ideas?

[Surikat]

1. and the pro-life types will come at you with "adoption".

Haven't we been around this track several times already? :-(

[c-macdonald]

2. even with adoption..

we can throw out some statistics about kids who are adopted and the lives they lead - also the number of children who are currently up for adoption (i don't know where these numbers are)

But they can't honestly say that "Unwanted Pregnancies are good for America" can they?

[Surikat]

3. they don't have to... all they have to say is that nobody has the right..

to murder a child in the womb.

sigh...

I sure don't know a way out of this mess. The whole situation is so darned polarized and here I am sitting in the middle. It's a pretty lonely place to be. :-(

[Outrider]

7. Just saw it over on Yahoo

Number of children in foster care is now over 100,000, and that is just those who were abused or neglected.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20041117/ap_on_re_us/adoption

[cjmr]

9. Not all children in foster care are eligible for adoption

The current policy is to reunite families if at all possible. To that end there are policies in place to discourage adoption of foster care children. For instance, it is unusual for a foster parent to be allowed to foster a child for more than two years--they keep them moving around in the system so that the kids don't get attached to the parents and vice-versa. Even foster parents who think they have the inside track to adopt a foster child they have come to love can be turned down by the court at the last moment if a family member of the child comes forward and offers to take the child or if the bio-parent reappears on the scene, newly out of rehab or whatever and wants their child back.

It is no wonder more people aren't willing to try to adopt foster kids.

[Ready4Change]

5. When the orphanages are empty, that pro-life argument will work on me.

Orphanages are full of "imperfect" kids, who all these pro-life hypocrites can't be bothered to adopt. When those orphanages are empty, when rabid pro-lifers are all raising crack babies and helping teenage orphans learn to live again, then I'll listen to them saying that all of the 3 million unwanted pregnancies should be carried to full term.

When they look at studies that prove that birth control and true sex ed reduces unwanted pregnancies, and that abstention programs increase unwanted pregancies, and say that they now understand and approve of true sex ed in schools, maybe I'll start listening.

When they stop turning out to be rapists and wife beaters and pedophiles at the same or even higher rates than any other group of people, maybe I'll listen to them.

Until then, pro-lifers can rot in hell.

I've got other concerns, but this is one topic that really angers me.

:mad:

[SemperEadem]

26. adoption is desirable only when we're talking about healthy infants

adoption becomes less desirable as that baby gets older and less "cute and cuddly". when they throw 'adoption' at you, ask them how many older unwanted children have they adopted? Once those children have been placed in loving, supportive homes where they're treated right, then they can turn their focus on those not breathing air yet.

[kat21]

4. I hate the idea of abortion as birth control but -

I see no other alternative. It's so sad to read about children being killed by their biological/foster parents. We cannot take care of the unwanted children that exist in this country today. I think that any pro-lifer either needs to open their home to foster children or acknowledge that there's no alternative.

[LoZoccolo]

6. Nah, we should just go back to hatcheting away at them...

...with frothing and screeching accusations that their sincerely-held beliefs about the beginning of life are actually a covert plot to subjugate women, or that it's all due to some feelings of envy that women have wombs and men do not*. I think if we try for another twenty or thirty years, we might get to the point where they're finally afraid to talk about abortion.

_{* actual argument seen on DU}

[gumby]

8. One Side is for

Big Government forced births. For Big Government to force women into childbirth, then the woman is in fact the Property of the State; and therefore does not posses autonomy and is put in an inferior status in the society.

The Other Side wants women to be free in this democracy and thinks Big Government forced birth is the exact opposite a free society.

[iverglas]

10. for once and for all

Will you just piss off with this

We can all agree that abortion isn't "right" because I don't know anyone who would wish an abortion on anyone else - we all inherently believe something is "not right" about abortion.

???


YOU DO NOT speak for "we". You do not speak for me, or for everyone in the USofA. Speak for yourself. It's good advice in most situations.

I DO NOT think that abortion isn't "right". Whether I would "wish an abortion" on anyone has NOTHING to do with this. I wouldn't wish a cheese sandwich on anyone who didn't want it, but I'm not about to pronounce cheese sandwiches "not right".

I DO NOT inherently or in any other way believe that anything is "not right" about abortion. Any more than I believe that anything is "not right" about eating cheese sandwiches.

I happen to find cheese sandwiches nauseating. There are other people who regard eating cheese sandwiches as immoral. Neither my personal taste nor their personal beliefs are any proper basis for PUBLIC POLICY.


We can talk about "protecting a woman's right to choose" but again that's an argument they can win by bringing up phrases like "murder" and "killing babies" - also, the numbers are on their side.

