Because Hey, Not all Dems agree on abortion

[usregimechange]

Democrats for Abortion Policy Reform
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Democrats4abortion_reform/

[shesemsmom]

1. I would not have one myself but

I believe it is a womans right to deal with her body. NOT THE GOVERNMENT

[DemBones DemBones]

3. I believe the government has the right

to regulate abortion and I think it should be restricted more than it is at present.
Unborn babies have been considered to be non-persons and I think that's incorrect. I think unrestricted abortion on demand has made abortion too easy to obtain and is part of why our society has been becoming so much more negative and angry over the years.

I'd like to see us moving toward the ideal of no demand/ no need for abortion through better education about sex and contraception and programs to help women have and raise babies that they would like to keep if they weren't feeling economic pressure to abort. But I'd also like to see some restrictions on abortion.

For which I'll probably be flamed, but that's OK. It needs to be said by progressives that all human life is valuable.

[Djinn]

4. what?

"I think unrestricted abortion on demand has made abortion too easy to obtain and is part of why our society has been becoming so much more negative and angry over the years."

for a start abortion is actually almost IMPOSSIBLE to access in large parts of the US and secondly how on earth has it made society more negative.

[sweetbutterfly]

34. where?

Where is abortion actually almost impossible in "large parts of the U.S."?

[Scout]

35. 80% of counties in the US have no abortion provider.

[sweetbutterfly]

36. facts please

Please tell where that "statistic" is found...besides your post. Seems to me that with the numbers of abortions being performed...they're available somewhere.

[REP]

40. Look Here

"The number of abortion providers declined by 11% between 1996 and 2000 (from 2,042 to 1,819). 87% of all U.S. counties lacked an abortion provider in 2000. These counties were home to 34% of all 15–44-year-old women."
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904509.html

"Eighty-seven percent of U.S. counties have no abortion provider; a third of women aged 15-44 live in those counties. Nearly one in four women obtaining an abortion travel more than 50 miles to reach a provider, and 8% travel more than 100 miles." (Henshaw SK and Finer LB, "The accessibility of abortion services in the United States," 2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2003, 35(1):16-24.

Seems that statistic is found in almanacs and peer-reviewed medical journals. Well, golly gee!

[Scout]

37. Couldn't find my source for 80% figure

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3501603.html

Couldn't find my source for 80% figure ... but found this one for 87%

Measures of availability have generally declined since 1982: The number of abortion providers in the United States has fallen by 37%, and the proportion of women who live in counties with no abortion provider has increased from 28% to 34%.2 In 2000, 86 of the country's 276 metropolitan areas and almost all nonmetropolitan areas had no abortion provider.3
<snip>

For many women, barriers to abortion services are significantly more common than are obstacles to other common types of reproductive health care. For example, only 13% of U.S. counties have an abortion provider,18 while obstetric-gynecologic care is available in half of all counties.19

[sweetbutterfly]

38. "almost IMPOSSIBLE"

and how that cite proves "for a start abortion is actually almost IMPOSSIBLE to access in large parts of the US"...travelling 50 miles does not make it almost IMPOSSIBLE. I had to drive half that distance to get to a grocery store growing up...it didn't make eating "almost IMPOSSIBLE".

[REP]

39. How Does A Person Without a Car Drive 50 Miles?

"Almost impossible" is not quite the same as "impossible." Either you're being disingenuous or simply dishonest.

[iverglas]

42. did you have a point?

Oh, and by the way ... did you have a source for

"travelling 50 miles does not make it almost IMPOSSIBLE"

... or were you maybe not actually saying that 50 miles is all that women anywhere in the US have to travel to access abortion services?

If you weren't saying that all women in the US live within 50 miles of a point of access for abortion services, what were you saying?

And back to the point ... what was your point?

Maybe we need to go back to the beginning.

Djinn wrote:

for a start abortion is actually almost IMPOSSIBLE to access in large parts of the US

(and you should probably know that Djinn doesn't live in the US, so heck, maybe she's got it wrong, who knows?)

You then (cleverly replying directly to the post in question, and apparently asking a question directly to the poster in question) asked:

Where is abortion actually almost impossible in "large parts of the U.S."?

(It's an oddly framed question, but we won't stand on syntax here.)

Scout replied:

80% of counties in the US have no abortion provider.

You then asked for "facts":

Please tell where that "statistic" is found...besides your post.

