to anyone who is definitely Pro-Choice

[AnnInLa]

I need your input-- your thoughts and suggestions. I am a member of the Lafayette (LA) Democrats group. A position paper was published by a committe of our group. I am really upset about the part of the paper titled, "Abortion." Please read that portion and tell me your thoughts. I thought it was judgemental, conservative and qualifying, but maybe I am being too paranoid. I am objecting to the wording of "opposed to abortion----indiscriminate abortions----abortions as birth control". At our meeting tonight, we are to discuss and debate the section, and will decide whether to tell the committe to leave it as is, or suggest a rewrite. I have a rewrite in mind, but would like others' opinions....thanks for any help.

www.lafayettedemocrats.org/positions.htm

scroll down for "Abortions"

[mrboba1]

1. that fits under pro-choice

but I think it is a little broad to state that "LA Dems oppose abortion..."

Why have an "abortion" section at all? Why not make it "women's rights"?

on edit: That would make it less inflammatory to all...

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Read this

It may not help, but it's f'ing GREAT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/22/opinion/22ehre.html

Abortion is legal - it's just not supposed to be mentioned or acknowledged as an acceptable option. An article in The Times on Sunday, "Television's Most Persistent Taboo," reported that a Viacom-owned channel is refusing to run the episodes of a soap opera in which the teenage heroine chooses to abort. Even "Six Feet Under," which is fearless in its treatment of sexual diversity, burdens abortion with terrible guilt. Where are those "liberal media" when you need them?

You can blame a lot of folks, from media bigwigs to bishops, if we lose our reproductive rights, but it's the women who shrink from acknowledging their own abortions who really irk me. Increasingly, for example, the possibility of abortion is built right into the process of prenatal care. Testing for fetal defects can now detect over 450 conditions, many potentially fatal or debilitating. Doctors may advise the screening tests, insurance companies often pay for them, and many couples (no hard numbers exist) are deciding to abort their imperfect fetuses.

The trouble is, not all of the women who are exercising their right to choose in these cases are willing to admit that that's what they are doing. Kate Hoffman, for example, who aborted a fetus with Down syndrome, was quoted in The Times on June 20 as saying: "I don't look at it as though I had an abortion, even though that is technically what it is. There's a difference. I wanted this baby."

Or go to the Web site for A Heartbreaking Choice, a group that provides support for women whose fetuses are deemed defective, and you find "Mom" complaining of having to have her abortion in an ordinary abortion clinic: "I resented the fact that I had to be there with all these girls that did not want their babies."

Kate and Mom: You've been through a hellish experience, but unless I'm missing something, you didn't want your babies either. A baby, yes, but not the particular baby you happened to be carrying.

(more at link)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. well...

it sounds like a very common pro-choice argument. "I deplore the act of abortion personally, but I defend your right to do so. Your choice is not mine to make."

[displacedtexan]

4. Kerry has a stock answer...

Safe, legal, and rare.

Enough said, I think.

[apnu]

5. Utter gunk...

First off, I'll remind everybody that we are called "pro-choice"

The focus is choice NOT abortion. What it should say, if they want to keep some of the anti-choice nutters on their side:

"We personally oppose abortion, however, we recognize that women have the right to choose the correct course of their own health. That this nation is founded on the principles of freedom and as Democrats we cannot and will not steal rights away from anybody."

The greatest problem with the pro-choice / anti-choice debate is that the anti-choice people are allowed to set the tone with their shrill noise. The focus must return to a principle of freedom and choice. Do that and you have a very tight logical argument that is very difficult to defeat.

[napi21]

6. Politicaly I'm Pro-Choice.

The committee you speak of is political. Abotrion, for any reason, is a decision based upon religious beliefs (or lack thereof), and have no place in a political document or group.

I think that's where we all get into trouble. There are some who believe so strongly that their religious beliefs are the only correct ones, they try to insert them into politics....therby crossing the live between Church/State separation.

I am a Catholic, and would never have an abortion for any reason, but I should not be able to tell any other women that they cannot. I can put a lot of other subjects under this same rule. I don't believe in the death penalty, divorce, adultery, pre-marriage sex. I have no right to tell everyone else they have to abide by my beliefs.....they have not right to do it either.

[AnnInLa]

7. Thanks, guys

And thanks for the website...

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. I agree with mrboba1

Louisiana Democrats oppose abortions. That's an awfully broad brush. Do ALL LA. Democrats REALLY oppose abortions? I highly doubt it.


Louisiana Democrats reject abortion as a means of birth control. I have NEVER met a woman who uses abortion as "birth control." That sounds like a right wing talking point. IMCPO

My opinion, Just leave both of thos statements out.