No, they CAN'T WIN THE ARGUMENT by saying that. They can demonize their adversaries and terminate the argument, just as any fascist does when trying to get its way about anything. But that is not WINNING THE ARGUMENT in a democratic society.

Over 1,000,000 abortions are performed each year (or as they say, "babies are killed") - how can we say that number is a good thing for America?

When you or anyone else starts pitching a fit about how the number of heart surgeries performed in the US every year is not "a good thing for America", I'll be listening.

Why the fucking hell would you say "or as they say, babies are killed"?? If you were talking about minority rights, would you say talk about the number of visible minority students in universities, and then quote the KKK -- the people who say that visible minority students in universities are a bad thing, just as the anti-choice say that the number of abortions is a bad thing -- saying "or as they say, n____rs and s__cs and g__ks"?? (Forgive the self-censorship; no point in starting a diversionary action.)

So here's the change: instead of arguing about the "rightness or wrongnes" of abortion, instead talk about the number of unwanted pregnancies.

It looks to me like YOU are the one talking about the "rightness or wrongness" of abortion. So I'll concur here: STOP IT.

That's where we need to step in and talk about how we are "Pro-Life" because we value the lives of children and we want to make sure that no unwanted child is brought into this world - and the way to do that is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. If we can decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, we can decrease the number of abortions.

How bleeding naive does one have to be to imagine that the anti-choice are going to jump on this bandwagon with you -- or let you get away with "reframing" THEIR ISSUE? To imagine that people who regard women with unwanted pregnancies as authors of their own misfortune, and sexually active women as harlots, are going to leap to their aid by spending money to help them on their evil way? To dream that people who gleefully vote for a government that kills children (and their parents) all over the world give a shit about whether the kids at home are wanted or not?

I can't think of any other rights-seeking group in history that has sold themselves out the way you people want women to sell themselves out over this issue.

Women's reproductive choices are OUR BUSINESS and no one else's. And aborted fetuses are not murdered babies.

And if you can't recognize a slippery slope and the thin edge of a wedge when you see them, you need to just be quiet and stop trying to sell women out. Because you can be damned sure that if you step an inch onto that slope you're going to get shoved to the bottom of it, and the crack you open in the protection of women's rights is going to become a floodgate.

THAT is what the anti-choice want. They want your rights. They don't give a shit about fetuses. Some of their deluded self-absorbed self-righteous followers might appear to and even think they do, but it's really just not too likely that you're going to play more effectively to those people's delusions and self-interest and judgmental tendencies than their current masters do. And that's all you're proposing to do.

You want to appeal to their better natures? Good bloody luck. It didn't work for Vietnam, and it isn't working for Iraq. Why you imagine you'll have better luck, I can't imagine.

But ceding the moral high ground to them -- and THAT IS what you are proposing -- is hardly the way to win, let alone keep what little you have when it comes to reproductive freedom. I haven't noticed any anti-war "support the troops" rhetoric persuading the warmongers to vote Democrat, and I wouldn't expect any pro-choice fetus-hugging to do any better.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. I'll second that!

Hey, I've just decided a whole bunch of things that are none of my business are wrong, so here goes...

We can all agree that teeth extractions aren't "right" because I don't know anyone who would wish a tooth extraction on anyone else - we all inherently believe something is "not right" about teeth extraction.


We can all agree that removing ingrown toenails aren't "right" because I don't know anyone who would wish an ingrown toenail on anyone else - we all inherently believe something is "not right" about ingrown toenails.

We can all agree that single motherhood isn't "right" because I don't know anyone who would wish single motherhood on anyone else - we all inherently believe something is "not right" about single motherhood.


Sheez, speaking from my little corner of the world where *we* did win and live somewhere where abortion was removed totally from the criminal code and there are no restrictions on abortions, no wonder the fight isn't being won in the US, what with all this 'abortion isn't right, but blah blah blah' stuff...

Violet...

[Jackie97]

11. Abortion isn't good or bad.

It's a woman's decision.

"We need to get over the fact that anti-abortionists call themselves Pro-Life."

I've gotten over it. I just won't go along with it. Calling them pro-life is like calling us anti-life.

"We can all agree that abortion isn't "right" because I don't know anyone who would wish an abortion on anyone else - we all inherently believe something is "not right" about abortion."

I don't wish open heart surgery on anybody. I don't wish having to get one's tooth cut out on anybody. I don't wish any type of surgery on anybody. Surgery is not a fun experience. The fact that I don't wish these things on people doesn't mean that the surgery isn't right to get though. For some women, abortion is the right thing to do.

"We've been arguing that "life doesn't begin at conception" but that's only arguing on their terms."