What ... were you actually afraid that Scout would reply "in my post" if you didn't issue that stern little warning against it? Surely you weren't implying that you believed (or that anyone else ought to believe) that what you called the "statistic" could not be found anywhere but in Scout's post.

And Scout gave 'em:

For example, only 13% of U.S. counties have an abortion provider

... and still you're not happy (are you a cup-half-empty person?) --

and how that cite proves "for a start abortion is actually almost IMPOSSIBLE to access in large parts of the US"

Of course, the problem here is that no one said that the statistic in question proved any such thing. If you lost the thread somewhere along the line, or read between some lines where you maybe shouldn't have, perhaps the foregoing brief review will now help you get back on track.

Djinn said one thing. Scout responded with another thing. I didn't notice either of them, or anyone else, asserting that thing two proved thing one. Did you?

So maybe you can tell us. Do all women in the US live within 50 miles of a point of access for abortion services?

You may want to consider some of the facts Scout provided (or, of course, refute them, if that's your wish); for instance:

86 of the country's 276 metropolitan areas ... had no abortion provider.

You could ask yourself how likely it is that if there is no abortion provider in the metropolis, there's one in the hinterland of that metropolis ... particularly considering that

almost all nonmetropolitan areas had no abortion provider.

You could even research the question. Find out what proportion of USAmerican women live in "metropolitan areas". Maybe even find an on-line listing of abortion providers and plot them on a map.

Maybe even mean what you say and say what you mean. The question again: are you saying that no woman in the US lives more than 50 miles from a point of access for abortion services?

Me, I dunno. I don't live there. And I can tell you that lots of women in Canada live more than 50 miles from an abortion provider. Lots of people in Canada live more than 50 miles from much of anything, but that's kind of a matter of geography and demographics in most -- though not all -- cases. (Of course, lots of us live less than a mile from anything we might need or want, including abortion providers.)

We consider it a problem that there are women who have to travel for abortion services that could easily be provided in their communities. I expect that many USAmericans do too. People like us don't think that saying that it is not IMPOSSIBLE to access services one needs is a good response to the fact that it is UNNECESSARILY DIFFICULT to access services one needs.

So I guess I'm still wondering ... what's your point?

[sweetbutterfly]

44. Point

I'm still trying to figure out how it can be asserted that it is almost impossible to access abortions in most parts of the U.S. That "fact" was asserted, I'm looking for backup. So far, no one has provided it. If someone says something and asserts it as a fact, I like to know it's true...apparently people on these boards don't have that same desire. It's okay...slogans are fun...they just don't get you to the truth.

[Scout]

45. in your quest for edification...

you could perhaps start by reading the article at the link I posted. Or at least skim the headings.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3501603.html

[iverglas]

46. Pennsylvania, you got a problem

I'm still trying to figure out how it can be asserted that it is almost impossible to access abortions in most parts of the U.S. That "fact" was asserted, I'm looking for backup.

I'm afraid you might be searching til the next Domesday.

What was asserted was this:

abortion is actually almost IMPOSSIBLE to access in large parts of the US

Memory playing tricks on you? Or something more vicey versey?

I don't know many people who look at the words "large parts" and see "most". But ya never know, there might be people who look at someone saying that someone said "most" when no one said any such thing, and believe it.

If someone says something and asserts it as a fact, I like to know it's true...apparently people on these boards don't have that same desire.

I'm right with ya there! It's just that in this case, I knew that it wasn't true, so I didn't have to go asking any questions.

Me, if someone makes a big hoohah about how something might not be true, I just like to think that someone has some reason for doing it. Or, more accurately, that someone has some basis for doing it. It might be fairly obvious that s/he has some reason for doing it, and what that reason might be likely to be.

[sweetbutterfly]

48. thanks

"Abortion is actually almost impossible to access in large parts of the U.S."

There...did I get the quote right? Still don't see any facts supporting that assertion?

Thanks for the link...read it...still don't see where it provides back up for the assertion...perhaps someone would like to retract the assertion. Perhaps a mistake was made. Thank you though for perservering with my attempt to understand the "facts".

[iverglas]

49. here's one for you

My hair is almost blonde.

Now, we could really argue all day -- or for all eternity -- about whether my hair is "almost blonde", couldn't we just?

And the thing is, we could argue for just as long about what "almost blonde" itself is.

If we were using different criteria for assessing whether my hair is "almost blonde", we might very well just never agree.

