A VERY serious question about pro-life/pro choice

[Stinky The Clown]

Preface: I am staunchly pro choice. There are no caveats or shades of gray.

Pro.Choice.Period.

That aside, I'd like your views on this: The notion of a person being pro-choice is pretty clear.

But what about the person who says (s)he's 'pro-life'.

I see a few shades of gray there.

There is the death-match serious anti-aborition crowd that bombs clinics. They're called 'pro-life'.

Only slightly more reasonable are the fetus worshipers who cry and pray and wail at candlelight vigils outside the abortion clinic before it gets bombed. They're called 'pro-life'.

Then we have the politicos and their supporters who work long and hard - and generally legally - to overturn the laws relating to abortion and privacy. They're called 'pro-life'.

Next in line are the people who we all know. The people who would never have an abrotion or participate in helping someone have one, but who are okay with allowing it to be legal. These people are the ones who are honest inside themselves, but not preachy or pushy with respect to others. I imagine there are more than a few politicians in this group. But at the end of the day, they, too, are 'pro-life'.

Isn't there a clear difference along this spectrum? As one who is pro-choice (and I assume most everyone who might read ths thoughtfully is just that) are there any of these people who you could embrace and respect?

[rep the dems]

1. The last group is ok with me.

Although technically if you are ok with it being legal even though you wouldn't have one you are pro choice.

[Mojambo]

2. I can respect anyone who isn't anti-choice. n/t

[TygrBright]

3. I don't think labels "work" here.

Even the hard-core blastocyst worshippers and their authoritarian agenda aren't really "pro-life." Ask them about the death penalty sometime. For abortion doctors and Planned Parenthood counselors. Believe me, they're not "pro-life."

And those of us who ARE pro-life (that is, we would never have an abortion and we don't want the state putting anyone to death in our names,) are rarely identified so.

Labels just make things more confusing, and polarize the issue further.

sadly,
Bright

[Stinky The Clown]

20. That's exactly the conclusion I came to

Labels are sorta meaningless on the 'pro-life' side.

I'm thinking better phrases might include anti-abortion for an honestly held private position, anti-abortion for an honestly held position that would impact me and mine (outlaw abortion), and abortion nazi for the nutters.

My whole point is to find a way to accept those who see the issue differently from me, but still allow them to hold their own beliefs in peace.

[suigeneris]

22. I think it's rarely pro-life,

it's usually pro birth. Once the kid is born fugeddaboutit.

[QShok]

37. Really?

Pro-birth? So that makes pro-choice = anti-birth?

Shok

[Quantess]

60. No, silly.

It means, that most anti-choicers don't honestly care about babies once they are born. Their obsession is on "saving" the unborn. Post-born, ex-utero babies, and children in general, are a low priority for anti-choicers.

[file83]

4. As long as their choice is to be "pro-life" for THEMSELVES, then I'm fine with

there decision. Ultimately, it's THEIR choice.

But there are "pro-lifers" out there who are really just Pro-THEIR-Choice for everyone. They believe their choice is right for everyone - which is bullshit, and they should know it.

[StoryTeller]

5. An honest answer...

I like the way some people handle this issue--being "pro" something means you support it. You are for it. So for many people, being "pro-life" simply means we support and are for life. And a consistent pro-life ethic includes more than just the issue of abortion. It includes, for many of us, being a proponent of peace, being anti-war, being against the death penalty, and being pro-helping the poor and those who are weak or oppressed.

For me, being "pro-life" also means facing quality of life issues. And none of it is black-and-white. I have had three adopted siblings who have special needs. Two have/did have Down Syndrome (one passed away in 1981 at the age of one year old). Some people might say that they can never live a quality life, so why bother, but I know what richness of spirit and what love they have brought into the lives of our family and others who know them.

On the other end, this past year, my family went through the anguish of my grandmother languishing in the hospital, supported on tubes and machines. She was mentally disoriented and wanted to be taken off the machines and allowed to "let nature take its course" but it was a Catholic hospital, and the doctors would come into her room when the family members were not there and persuade her to change her mind back. It was frustrating and disheartening, and prolonged a painful situation for all of us. She finally was allowed to die in January, but she should have been spared that needless suffering and the nasty mind games the hospital played on her. I don't think I'm quite at a point of being in favor of doctor-assisted suicide, but after what my family went through with Grandma, I've definitely had to rework a lot of my thoughts on that whole murky subject.