Not really. We're just debunking their BS. Actually, life really doesn't begin at conception. It begins before conception. Sperm is alive. So are eggs.

"We can talk about "protecting a woman's right to choose" but again that's an argument they can win by bringing up phrases like "murder" and "killing babies" - also, the numbers are on their side."

I think one of the main problems is that the "proven fact" that the fetus is a person has taken the focus off of the women and onto the fetus/embryo. It used to be that the focus was more on the woman because women were having illegal abortions, being forced to give up their children, etc. There will always be a debate about whether the embryo/fetus is a person. Just like there will always be a debate about whether an animal is a person deserving of protection. In the longrun though, you just can't prove that either one is a person. Science can't back it up, and society can't agree on it. That's why it's best to protect what everybody agrees is a person, and not what's "believed" to be a person. Some think that the embryo/fetus is a person. Big deal. Some think that a cow is a person. Big deal. Some people literally think that the earth is flat still. Seriously, look up the Flat Earth Society. It's true. Big deal. Should people's BELIEFS override the rights of those who are proven to be people? No.

"Over 1,000,000 abortions are performed each year (or as they say, "babies are killed") - how can we say that number is a good thing for America?"

I say it's not good or bad. It's an operation. If one million heart surgeries were performed every year, nobody would say that they are good or bad. Nobody would say that they should be made illegal. Nobody would be using the law to pester people to watch their health to avoid this surgery. We would just accept that sometimes heart surgery is needed and get on with life. That's what people need to accept about abortion. It's not good or bad. It's just needed for some women.

"So here's the change: instead of arguing about the "rightness or wrongnes" of abortion, instead talk about the number of unwanted pregnancies. There are OVER 3 MILLION UNWANTED PREGNANCIES every single year - almost HALF OF ALL PREGNANCIES!! That's where we need to step in and talk about how we are "Pro-Life" because we value the lives of children and we want to make sure that no unwanted child is brought into this world - and the way to do that is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. If we can decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, we can decrease the number of abortions."

I do use that argument. Guess what? The anti-choice movement doesn't want to reduce pregnancy. They want to limit access to contraception and keep kids in the dark about how to protect themselves if they go too far one night (as if the older generations took "Don't have sex" as an answer, they didn't). In the end, this will lead out to more pregnancies, more abortions, and more cases of AIDS. How "pro-life" of these people for pushing this agenda.

"That way we change it from "Pro-Life" vs "Pro-Choice" to something different...I'm not sure what terms to use."

No. Pro-choice is still the correct term for us. We (pro-choicers in general, not all pro-choicers though) are saying that it should be a woman's choice to choose abortion or to give birth. We believe that it's a woman's right to decide what is best for her and her potential future kids. We believe that she knows better than any stranger politician what is best for her. That's why we're for her choice. Got it?

[WildClarySage]

12. To me the term "pro-choice"

also denotes an appreciation for reproductive technologies that make it possible for women who have fertility barriers to become pregnant. It's not just about choosing not to become pregnant, it's about having all kinds of options.

[Cooper]

30. i'm not so sure about that.

seems to me that if a woman needs an abortion, even though that may be the right thing for her, she is in a bad situation. abortion is a tool, used to fix a problem. but i don't think i could ever call it "good."

can you think of a GOOD situation that would make an abortion necessary?

[WildClarySage]

31. I don't believe value judgement enters into it.

Abortion is about rights, not about whether it is "good" or "bad"- but to answer your question, I can certainly envision situations where it is a 'good' choice.

[Cooper]

35. in terms of government, i agree.

the government shouldn't be making any value judgement about abortion. but on a personal level, each woman will have to make a definite value judgement if she is considering an abortion.

i can also think of situations where abortion is a good choice. but that doesn't make the situation good. just like heart surgery. it can be a good thing, but if you need it, you're probably in a bad situation.

[iverglas]

36. your math is pretty bad today all-round

You read the statement:

Abortion isn't good or bad.

and you respond:

i'm not so sure about that.
seems to me that if a woman needs an abortion,
even though that may be the right thing for her,
she is in a bad situation.

How could you have misread a statement that short about abortion to the extent that you responded as if it had something to do with a situation?

Does your statement somehow refute, or even inform of us of your reason for not being sure about, the statement that abortion is neither good or bad?

Not so far as I can see.

abortion is a tool, used to fix a problem.

Indeed. And that's why it isn't "good" or "bad", any more than open-heart surgery or root canal is "good" or "bad". If you need it, then getting it is good, even if it isn't a walk in the park. If you don't need it, you'd be a fool (or a victim) if you had it.

but i don't think i could ever call it "good."