We'd both be looking at my hair, and one of us would be saying "nope, there's some grey at the temples there, so it's too far off blonde for me to say it's almost blonde", and the other would be saying "it's about 95% blonde, and that's enough for me to say it's almost blonde".

The problem is that when Person A doesn't know what Person B's criteria are, Person A has no idea how to prove anything to Person B.

In the courts, we have rules. Things like "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases and "on a balance of probabilities" in civil cases. And, of course, all sorts of argument and instructions about what they mean. But everybody has a reasonably decent idea of the standard they have to meet.

Why don't you tell us? What is the standard of proof that someone would have to meet in order to satisfy you that abortion services are "almost impossible" to access in large parts of the US? (Oops, I guess while we're at it, you'd maybe better tell us what your standard of proof for "large parts" is too, eh?)

That way, everybody who is busily trying to keep you, um, sweet, will know what their task is, and won't be bumping around in the dark, trying like that other blondie to guess what Rumpelstiltskin's name was.

Are there multiple factors, that must be combined in a certain way? Distance, expense, mandatory waiting periods, ability to pay, ability to travel ... and are you weighting those factors in establishing the overall standard to meet? If ability to pay and ability to travel are present, distance and expense don't matter?

Now of course, you might save yourself and everybody else a bunch of trouble if you'd provide just a smidgen more information first.

1. Why do you want proof of this assertion? Why does it matter to you whether it is or isn't "almost impossible" for some number of women in the US to access abortion services? Why is it important to you (as it sure seems to be) that it be established that it is not "almost impossible"?

2. -- and this is the big one -- Why would anybody else care what you want or why you want it or when you'll be satisfied that you've got it?

[REP]

51. You Are Being Dishonest

Perhaps you'd like to read post #40 and and retract your ridiculous assertions that no one has provided documentation. Faiure to retract your ridiculous, inaccurate and dishonest statement will demonstrate that you are not interested in the truth, and have only come here to disrupt.

[REP]

50. Are You Being Dishonest On Purpose?

I posted two sources for the 80%+ of US counties without abortion services figure in post #40 on 1/20/04. To say that "so far, no one has provided it" is incorrect. In fact, it almost looks as though you are being purposely dishonest. Why is that?

[sweetbutterfly]

52. Perhaps you are not reading my post

I am not being dishonest. No one has pointed to facts to substantiate that abortions are almost impossible to access in large parts of the country. But, we've been down this road before. We respectfully disagree. To call me a "disruptor" or dishonest is really uncalled for.

[REP]

53. I See - You ARE Being Dishonest. Thanks For the Clarification

No one has pointed to facts to substantiate that abortions are almost impossible to access in large parts of the country.

I did. See post #40. You are being dishonest intentionally. Thank you for the clarification.

[REP]

41. See Post #40

No need to apologize for your mistake, unless you were purposely being dishonest.

[WildClarySage]

5. I love it when people say that abortion can be associated

with a negative effect on society. People have always treated each other like crap. Look at slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK- or how about Japanese Internment camps during WWII- or the state of mental health institutions as recently as the 1970's- or poorhouses- or the Magdalene Laundries- or witch hunts, literal and figurative, such as McCarthyism- or the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition- or how about Apartheid- or Pogroms and the Holocaust- or colonialisation- or...

I can go on and on. My point is that legal abortion has not disintigrated the respect people have traditionally held for their fellow men (or women.) It hasn't been until the second half of the 20th Century that the concept of Human Rights has taken hold of the consciousness of western society. We are just beginning to respect other humans, we are not losing a long-held respect because of legal abortion.

[REP]

6. Things Really Went Downhill When Women Where Given The Vote

You know and I know that abortion has nothing to do with the horrors of this world, and that for some women, there will never be enough money in the world to make them bear a child she does not want, or that not all women are capable of surviving pregnancy (or that not all pregnancies are viable). But some people like to pretend that pweshush pweborn poppets are more important than living, breathing women - until she has an unwanted pregnancy and suddenly abortion "for rape, incest or me" is okay.

[Royal Observer]

12. Ah, those were the good old days!

"People have always treated each other like crap. Look at slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK- or how about Japanese Internment camps during WWII- or the state of mental health institutions as recently as the 1970's- or poorhouses- or the Magdalene Laundries- or witch hunts, literal and figurative, such as McCarthyism- or the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition- or how about Apartheid- or Pogroms and the Holocaust- or colonialisation- or..."
;-)

[iverglas]

7. c'mon, dbdb

I believe the government has the right
to regulate abortion and I think it should be restricted more than it is at present.