If you HAVE to rewrite....maybe......

LA. women wish that abortion would never be needed (OR have to be used as an option.) Education, adoption, and birth-control are the best deterrents to indiscriminate abortions. But we also know that when laws automatically criminalized a woman’s right to choose, women with means still had abortions and desperate women without means resorted to back-alley operations or self-mutilation.



Louisiana Democrats reject that a woman would use abortion as a means of birth control. And we also respect a woman’s right to privacy and reject arbitrary laws criminalizing desperate acts of women, and all too often young girls, victimized by rape or incest.

[ieoeja]

9. I also agree with mrboba1.

Don't rewrite. Just eliminate the section on abortion altogether.

[Eurobabe]

10. It's pretty harsh, but then again

your group and LA is probably a bit more conservative than I am. They wrote this position paper to cater to their local audience, nes pas?

Look, no one WANTS to have an abortion. But it is legal, and we need to respect other's choices. I would object to the heading Abortion and opt for Woman's Right to Choose or Freedom of Choice.

As George Lakoff said on Bill Moyers, words like War on Terror, Gay Marriage (and I add Abortion) are hot-buttons designed to ignite people. Why not look at Lakoff's book Moral Politics and see what he might say about this argument? Good luck...

[uberotto]

11. Simple, straightforward statement of opinion...

with absolutely no indication of reason for the opinion. All very proper and politically correct. If that is what you are going for, great.

However, I prefer, when dealing with a subject such as this to give some indication as to why I believe the way I do.

I believe that abortion is a social, and not a political issue:

A political issue is generally decided by a simple majority. 50.1% says it's so, then the other 49.9% are expected to follow along regardless of how they feel about the decision.

A social issue is decided by a general consensus. A general consensus requires the vast majority to work together to reach a compromise. Not a perfect solution, but everyone walks away with something.

consensus: A mutually acceptable agreement that integrates the interests of all concerned parties. Consensus is different from decisions reached through voting or an individual or body making a unilateral decision. Consensus does not require unanimous consent. An agreement reached through consensus may not satisfy each participant's interests equally or receive a similar level of support from all participants.

Because I believe that abortion is a social issue and has already been resolved by a general consensus of the population, I am opposed to any government intrusion into this area.

What do I mean when I say it has already been resolved by a general consensus, you ask? What I mean is this, the general consensus is that a fetus, during the first trimester does not qualify as a living human. While many may not absolutely agree with this, they are willing to accept that some people do believe this way and are willing to accept their beliefs.

When you get out past the first trimester, you loose your consensus about whether a fetus is technically a human or not and this is where the government is able to step in.

Unfortunately, you are always going to have a small minority of people who don't believe they should have to compromise on anything. Instead of going along with what 80% of the people believe, they feel that they can get 50.1% to agree with their point of view and then try to get the government to step in and force their opinions on the remaining 49.9%.

[AnnInLa]

12. Would yall check this over???

Forgive the yall.

This is my proposed rewrite, please critique!

A Woman's Right to Choose

Lafayette Democrats support the Democratic National Party goal to make abortion less necessary and more rare, not more difficult and more dangerous. We believe it is a fundamental, Constitutional liberty that individual Americans--not government--can best take responsibility for when making the most difficult, intensely personal, private decisions regarding reproduction. We stand behind the right of every woman to choose.

I took parts of this from the DNC party platform....is the last sentence redundant? Necessary?

Again, thanks.

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. The last sentence IS necessary.

It's the crux of the argument. A Woman's Right to Choose.That must be in your statement.

I like this much better. :hi: Good Luck!

[Eileen]

14. No! No! No! - This is not the party of Bunnypants!!!!

Abortion
Louisiana Democrats oppose abortions. Education, adoption, and birth-control are the best deterrents to indiscriminate abortions. But we also know that when laws automatically criminalized a woman’s right to choose, women with means still had abortions and desperate women without means resorted to back-alley operations or self-mutilation.

Louisiana Democrats reject abortion as a means of birth control. But we also respect a woman’s right to privacy and reject arbitrary laws criminalizing desperate acts of women, and all too often young girls, victimized by rape or incest.

I'm sorry but I find this insulting and equivocal and a total misstatement or misunderstanding of the "abortion issue".

• Adoption is a not a pregnancy choice it is a parenting choice and in order to get to that point the pregnancy must be gestated.
• what the hell are 'indiscriminate" abortions? Are these abortions a woman has without going on her knees and asking the patriarchy for permission beforehand?
• Illegalizing abortion not only kills women - it also
  • turns abortion into a criminal business instead of a service
  • Puts what we usually refer to as "organized crime" in charge of the business
  • removes any possibility of any form of regulation on the criminal business
  • removes proper pre or post abortion counselling when needed.
  