Who cares? Would you bother having an opinion about my open-heart surgery, or your neighbour's root canal? Would you expect me to give a shit if you didn't think you could call my open-heart surgery "good"? Have you even offered any coherent reason why you "could" never call abortion "good"? Nope.

I'm sure you'd want to know that no one had forced me to have surgery or forced your neighbour to have dentistry. You might even be tempted to express your opinion about people who smoke and don't exercise, or people who eat candy and don't floss. But I'd hope you wouldn't waste our time telling us, or waste your time pondering whether the medical procedures we'd chosen were "good" or "bad" when we and our doctors are quite capable of doing that for ourselves.

can you think of a GOOD situation that would make
an abortion necessary?

How about: can I think of ANY reason why you would ask this apparently completely pointless question?

I can't. Maybe you can suggest one.

[nicedream815]

13. two arguments for pro-life (not mine)

i like going on conservative message boards and seeing what opposing viewpoints to mine consist of... these are two posts from an ann coulter message board.

"Say you were hunting in the woods with another hunter. You both have loaded rifles. You're looking for deer. You get separated. You don't know where your friend is. Suddenly, you hear a bush rattling behind you. You can't see what's making the bush rattle, but you think, "It's a deer!" You point your rifle and are about to fire, when you suddenly remember that you don't know where your hunting buddy is. So it could be a DEER behind the bush, or it could be your friend. Do you fire?
If not, it's because you aren't sure if that's a human, so you can't kill it until you're sure. So if you're not sure that a fetus is a human being, then you can't kill it until you're sure. No one's sure, so you can't kill a fetus."

AND

"Here's another argument I'm working on (so correct any false premises you see here.)
You get your listener to agree with each statement as you go along. They HAVE to. Each point is indisputable.
1."Everything is either an animal, vegetable, or mineral, right?" They say, "Right." (I'll just list the points below).
2. A living thing is any thing which replicates, converts energy, grows and develops.
3. Minerals are not alive.
4. All non-minerals are living things.
5. All living things are animal or vegetable.
6. No animal or vegetable EVER changes type. Eg, corn never becomes apples. An orange never becomes a fish. A zebra never becomes a monkey.
7. Therefore, whatever type of animal or vegetable a thing is, it is always that.
8. Two cells that begin to split in a human mother after conception are alive and are animal.
9. If they are left to grow, they will become a human animal.
10. Therefore they must be a human animal from the point of conception because no animal changes type."


I'm usually not one to ridicule the opposing viewpoint as just stupid, but I have to wonder how these people come up with their logic. These are two of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.
My own opinion is this: I understand that many pro-lifers are so because of a compassion for life. Many genuinely want to "protect the innocent" and have good intentions, and I admire that. I do believe that there is a strong collective subconscience in all of humanity, in all animmals, in all life, on the earth and throughout the universe, an energy that ties everything together (I don't like the word soul) However, its not really about that. It's about the rights of women to do what they want with their bodies. That's the practical side. The philosophical side is a bit more intricate. There's no way we can protect all life, all cells, from "dying." A world where no one dies, every cell has a chance to live and grow and multiply, and every organism is given the full ability to reach its full potential is not, and never was, THIS world. We either protect all fetuses now, ban abortion and contraceptive freedom and overpopulate the earth, which would kill and make suffer more people than we could ever save by banning abortion, OR.. we act prudently and wisely to give people here and now the choice to live and reproduce how they want. If abortion is murder, then so are lax environmental regulations. It seems somewhat inconsistent that certain people believe so strongly in protecting fetuses, yet do nothing to address or worry about environmental problems, war, etc. And if it seems inconsistent for someone like me to value innoncent lives in Iraq and innoncent children who suffer/retard/die from toxins in the environment, while being pro-choice, its because I value protecting the innocent, the unspoken-for, and the living in the face of decisions based on greed, arrogance and short-sightedness. Abortion freedom, though it can be construed as the "destruction" of life (which, by the way, on earth, really means the creation of life), is not the destruction of life based on greed, arrogance or short-sightedness- it is necessary "destruction" based on the realities of the world in which we have always lived. These realities are more intrinsic to our long-term survival than any advocation of zygote preservation. The world isn't black and white... one cannot advocate "life" or advocate "taking life." One must treat the world as it is, and as it best would exist for the future. And, as far as the "future" and the "long-term" go, it seems that, for some, the idea of protecting all life now is rooted not necessarily in the rejection of prudence, but in the belief, held by some, that the end of the world is nigh. We don't need, so the argument goes, to protect national parks at the expense of additional comfort we could experience from more drilling and mining, we don't need to worry about this planet's carrying capacity for humanity and the mass extinctions caused by the reaching of that human capacity for resource exploitation... we only need to protect all human life (even zygotes) because that, and only that, is the degree of morality necessary for what is going to happen to us in the near future. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of adamant pro-lifers (some people I know included) are also belivers in the end of the world, etc.