Regarding abortion--it really comes down to what a person thinks about when a fetus becomes truly alive or truly human. This is something that is hard to pin down, because it also depends on what a person defines their humanity as. That's a philosophical question, not a scientific one, so the answers are shades of gray.

I've been on a journey with this whole question, having been raised in a conservative Christian environment and becoming more progressive as I've gotten older, while still retaining my faith. And where I'm at in this moment of my journey is that I think abortion is a serious matter. I would FAR rather have people practice reliable birth control and prevent a pregnancy from occurring than to use abortions to accomplish the same result. I think we should never treat the unborn as if they did not matter.

However, I've come to the point where I don't think this is something the government should regulate. So in that sense, I'm also "pro-choice." I personally may think that life begins at a certain point, but when that comes from a philosophical and religious perspective, I don't have the right to impose that view on someone else.

What I'd like to see is not outlawing abortions. I like the "safe, legal, and rare" approach. I'd like to see both pro-choice and pro-life people work together to address the main reasons why women choose to have abortions--poverty, lack of family support, health reasons, job security, etc. Whatever those factors are, if we worked to address those, then we would see the number of abortions decline. This has happened previously--during Clinton's presidency. To me, this is a way that we can express both a commitment to life and a commitment to personal choice. When women have more real options, some decide to keep the pregnancy.

I also believe strongly that being pro-life means addressing the needs of children after they are born. The fact that so many Americans do not have adequate health care or insurance, that they live in homes contaminated by lead paint, that they don't have proper nutrition--these things are inexcusable to me as a person who is supportive of life. Our foster-care system is terribly screwed up, our social services system is often a nightmare for those who have to deal with it, and our schools are filled with children whose home lives are so turbulent that they can't reach their full learning potential because of their emotional stress and pain.

For me, to be truly pro-life means that I care about all this as well as the issue of abortion.

I know that this is not the stance of many pro-life people. But honestly, I've met some pro-choice people who didn't seem to care about much beyond the right to have an abortion either. I think the discussion needs to extend far beyond the matter of abortion. There is a lot of potential common ground to be explored, where we can commit to providing people with real choices that not only protect lives, but enhance them, too.

So am I pro-life? Yes. Am I pro-choice? Yes. I think we need to stop haggling over a 30 year old court ruling (leave it in place and move on) and get down to the business of improving life for women, children, and men.

[Indiana_Dem]

9. This is exactly the way I think--maybe most everyone else, too. nt

[StoryTeller]

10. Really? That's a relief!

I'm in such a conservative area that a lot of my friends would be scandalized by most of that post! (Which is why I post here on DU. You guys are awesome!) :)

[Indiana_Dem]

48. I'm in a conservative area, too, as are many in smaller towns.

I understand what you are saying. I think many "conservatives" who say they are "pro-life" demonstrate more tongue-waving opposite to how they really are/would be if it were to happen to them or one of their loved ones. I personally know a few who waved their tongues to everyone about this and then when it secretly happened to them or one of their loved ones, they secretly went and got the abortion. I think that's pathetically hypocritical as much as those brands of people can be...

[Demi_Babe]

18. loved your post

[Stinky The Clown]

21. An excellent, thoughtful post. Thank you.

[TygrBright]

25. I think yours is a far better statement of the real "pro-life" position...

...than the blastocyst-worshippers' position. And I think it IS the stance of millions of real pro-life people.

What always puzzles me about the blastocyst-worshippers is their inability to reason from B to C. They get from A to B: "Blastocysts are human genetic material, therefore interfering with their potential to become human beings is murder." OK, that's consistent. But then you have to get from B to C: "If we define ALL attempts to interfere with a blastocyst's potential to become a human being as 'murder,' what do we then have to do to the 'murderers,' who are, by and large, medical personnel acting from motives of compassion and professional responsibility, and women who are, by and large, already emotionally vulnerable and beset with a whole range of challenges that make them sincerely believe that ending their pregnancy is the best and/or only option they have?"