You're anti-choice and you know it. I sure do.

You "believe" the government has the right to regulate abortion. Bully for you. I believe there are faeries at the bottom of my garden. Someone should care what you "believe" about the government's rights (governments don't have rights, btw) ... why? When there are supreme courts and suchlike whose opinions tend to be much more worth listening to? Or even people who bother to present facts and arguments in support of why their beliefs should be reflected in law.

You "think" abortion should be restricted more than it is at present. I think your posting on the internet should be restricted more than it is at present. Are we even now? I think so. Neither of us has said anything that anybody else needs to pay any attention to. That would be because what constitutions and constitutional courts say about restricting the exercise of people's fundamental rights just tends to carry a little more weight than what you and I "think".


Gotta love the so-called Democrats at that site. Why, one of them is even named "outinforce".

[shesemsmom]

9. that would be fine except for the continual cutting of funds for birth

control. If people can't afford that they certainly can't afford to raise kids.Which leads to other problems.

[Quill Pen]

10. Same old sh*t, different century

>>>I think unrestricted abortion on demand has made abortion too easy to obtain and is part of why our society has been becoming so much more negative and angry over the years.<<<

Same old sh*t, different century: wherever there are women who decide, for whatever reasons, that they don't want to have children -- whether it's at that particular time in their lives, or ever -- there's always some clown nearby, ready with his/her branding iron or scarlet letter, to blame her decision for all the debasement and evil in society, and flay her for it.

I'm not even going to get into what the hell "abortion" has to do with "becoming so much more negative and angry." "A fat lot of f*ck-all" would be my answer.

[yo-yo-ma]

13. Abortion is part of contraception

is part of women's health.

Clearly we need to burth control and sex ed etc., but there will always be undesired and unplanned pregnancies.

The whole phrase "on demand" has a rather callous way of framing women who choose abortion.

It should simply be available, safe and legal - and no one elses business.

[cjmr]

19. No, abortion is not part of contraception...

Abortion is a form of birth control, in that it prevents a pregnancy from resulting in a live birth.

Contraception is the prevention of conception. When used properly no pregnancy occurs.

Equal access to contraception for all women will reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies.

And, by the way, unplanned pregnancy and undesired pregnancy are also not synonyms.

[REP]

20. Define "Pregnancy"

If by "pregnancy" you mean a sperm fertilizes an ovum, then yes, some formulations of the Pill cause "abortions" by preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the endometrium. IUDs also work by making implantation impossible. If you by "pregnancy" you mean the fertilized egg implanted in the endometrium (the medical definition of pregnancy) then fewer methods of contraception could be considered 'abortive' by the Junior Anti-Sex League.

[cjmr]

22. According to my genetics textbook...

30% to 50% of fertilized eggs don't divide properly and/or never implant (due to genetic anomalies or sometimes for no known reason). So imho pregnancy doesn't occur at the moment sperm joins egg.

My personal definition is that if fertilization yields a viable, dividing pre-embryo then the woman has conceived and after implantation is actually pregnant. I don't have a problem with birth control methods like IUDs that prevent implantation, I just disagree with calling them contraceptives.

[REP]

26. So, Some Abortions Are Okay, Then?

My personal definition is that if fertilization yields a viable, dividing pre-embryo then the woman has conceived and after implantation is actually pregnant.

Your 'personal definition,' though, has no legal bearing and no real meaning.

I don't have a problem with birth control methods like IUDs that prevent implantation, I just disagree with calling them contraceptives.

So, if it kills a viable blastocyst (or a very tiny precious preborn poppet), that's okay, but once it's attached to a woman, all bets are off?

[cjmr]

28. How did we get from here to here?

me: I don't have a problem with birth control methods like IUDs that prevent implantation, I just disagree with calling them contraceptives.

you: So, if it kills a viable blastocyst (or a very tiny precious preborn poppet), that's okay, but once it's attached to a woman, all bets are off?

Not quite sure how we got from my defining the terms that I use when talking about this issue, to you assuming that I am 100% against abortion.


me: My personal definition is that if fertilization yields a viable, dividing pre-embryo then the woman has conceived and after implantation is actually pregnant.

you: Your 'personal definition,' though, has no legal bearing and no real meaning.