[renaissanceguy]

14. Why do we even call them pro-lifers?

These same people support the death penalty.

Why not call them ANTI-CHOICE?

They don't support a woman's right to choose, and they don't let prisoners choose to lead a better life.

[politicat]

23. I call them pro-birth, because they don't give a damn about the life of

of the child (or the mother) after it's outside and breathing. You sure as hell don't see them opening their doors and wallets to pregnant women, shelling out the bucks for child support and to compensate for time off work, adopting a few kids who were hard to place...

They're not pro-life. They just like birthdays.

Pcat

[SemperEadem]

27. pro breeders, more like it

forced breeding, more to the point.

[Royal Observer]

15. I would like to ask Planned Parenthood

Why, 30 years after Rowe v Wade, is abortion still an issue?

[iverglas]

16. did you read the article?

"I would like to ask Planned Parenthood
Why, 30 years after Rowe v Wade, is abortion still an issue?"

The answer's right there, politely framed though it is:

The anti-abortion movement is increasingly hostile to the actual concerns of real people.

Put a little less politely and a little more directly: there are many people in this world (and disproportionately more in the US than in comparable countries) (a) who hate women, and/or (b) in whose interests it is to oppress women.

[Royal Observer]

17. Where do you expect to find people who hate women?

I expect you will find very many of them in prison. The prisons are full of rapists and murderers of women. Believe it or not there are a lot of folks who want to give them the vote.
BTW do you consider the unborn to be 'real people'?

[iverglas]

18. oooo, have we met?

The prisons are full of rapists and murderers of women. Believe it or not there are a lot of folks who want to give them the vote.

Where I'm at, they HAVE the vote. As they should have. Hell, Dick Cheney does, where you're at, doesn't he? Things couldn't be worse than they got once women got the vote, could they?

BTW do you consider the unborn to be 'real people'?

Like, should they have the vote, you mean?

http://www.nilerodgers.com/HTMLversion/Live/LyricLibrary/Lyrics/RealPeople.aspx

(Be with some) Real people
I want to live my life with some real people
Yeah, yeah, real people
I'm doggonne gonna be with some real people

Throughout this great big world of ours
There are so many folks
Who just can't get involved
Now they recieved you readily
And will deceive you dreadfully
Oh yeah, it's a reality
I'll just do my best, yeah
To try and make all those
Phoney relationships dissolve
Now I suppose they can't help themselves
So I propose to surround myself
With love, and humanity, and with some

(repeat chorus)

I don't think my emotions
Can stand all of this wear and tear
They say you control your own destiny
But I can't take them getting the best
They're getting the best of me
Spread out, give me some elbow room
And some place, where I can disappear
I'm so tired of hypocrisy
And why these folks even bother me
Please just let me be

(repeat and fade)


Ah, there's some good advice. If course, "repeat" isn't actually necessary.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. I expect to find them in any group of anti-choicers...

And I'll take yr question. As a mother of a little sprog, not only do I consider the *unborn* not to be people, let alone 'real people', but I consider anyone who believes that the *unborn* are real people to be a bit lacking in basic common-sense...

Postborn Violet...

[politicat]

24. there are days when I wonder about the born people, you know?

EOM

[Scout]

21. how do "people" show their love for women?

by beating us?
by paying us less?
by "letting" us have the crappy jobs?
by trying to remove control of our bodies from us?
by using our gender as a slur on theirs?
by calling us whores, sluts, cunts, bitches, dykes, feminazis, man-haters?

hmmmm? how do people love women? let me count the ways...

[SemperEadem]

28. so are government and churches

some of them cause abortion's necessity in this society.

[Jackie97]

22. Uh...

Because anti-abortion people still want to make abortion illegal?

[SemperEadem]

25. I agree

"So here's the change: instead of arguing about the "rightness or wrongnes" of abortion, instead talk about the number of unwanted pregnancies. There are OVER 3 MILLION UNWANTED PREGNANCIES every single year - almost HALF OF ALL PREGNANCIES!! That's where we need to step in and talk about how we are "Pro-Life" because we value the lives of children and we want to make sure that no unwanted child is brought into this world - and the way to do that is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. If we can decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, we can decrease the number of abortions. "

When it's put in these terms, then the man is brought back into the equation-- sticking to the pro-life/pro-choice ends of the argument effectively excuse them from their responsibility in the creation of the unwanted pregnancy. What about the fact that missing from this whole debate is the fact that there is no mechanism to either shame the man or force him to endure the hardship of an unwanted pregnancy he co-created. Because he bears no visible indictment of his actions the way the woman does, bringing him to task is always pushed aside in the quest to control and shame the woman.