  
• Abortion is always a means of "birth control" since it does not result in a live birth.
• The myth that women would rather resort to multiple abortions and continuous surgical risk and physical discomfort that entails is totally unsupported by the reality. Check with Alan Guttmacher Institute for the number of women already using some form of birth control in the month prior to the abortion decision.
• Abortion today is not always a "desperate" act but is a deliberate choice by a woman who simply, for whatever reason she chooses, has no further desire to be pregnant.
• Abortions resulting from acts of incest or rape constitute only about 1% of the total performed annually in the USA.
• Young (under 22) women are in the minority of those using abortion services in any year so that the teen as the abortion patient is incorrect.

That's enough.

My preferred statement:
We fully support a woman's right to complete bodily autonomy, as guaranteed by our countries constitution, in exactly the same measure as any other citizen of this Republic. For this reason we support the right of each woman, in exercising that autonomy, to reproduce as she chooses; and if necessary to terminate any pregnancy, on request, and with the medical supervision of a qualified physician, particularly without hindrance during the first 16 weeks of any pregnancy.

I would add the recommended addendum:
We suggest that a minor female of age greater than 14 years who is of sound mind and capable of rational thought be permitited to terminate her pregnancy without interference from state or parental supervidion.

Don't expect that one to pass but it at least opens the dialogue.

- Eileen`s always in process page -


Eileen

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. Did you read her rewrite in post # 12?

:hi: I do like yours though. ;)

[AnnInLa]

18. Some more thoughts

I agree with your sentiments completely. I agree a woman has the right to choose abortion at any time, for any reason, under any circumstance. Period. However, I live in a Catholic, conservative area where just having this debate about how to word the fact that we support Pro-Choice is amazing. I don't like pandering to the more conservative elements of my group, or qualifying the above statement, but it will probably be necessary.

Having been a member of NOW and NARAL for many years, I remember well the fight to win the Right to Choose Abortion. Some of the opposition's arguments were:

1. Women will have indiscriminate abortions. (We are too weak-minded to take such a decision seriously and give it proper consideration....Remember that Black Americans were once considered too weak-minded to take voting seriously.)

2. Women will use abortion as birth-control. (We are too weak-minded to find other birth control methods.)

Then, I found those buzz-phrases in our own Position Paper on Abortion. I just came unglued. I also vigorously objected to the statement, "We oppose abortion". What a silly, judgemental statement. Can men have abortions? No. So, we are opposing an action that can only be taken by women, and by default, oppose women who have abortions? To me, this is such a discriminatory statement.

thanks you guys, yall, for letting me vent...it gets me ready for tonight.

[Solly Mack]

17. I like your statement loads better

:)

[apnu]

20. Great its all about choice! n/t

[Solly Mack]

15. I find the statement carries more than

a whiff of rightwing thinking.

Just what the fuck are "indiscriminate" abortions? What? Women just make the decision on a whim? They don't think about it? They don't consider all factors? What? A woman can't make distinction between "right" and "wrong"? Just whose fucking morality comes into play in the choice of abortion? Not the government. Not society. The womans...and it's not for others to determine what her morality should be. So I have a real problem with the language of this statement.

Why can't they just say "We support a womans right to choose" What are they afraid of? Scaring away rightwingers?

Such a statement fully suports a woman's liberty without any weak-ass qualifying statements.

Since you asked for the opinion of "definite" pro-choicers.

Abortion



"Louisiana Democrats oppose abortions. Education, adoption, and birth-control are the best deterrents to indiscriminate abortions. But we also know that when laws automatically criminalized a woman’s right to choose, women with means still had abortions and desperate women without means resorted to back-alley operations or self-mutilation.



Louisiana Democrats reject abortion as a means of birth control. But we also respect a woman’s right to privacy and reject arbitrary laws criminalizing desperate acts of women, and all too often young girls, victimized by rape or incest."

[noonwitch]

19. It's not about abortion, it's about women's rights

The rights of a fetus should never supercede the rights of the woman carrying it. In Roe v Wade, the ruling should have been based on the amendment (13th? HS Government class was a long time ago) that ended
slavery, because it addressed the issue of ownership of human beings and their bodies, instead of the right to privacy. If abortion were made illegal, the law doing so would make pregnant women's bodies "government property".


The right doesn't trust women to make decisions about their own lives. They continue to desire to force the entire nation to obey their interpretation of judeo-christian doctrine. Why do they hate our freedoms?