Duh! Of course it doesn't. But you asked me to define pregnancy, so I did.

[iverglas]

24. a simple misunderstanding ... and a tangent of mine own

Of course abortion is not part of "contraception", since contraception (against-conception) is the prevention of conception, and abortion can only take place after conception and implantation.

But plainly the poster was using "contraception" to mean "birth control". The two are commonly used interchangeably, and a non-Latin scholar (or someone just not thinking of the technicalities) could easily have switched the two.

Birth control commonly refers to contraception, of course. But there are methods of birth control (apart from abortion) that aren't, technically, "contraceptive". A diaphragm or cap is contraceptive; an IUD is possibly "abortifacient".

I don't agree with REP that the pill is abortifacient (I may be paraphrasing).

There are indeed theories that, if it fails to prevent ovulation (its intended function), it might prevent implantation of the egg, if the egg is fertilized.

These are theories (as in hypotheses, unlike the "theory of evolution"). I know of no proof that the pill does function in that manner. I know of no way that the theory could be tested, actually. (Maybe by inserting an ovum fertilized in vitro into the uterus of a woman on the pill? Seems pointless.)

Even if the pill did function that way and could be proved to function that way, it would not be its intended function, and that's important in the socio-political context in which this discussion arises. The issue arises in respect of the morning-after pill specifically, but there is no logical distinction.

If the allegedly potentially abortifacient (more correctly, anti-implantation) effects of the pill were to be a basis for not prescribing or dispensing it for reasons of "conscience" -- as some physicians and pharmacists claim -- then there are hosts of other medications that they would be able to deny women. All women, not just obviously pregnant women. Who knows which of us might have a fertilized or implanted ovum in our tummies? Who knows which of those drugs that pregnant women are advised not to take might cause it to be expelled? Who wants physicians and pharmacists making the decision about what medications any of us may take based on his/her theory that we might be carrying a fertilized ovum around? Could any woman of fertile age be exempt from their scrutiny and denial of service?

And hey -- why aren't they denying those kinds of services? When I've had x-rays I've been asked whether I might be pregnant -- but I haven't been denied the x-ray if I've said "no". I have over the counter medications that advise me not to take them if I am pregnant -- but I'm not interrogated by the cashier before being allowed to buy them.

The pill and the morning-after pill are no different from any other medication in this respect. They are taken with the intention of preventing ovulation, an effect that they are known to have. No theorized side effect is grounds for interfering with women's right to choose to take them for that purpose.

A tangent, but one I consider to be important.

Some of the things we commonly call "contraceptives" may or may not prevent implantation of a fertilized egg (i.e. the product of a conception that has already occurred). A whole lot of other things we do to/with our bodies may have the same consequence. They're our bodies, and we get to do them.

In that sense, abortion and "contraception" really aren't that different.

[Wisc Badger]

27. And harder to obtain in the second trimester

and almost non existent in the third trimester.

[OnionPatch]

14. I have to agree with you and risk the flaming also

I am a progressive because I value life. I will not defend a desert pupfish and turn my back on a tiny human life.
The idea that a woman's body is her own is relevant and a good point, but not enough IMO to merit unrestricted abortion.
Before you accuse me of not being liberal, here is my answer to the abortion issue: I favor working on changing society in ways that stop unwanted pregnancy from being such a shameful thing. (Of course, I favor better birth control methods and easier adoption and all those other things.)

[REP]

15. That's Not Good Enough

Nothing will ever make some women want to be mothers - nothing. Yes, better birth control and easier access to sterilization is an answer, but forcing those women to give birth is not and never will be. Some women will never want to mother more children than they already have, no matter what. Forcing them to give birth or turning them into being broodmares for the wealthy infertile (you never hear of well-of women giving up their infants to poor infertile women, do you?) is not the answer and never will be.

Pro-liars made made single motherhood acceptable long ago; there is little else that can be done to make it trendier.

Adoption is easy if you're not the one pregnant against your will for nine months, then undergoing painful labor and delivery, and then abandoning your helpless newborn to strangers. Numerous studies, including the Koop Report, agree that adoption is much harder on women psychologically than is abortion, and yet pro-liars want to inflict this damage on as many women as possible. No thanks, and a hearty Fuck You to all of them who think it's a good idea.