The term to use, IMO, is forced birth.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trezic]

32. Quit talking about it

Quit having rallies, quit talking about it, and leave it alone. The odds of Roe being overturned are ridiculously low. Even if Bush appointed a court of the 9 most radical conservatives imaginable, the odds of them overturning Roe would actually be lower than with the 9 most radical liberals imaginable. Why? Conservatives, much more than liberals, have a big problem with overturning predecent. Abortion really wouldn't be an issue if Democrats would finally accept the fact it's legal and nothing short of an amendment is likely to change that.

[Jackie97]

33. I used to think that too.

Until....

They passed the so called "Unborn victims of Violence Act".

They came up with 24 hour and parental consent laws (Okay, I was still naive at that point, but I'm just bringing it up).

They stooped to any low in all states to regulate abortion to make it harder for women to have them. I never realize how much hell individual states give women trying to get abortions until I learned more.

They paid a heck of a lot of attention to Islamic terrorists, but little to no attention to anti-abortion terrorists RIGHT HERE. Many doctors have left the profession and places have closed down because of this violence.

Bush reinstated the gag order on the Roe vs. Wade anniversery. That gag order didn't just hurt abortion access overseas. It also hurt contraception access and healthcare in general. As far as I'm concerned, that "man" is responsible for thousands of deaths overseas through this gag order. Culture of life my foot!

There's more than just one way to stop abortion, and I plan on fighting them all. Nobody should have a right to intimidate women into not making her own choices.

And yes, Bush is trying to make choice illegal. He even wanted to appoint a judge who said that abortionists should be executed. Do you think he won't vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade?

You're right. Most conservatives will not overturn it because they don't want to commit political suicide (not out of any gratitude for the constitution because they've proven that they don't have much supporting Bush and all). However, Bush isn't wanting to appoint just any conservatives. He wants to appoint the mad men at times. We've got to stop those judges. Not all the judges, just the insane ones. Go ahead James Dobson, criticize Democrats for filibustering to stand in the way of a judge who wants to execute women's doctors. I dare you to. That will be the end of your career.

[trezic]

34. Political suicide?

Not hardly. The simple truth is that conservative jurists are more reluctant to overturn precedent that liberals. This isn't supposition, this is fact.

The point I had hoped to make was that Democrats tend to bring the abortion issue down on their own heads. The endless rallies, the droning of the campaigns...all for an issue that is not terribly important. I have no idea how there can be a litmus test for abortion but not for free speech.

Wanting this right to extend to its logical limits just isn't practical. No right extends forever. There will be restrictions on it no matter what, a fact the Roe court recognized at the time. Choosing the lines of resistance and only, ONLY, speaking then is much smarter than keeping the issue alive and well so all the evangelicals get riled. Talking it to death only ensures opposition.

[WildClarySage]

37. You may believe that Abortion rights are not 'terribly important"

but I suspect you have never been faced with the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy. When you realize that your entire future may be changed in an instant, and all the plans, hopes and dreams you had for your life may be ruined... or when you learn that the wanted baby you carry has a tragic congenital defect and it cannot survive... or you discover that carrying a pregnancy to term may well kill you,

I'd say it's pretty damned important.

[Jackie97]

38. First.

Fundamentalists will try to get abortion illegal as long as it is legal, period. They won't be nice just because we have less rallies. They'll just move in for the kill.

We've already played nice to a point. As a result, conservatives and even Democrats have sacrificed our rights to satisfy a mobilized and very vocal anti-choice movement.

Second, I don't like Roe vs. Wade. It's a document that says that abortion can be regulated to unbareable points by the state and that it should be limited in further trimesters. Holland has no limits at all on abortion rights, but they have the lowest rate of abortion in the world. They also have healthier women, I'm sure. I don't think that the people fighting for abortion rights wanted Roe vs. Wade. They just knew that crappy ruling was the best they would get AT THE TIME. Now that time has gone by, there's no reason not to fight for more abortion rights. I'd like to work more on a state level because NC (my state) has some rules that almost make it impossible for a woman to have an abortion.

[iverglas]

39. you mean, Canada? ;)

Holland has no limits at all on abortion rights, but they have the lowest rate of abortion in the world.

Canada has no statutory limits on the exercise of the right to an abortion. Unfortunately, we don't have the lowest rate in the world.

In fact, the Netherlands does have legal limits on access to abortion:
http://en.stisan.nl/documents/content/abortus/late.abortus.asp
-- limits that I would find totally unacceptable, e.g.:

The woman must be in an emergency situation. Whether an emergency situation exists must be determined by the woman and the physician together.