What is it we're supposed to do with these 'murderers?' Treat them just like any OTHER murderer, up to and including the death penalty? Invent a whole different category of 'murder,' with a whole different range of 'punishments,' and apply that? If so, how does that reflect on the definition of 'murder,' when it applies to a prima-facie heinous crime like someone stabbing their girlfriend to death, or 'popping a cap' in a rival drug dealer? Where do we go with this, ethically and as 'pro-life' people, and what does it say about our compassion and our reverence for ALL life?

The blastocyst-worshippers just never seem to get from B to C, and until they come up with a consistent, realistic, ethically justifiable program for that, the issue canNOT be fully and effectively addressed in the public arena.

puzzledly,
Bright

[StoryTeller]

38. Thank you! And...

You're right...Their take on it being murder does present a lot of inconsistencies. And a lot of logical follow-up questions, such as you posed.

I don't really like to see them referred to as "blastocyst worshippers" though, because in many cases, that's not really what's going on. My pro-life friends are caring, decent individuals. I love them all very much.

But the conservative Christian community has had 30-some years of becoming convinced that reversing Roe v. Wade is the ONLY way to rectify what they view as an enormous tragedy and loss of life. They've been taught to view pro-choice people as a vile, evil enemy. So the idea of actually partnering and working together to address the problem from both sides is incomprehensible to them.

And the same sense of distrust and even at times hatred can be observed in pro-choice people too.

The thing is, that by and large, the people on either side of this issue are NOT monsters. It took me awhile to figure that out on the conservative side. And I wish I could introduce you all to some of my pro-life friends. You'd love them, really.

I blame the gulf between the groups on the bitter politicizing of the issue. We've forgotten the humanity behind the issue, and everyone has suffered because of it.

[TygrBright]

42. You're right, of course...

...it is unfair to blanket-tag them as blastocyst-worshippers, especially as I suspect that some of the creepiest ones are much less concerned with the disposition of particular bundles of human cells than they are with forcing women into their frightening, two-dimensional concept of what a woman "should" be. And especially since some (yes, I know them, too-- heck, I grew up among them--) are sincere in their concern for both developing human embryos and for the women suffering involuntary or calamitous pregnancies.

Unfortunately, after something like the five thousand, three hundred and seventy-eighth attempt to "find common ground" whereon to partner and work together to address the problems, and being told that a) Universal access to contraception is not part of the solution; and b) Comprehensive, universal education for young people about the emotional, physical, and psychological aspects of sexual activity, decision making, reproductive physiology, sexually transmitted disease, and contraception is not part of the solution; and c) A universally-available web of non-religious, non-judgmental, supportive, medical, social, and financial assistance for women facing pregnancy without the resources to parent a child effectively is not part of the solution, I have become just the TEEEEEEEEENIEST bit jaded. And frustrated.

Hence the tagging, which I admit is petty and unhelpful. But I'm only human, and that sort of thing tends to happen when humans get INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATED.

apologetically,
Bright

[StoryTeller]

68. You're right, too.

So many times, the gesture of finding "common ground" becomes just another way to try to force one side to go along with the other side. It's not real common ground at that point. I hear and share your frustration about that. No need to be apologetic.

The three things you listed that are so often touted as NOT being part of the solution SHOULD definitely be part of the solution. Universal access to contraception, universal education, and universal support networks regardless of religion or ideology are so very, very necessary.

And I know that the issue of women's rights is inextricably tied to this issue. However, you should know that at the level of your average pro-life person, it really isn't considered to be an issue of women's rights. So when they hear pro-choice people framing it in that way, they just don't get it. They don't see the two being connected at all, and part of the reason they get so angry at pro-choice people is because what they hear is a comparison of "what's convenient or comfortable for the woman" and "taking the life of an innocent child." Thus, you get the charge of "murder of convenience." That's not a fair characterization, of course. But when you think about where their starting point is--that life begins with conception and that abortion is taking a human life--you can understand how they arrive at the conclusion they do.