[eleny]

16. "It needs to be said by progressives that all human life is valuable"

And you need to be advised that when it comes to other women - you don't have the right to force that opinion on them. You have every right and obligation to make up your own mind *for yourself* and leave your nose out of other women's wombs.

Btw, I happen to believe that life begins at conception. I just as firmly believe that abortion is not necessarily a moral decision. Whatever kind of decision it is, it's up to the pregnant woman herself because it's her body, mind and spirit that's in charge.

[politicat]

17. I take it you've never had to try to get an abortion.

Okay. Let me walk you thought this. You're pregnant, you know you can't have it, you've wrangled and wrestled with yourself, maybe your partner or parents, and made the decision, which is hard to make for many women.

First, you locate a clinic. The majority of women don't have a clinic within their counties - 85%; approximately half of the women in the US have to travel at least 100 miles for an abortion, and 30 % will live so far away from a clinic that they'll have to stay overnight in a car, a hotel, or in some lucky cases, a borrowed guest room in a stranger's house. You may have a preliminary exam you have to go through; if that's the case, you may have to make this trip twice, taking time off of work or school, arranging transportation - and if secrecy is an issue, coming up with lies to cover your tracks.

Next, you come up with the money: $350-$600, cash. Some places take checks. Few take credit cards. But mostly, this is still a cash transaction. (Feels rather back alley, doesn't it?) Sometimes your partner helps, sometimes not. Sometimes your parents help, sometimes not. Rarely, if you're really poor, you can get it subsidized by some private charitable organization; even more rarely, you can sometimes get it covered by insurance. Don't ask Medicaid or the Armed Forces insurance or the Federal insurance to cover it, though. The Neo-cons have ram-rodded that one through already. Women who work for the Feds aren't supposed to get pregnant, and if they do, they're supposed to want it. (Until the Clinton administration, the Government employees' health plans did not cover contraceptives... though they did cover "erectile dysfunction.")

Third, you travel and you wait. And wait, and wait. The national average waiting room time at an abortion clinic is 5 hours. The doctors are overloaded because they keep getting shot and sued by women claiming post-abortion trauma, usually induced by the anti-abortion folk. Lots of them have quit. If you're using Planned Parenthood, you won't get anesthesia, only novacaine, and that's not enough, quite frequently. And you thought a trip to the dentist was bad... This is worse. There are usually only women there, most are alone. Planned Parenthood requires someone come with you, but they make exceptions. There's no talking, no sharing of misery, no singing Kum Bah Yah. (Might not be a bad idea to alleviate the loneliness of the situation, but...) While PP encourages you to bring someone, they don't encourage you to talk. You'll flip through a few ancient magazines and probably listen to some hideous trash TV. The last time I went with someone, there was a Springer on... "She Aborted Our Baby, but it Wasn't Mine." Ghastly irony. It's a taste of Hell. (I'm not asking for a hot stone massage and a pedicure, but they really do need to work on reducing the Back Alley flavor of the tone.)

Fourth, you go home and you deal with the fact that you feel relief and some mixed emotions, while everyone around you wants you either happy that it's over, or grief that you had to make this decision, or shame that you're such a horrible person.

If you think that's easy, I want to know what hard and painful is on your planet.

Pcat

[REP]

21. Get With the Program! Abortion is *FUN*!

You make it sound so dreary and medical. Don't you know women who have abortions have them because they had some time to fill between their hair appointment and their nail salon?

And you totally forgot to tell about all the fun, happy people waiting for you at the clinic to welcome you! Some of them take pictures of you and your car (they don't send copies, but sometimes you can find them on the 'net) and some of them cheer you on with encouraging chants like "Babykilling Whore!" and "Burn in Hell!" That's the bestest part about an abortion - all the new friends you can make trying to get in and out of the clinic!

[politicat]

18. "All human life is valuable." Been to Sudan recently?

Life on this planet is cheap and getting cheaper. And an ounce of cells with unique DNA is not life. It's potential. Life requires replication - of which a conceptus, embryo or fetus has only the potential to do; it resists entropy - it remains at a level of organization or becomes more organized as time passes; it replaces parts of itself on an ongoing basis; it is responsive to its environment - which a C/E/F is only marginally so; it continues through others - also something which the C/E/F only has the potential to do; it maintains homeostasis, a state of constancy that is not at all characteristic of the C/E/F. In the early weeks of pregnancy - when 95+% of abortions are performed - life for the Conceptus/embryo is rather a courtesy for the potential represented.