The physician must provide the woman with information about other solutions for her emergency situation and must perform the treatment only when he or she is convinced that the woman has carefully considered her decision and has made the decision voluntarily;

There must be a five day waiting period between the first meeting with the physician (this may be the referring general practitioner) and the actual procedure;

One suspects that nobody pays much attention to some of this stuff in practice, but it's there in the law, which also limits access to abortion by stage of pregnancy:

Abortion may be performed until the moment that the foetus can survive outside the body of the woman. Current medical science sets this point at 24 weeks. In connection with the possible imprecision in the determination of the duration of pregnancy, treatment is in practice limited to a maximum pregnancy duration of 22 weeks.

Canada does none of this. Abortion is treated, in law, exactly like any other medical procedure or service: it is performed by medical professionals, for their patients, on terms that reflect health-care criteria, not someone else's opinions, and in circumstances that are assessed applying professional judgment, not someone else's "values".


Info about recent developments in the Netherlands:
http://en.stisan.nl/documents/content/abortus/de.ingreep.asp
and what seems to be the complete version,
http://jpog.ispog.org/Editorials/safe_abortion_is_the_cornerstone.asp

The http://en.stisan.nl/ site (‘Stichting Samenwerkende Abortusklinieken Nederland’ (Dutch Abortion Clinics Foundation)" is interesting.

[Jackie97]

40. No, I mean Holland.

They do have the lowest rate in the world. I'll get the link for that later. No time. That information that you gave just contradicted what I've been reading though. I'll have to get back to you later. I'm sorry.

I did mean to mention Canada too though, sorry.

[iverglas]

41. what I meant

The Netherlands (Holland) doesn't have no legal restrictions on abortion, which was one of the things you said. It has considerable restrictions, by law, some of which are more stringent than in the US (mandatory options counselling, mandatory 5-day waiting period).

Regarding recent rises in the rates of unwanted pregnancies: note that the sources I cited indicate that some changes are attributed to the increasingly diverse make-up of the population, and the fact that girls and women in recent immigrant groups may be more at risk for unwanted pregnancy. The open and tolerant attitude toward sexual activity that appears to be one reason for the low rate of unwanted pregnancy would not be present in some immigrant cultures, for instance.

The other factor seems to be the decline in the supports that women need in order to avoid unwanted pregnancy.

One might say it has been a mini-laboratory:

- have a culture in which sexual activity is not associated with shame and where young people and women, in particular, are respected as sexual beings, unwanted pregnancies decline; incorporate cultures in which sexual activity, particularly by young people, is treated as shameful and in which women do not exercise as much control over their sexuality, unwanted pregnancies rise;

- provide the appropriate supports, unwanted pregnancies decline; take them away, unwanted pregnancies rise.


http://jpog.ispog.org/Editorials/safe_abortion_is_the_cornerstone.asp

Unfortunately, according to a recent report published
by the Dutch Foundation of Abortion Clinics (StiSAN),
abortion rates have risen from 5.5 per 1000 women
(age 15–45) in 1992 to 8.0 in 2000, an increase of 45%
in eight years. Although this increase is in part caused
by the growth of the immigrant population, which for
various reasons is at higher risk with respect to the
occurrence of unwanted pregnancy, it cannot be denied
that the rise is also observed in teenagers and that a
certain amount of indifference and complacency, at both
the public and individual level, is also to be blamed
for this unfortunate development. Still, this figure
is significantly lower than in other Western countries
(UK 16 and US 23 per 1000 women in 1996).

Finally, the increasing market-orientation of government
policies over the last 8 years has resulted in the gradual
abolition of subsidies for the earlier mentioned counseling
centers. As a result of this policy most of the Rutgers
clinics gradually disappeared leaving only seven clinics
in 2002.

[Jackie97]

44. Sorry.

Sorry I misunderstood you earlier. I still think I should present my source though.

Okay, here’s the source I was talking about regarding the Netherlands. It mentions Canada as well.

http://www.who.int/archives/whday/en/pages1998/whd98_10.html

“Contrary to common belief, legalisation of abortion does not necessarily increase abortion rates. The Netherlands, for example, has a non-restrictive abortion law, widely accessible contraceptives and free abortion services, and the lowest abortion rate in the world ¬ 5.5 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age per year.16 Barbados, Canada, Tunisia and Turkey have all changed abortion laws to allow for greater access to legal abortion without increasing abortion rates.16”

I do think you’re right. I do think that Holland’s being more open about sexuality decreases unwanted pregnancy rates. I’d like to get around them more to know what this openness is that they talk about. Is it just that they’re really straight forward about the facts or more open in general?