I'm not saying that all human life should not be considered valuable, but we have bigger issues than 1.3 million abortions a year if we're going to back that idea. How about the 500,000 people who are in debt bondage every year? The million children who fend for themselves before they reach the age of 10? The several million who die of preventable disease and famine every year? We can't add 1.3 million people to the US, 1.3 million babies who will consume at the rate of 20% of the world's resources. We can't afford them.

You know, when I hear that phrase, "All human life is valuable," it's never out of the mouth of an Indian out-caste or a Sudanese refugee. It's rarely out of the mouth of a poor Hispanic woman who works three jobs to support her family. It's usually out of the mouth of a well-to-do, middle-aged white woman who has never had to worry about whether the heat was going to be cut off. And she rarely means that African fetuses and South American fetuses are valuable. Whether she realizes it or not, she means white fetuses from American teenagers to be given to her infertile friends who just don't want a Chinese baby or a four year old black kid. The wealthy matron who believes that all life is valuable rarely has adopted a couple of foster kids with special needs; she doesn't go to the new single mother's house and help wash out diapers, even though she convinced the girl not to have an abortion. She doesn't even drop off a packet of disposables for that girl. For her, all life is valuable because she views her own life as valuable and the lives of those superficially like her as valuable. But she doesn't even know about lives not at all like hers, when life is expendable.

Prove me wrong, but that's what I've seen, working as a clinic escort, working with women's rights groups, and working with abortion advocates. Those of us who know that life is cheap don't fuss about abortions.

Pcat

[Maat]

23. Amen, Politicat.

This retired social worker, and current law student, agrees with you.

When I had to find homes for abandoned and/or neglected children, the result of someone convincing the drug-addicted birthmother that abortion was 'wrong,' that white upper-middle-class broad was nowhere around to help.

And BTW, my precious daughter came to me a special way (adoption), and she is the most perfect, precious daughter ever. She came from a very rough environment, and was probably exposed to either alcohol or illegal drug in utero. But, we have been very blessed.

[BPD2258]

31. Congratulations!

Thank goodness the drug-addicted birthmother of your baby made the right choice. Enjoy her for the rest of her life.

[BPD2258]

30. Life is cheap?

WOW... that should be on a banner at the next NARAL meeting. I'm sorry you have become so hardened to humanity, but most of us progressive Democrats still see the good in most people. Taking a world view of the horrors that humanity commits on itself is overwhelming. Let's work on our country first and then we can spread out. Of course, that's never going to happen in this country since everyone enjoys sniping each other and holding firm to their beliefs come hell or high water. Never mind agreeing to disagree. It's more like my way or the highway.

[iverglas]

32. sez who?

"Cheap"ness is not a measure of the value of something to any particular individual. And I do hope you were not ascribing a belief that life should be cheap to the person you were addressing, 'cause hmm, I just wouldn't see any basis for doing that, myself.

Bubble gum is cheap. There: now, have I said that bubble gum is worthless, that I place no value on it? Don't think so. But no matter how much I love and value bubble gum, I don't set the price, and it's still cheap.

An observation that life is cheap is not a statement that the speaker does not value life. Perhaps you didn't get the distinction.

I guess, though ...

"I'm sorry you have become so hardened to humanity, but most of us progressive Democrats still see the good in most people."

... you didn't. You seem to be (claiming to be) thinking that the person you are addressing subscribes to the views that s/he was reporting -- the views of people who do not value other people's lives. Disingenuous much?

"Life is cheap?
WOW... that should be on a banner at the next NARAL meeting."

And ... why would that be? I'm quite failing to take your point, I'm afraid.

The original speaker, a well-known member of the anti-choice brigade, had said:

It needs to be said by progressives that all human life is valuable.

My own response would have been to ask how much she'd give me for my big toe. But it's equally valid to point out that life is actually not valued very much by the very people who so often make so much noise about how valuable human life (or at least, the bit of living human material in a pregnant woman's uterus) is ... and who too often are the ones setting the price on other people's lives.

"Taking a world view of the horrors that humanity commits on itself is overwhelming."

Yeah, and enjoying the benefits that accrue to one as a result of the horrors that others suffer -- which is what those people who don't value other people's lives tend to do -- is disgusting.

"Let's work on our country first and then we can spread out."

And your suggestion to that end -- in this context, i.e. the forum where you thought that statement was relevant -- is ...?

[BPD2258]

47. Sez me...

Alrighty, I'm not going to try and match the obvious level of skill you have with the written word. I did appreciate the fact that you felt the need to respond to almost every word I typed except the part that talked about sniping others opinions. But, I do believe I can respond to some of your responses.

I know there are many definitions of "cheap". I reread the original users board and I still get the impression that they are using the word cheap in the sense of worthless or inferior. My point was that life, any life, including unborn, unwanted, inferior or worthless is not cheap. I got the impression that they had seen some pretty horrible things in their professions and it's easy to become hardened to humanity. Which brings me to the next point...

I was not being disingenuous. It seemed very obvious that there were many situations that the person had witnessed that caused them to feel so negative about humanity. I was being frank to let them know that they don't have to see everyone that way. And...

My NARAL comment was supposed to be funny, but I guess this is the wrong forum for humor. Equating the worth of your big toe to the worth of a baby is childish and not worthy of a response. I read every day where pro-lifers do horrible things to their children and where pro-choicers do horrible things to their children. It's easy to stereotype a group, but I try to remember the millions of other parents who do everything right and bring up responsible, well-adjusted children like you or me. The only problem with society is that we are all human and humans are inherently flawed.

I just realized that nothing I say here is going to change the way you feel about me. We don't know each other and we'll never meet. We are just two people with differing opinions who don't understand the other side. You may think you know what I'm thinking, but believe me, you don't. Just like my not understanding you. Oh, well... we can still be co-Americans and we still follow the same laws and constitution and when there is another national tragedy, we may find ourselves standing side-by-side singing the national anthem.

[ever_green]

25. My views exactly!

I think most of us feel this way.

[iverglas]

29. btw, governments don't have "rights"

... unless it's as parties to a contract or some such thing.

Governments are constitutionally permitted to interfere in the exercise of individuals' rights when they can demonstrate the appropriate justification for doing so.

And "I think it should be restricted more than it is at present." just doesn't quite come up to the standard of justification required.

So nobody really needs to may much heed to it.

I mean, unless the people who say it decline to engage in democratic discourse about the policies they advocate, and rely on demagoguery to get other people to "think" the same way -- and vote accordingly -- regardless of the total absence of justification for what the governments they elected then did.

Unborn babies have been considered to be non-persons and I think that's incorrect.

Hey, the moon has been considered to be made of mineral material, but I think that's incorrect. I think it's made of cheesy material. Oddly enough, what I think doesn't seem to matter.

I think I'll decide that regardless of the fact that a square has always been considered to have four sides, that's incorrect. A square can have three sides. Just like a "person" can be something that hasn't been born.

I'd like to see us moving toward the ideal of no demand/ no need for abortion through better education about sex and contraception and programs to help women have and raise babies that they would like to keep if they weren't feeling economic pressure to abort.

Me, I'd like to see a chicken in every pot.

But damn, what about the vegetarians?

[NorthernSpy]

33. alrighty, you've said what you believe...

And I say that sometimes people believe weird things. I mean, there are those who actually claim that the South's cause was "noble" or who insist that a woman who sent her son out to rake leaves naked as a punishment shouldn't necessarily be considered to have committed abuse. People think and say lots o' crazy things, don't they?

Sure, a person can be right about one thing and wrong about everything else. But a glance at the quality of that person's oeuvre might just suggest the likelihood of him coming up with a reasonable position on anything in particular.

[DemBones DemBones]

2. Very true. Thanks for the link. nt

[Scout]

8. they don't seem to be attracting much attention....

Group Info
Members: 3
Created: Aug 10, 2004


3 members, 5 posts since August...

[animuscitizen]

11. Thank goodness

Proof that sanity does exist.

[iverglas]

43. a busy bunch!

As of January 18:

The following
Democrats4abortion_reform poll is now
closed. Here are the
final results:


POLL QUESTION: Would you be willing to
see a new
conservative Justice (say in place of
Justice Stevens) on the high court for
the purpose of reversing or scaling
back Roe?

CHOICES AND RESULTS
- I want to change Roe but don't want
to see that., 0 votes, 0.00%
- I want to change Roe and would like
to see that., 0 votes, 0.00%
- Other., 0 votes, 0.00%

Poll opened December 16. I guess they were all busy Christmas shopping.