[noamnety]

42. We need to challenge the definition of pro-life

Each and every time it's used, we need to ask for clarification, so that it becomes more inconvenient for people to use it as a label than for them to actually clarify their position.

It's not enough to change the word we use, we need to challenge them on that word. Each time someone uses it, we need to respond along these lines:

I'm not sure what you mean by pro-life. Do you mean anti-abortion? For all women, or just for rape victims? Anti-death penalty? Anti-birth control? Anti-war?

Make them clarify, because any answer they give is NOT how they want to frame the issue, but it IS more accurate.

[iverglas]

43. the discourse of rights

It's a difficult discourse in the US; an awful lot of people there really just don't value the concept of rights. Defenders of women's right to choose go off on tangents about why women have abortions, and all sorts of silly rot about their personal opinions of abortion and women who have them (whether positive or negative), when this is not the issue.

Allowing one's self to be engaged by the right wing on tangents like that amounts to giving one's cause the kiss of death. Once one begins to justify doing something one has a right to do, in circumstances in which no one has presented any acceptable reason for preventing one from doing it, one is arguing from weakness.

In Canada's 2004 election, abortion was a minor issue, in that the Conservative Party's discourse on the issue was one of the reasons a lot of ordinary people didn't trust it. But the left (NDP) and less-right (Liberal) parties did not let the right wing get away with any effort to claim any moral high ground on the issue, and stuck to the issue: rights.

(For the NDP, this is a matter of principle; for the Liberal leadership, it tends to be more a matter of expediency, although for many prominent and rank-and-file Liberals it is also a matter of principle.)

Here's what discussion of reproductive rights sounded like in one leadership debate:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/CanadaVotes/2004/06/15/500820-cp.html

Questioned both by <Liberal PM> Martin and Jack Layton of the NDP, <Conservative leader> Harper tried to dismiss hints of a "hidden agenda" on rights questions.

"I've said repeatedly, I will not, my Conservative government will not, be tabling any legislation impacting in any way a women's right to choose," he said.

... <Martin said to Harper> "You're saying to us that you will allow fundamental rights to be determined by the whim of a political party or maybe by the leader because you will refuse to guarantee rights that are in the charter."

... Martin came right back without a pause: "Would you use the notwithstanding clause in the case of a woman's right to choose? Will you protect it?"

"I will not have legislation limiting a woman's right to choose," Harper replied.

... Martin counterattacked:

"I brought forth these rights issues because these are fundamental to our democracy. In a nation of immigrants such as we are, if we're not prepared to protect minority rights then, in fact, what we are doing is saying our values do not count."

See those words??

Rights.
Values.
Fundamental rights.
Fundamental to our democracy.
A woman's right to choose.

Another story about Liberal women denouncing the right-wing assault on women's right to choose:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/election/national/2004/06/08/elexnlib040608.html

Yes, the context is different; over 3/4 of Canadians believe that women should have absolutely free choice in respect of abortion:
http://election.cupe.ca/www/question_of_the_day/what_is_your_positio

And the discourse of rights is familiar to Canadians, who hear and talk about rights on a regular basis.

But neglecting or refusing to talk about rights, to say that something is a right, to point out that other people are entitled to exercise their own rights for their own reasons, just as the people you are talking to are entitled to do -- surely that is just self-defeating.

So when I see this:

"So here's the change: instead of arguing about the 'rightness or wrongness' of abortion, instead talk about the number of unwanted pregnancies."

I see good intentions, but an ultimately futile argument. People who do not hesitate to oppress women by denying women reproductive choice are not going to be swayed by their sympathy for women with unwanted pregnancies; they have none.

"If we can decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, we can decrease the number of abortions."

And here we're not even "arguing about the 'rightness or wrongness' of abortion", we're just agreeing that it's wrong.

And even if this succeeded in persuading people to devote effort and funds to ways that women can avoid unwanted pregnancies, if they came to see this as a way of preventing abortions -- how would that protect women's right to choose?

That's the issue, and that's why the other side is called anti-choice.

Instead of arguing about the "rightness or wrongness" of abortion, assert the wrongness of violating people's fundamental rights.

"We can talk about 'protecting a woman's right to choose' but again that's an argument they can win by bringing up phrases like 'murder' and 'killing babies' ..."

They may win some votes, but they do not win the argument. I realize that it's the votes you want, but I hardly see how conceding the argument, to an opponent who is spouting vicious nonsense, helps in that effort.

There's an awfully long road to travel to begin to reclaim the discourse of rights, to restore rights to their, ahem, rightful place in the political arena and the political discourse in the US. But it's really the only damned way to win the battle. Rights are the shield against oppression.