Please, everyone, don't start giving me arguments or objections to that. I'm not trying to start that discussion, and I'm certainly not saying I agree with them. But I'm just saying that when you are trying to talk about this with a non-activist pro-lifer, what you are trying to convey and what they hear are two TOTALLY different things. (I'm specifying non-activist, because I know that people who are deeply into the pro-life culture tend to have an even stronger ideology that may in fact be connected to a disdain for women. But the typical non-activist pro-lifer is usually not making that connection in their belief system.)

So to find common ground, you've got to be willing to skip over all the ideology and the differing points of view because the chances of changing their minds (or them changing your mind) is near-zero. Focus on action. They want the number of abortions to go down. Many of them are also compassionate people who would be willing to help the women involved, too. They just haven't made that connection because of the propaganda they get.

So show them the data that illustrates how helping improve the lives of women is correlated to a decrease in abortions. Talk about the things that women need in order to have a real variety of options. Discuss what you can do, what they can do, in order to help these changes happen.

It may be that what you as a pro-choice person does is going to be different than what the pro-life person will do. That's okay--if you're both working for the same goal. The pro-life person will reach a different population than you, and that means that more women are receiving help.

The important thing in all this is to make sure that we aren't blocking each other's efforts because of our ideological differences. Both sides do it, and it's not helpful. It's the hardest part about finding common ground. I know--I'm a person with very strong ideological views on things. But I figure we can either stand around arguing all day, or we can actually make progress by getting to work.

[Bullshot]

44. Around here the so-called "pro-lifers" use the label for purely political reasons.

They're hard-core Republicans. They know that abortion is one of the issues that polarizes voters along party lines. They'll write so many passionate LTTEs on their respect for life and denounce Democrats who are listed as supporters of abortion rights. Yet, these so-called pro-lifers will in general tell you they support the Iraq war even though it's been proven to be fought under lies and hundreds of thousands of people have died. They have a Darwinistic attitude on health care, and most support the death penalty.

[sutz12]

54. Story Teller..that is the most intelligent and compassionate

discussion of the issue I have ever read.

Thank you.

:kick:

[StoryTeller]

67. Thank you. :-) (nt)

[dubykc]

6. The last group I happen to be fine with, the rest of the groups...

IMO are not "pro-life", they are "pro-birth" because there is really no care whatsoever what happens after the child is born.

BTW I am also pro-choice, no shades of gray here either.

[Quantess]

61. Anti-choice is most correct. (no text)

[brer cat]

7. There are also shades of red or whatever with some pro-choice folks.

I'm absolutely pro-choice, but then I know what "choice" means. When my daughter became pregnant out of wedlock in her late 20's, I was AMAZED at the number of my "pro-choice" friends and relatives who thought that I should MAKE her (my adult child!) have an abortion. My daughter is personally pro-life, and I respect that, but she VOTES pro-choice because she believes that is a personal decision that should not have government or other interference, including pro-choice supporters who don't have a clue.

It's not only pro-lifers who face grey areas.

[Indiana_Dem]

8. Here's a compromise:

I was thinking that if I were to run for an office I would say I would only be 'pro-life' if every unwanted child was ensured to be taken care of and if birth control was encouraged for all at childbearing age unless they wanted to have children.

Any holes in that one? I was just mulling it over.

[brer cat]

12. Define "unwanted". My grands (now 2) were not planned...

but is that unwanted? I can assure you that they are loved and cared for, and she had her tubes tied after the second one, so no more surprises.

But there has been government assistance. My daughter got a "wake-up" call and has spent the last 5 years in college, working full-time on weekends when Grandparents could take care of the girls. She has a 4.0 gpa, scheduled to graduate in May, and a full-time job lined up after graduation that pays very well. She will quickly repay in taxes the help she had getting through school.

:shrug: Is that pro-life or pro-choice?

[Indiana_Dem]

47. Don't read me wrong, I was just posing a compromise

theoretically. Please read my other post in this thread!

I did the same thing. Although my child was sort of planned (I was married, 21, and not taking B.C. so what happened, happened!), I went to college on government grants at age 27, became the top 10% graduating with honors and became an RN. I did this after experiencing plant closings in factories due to all the booting out of the unions and having fear of not being able to get a decent job without a degree....I am very thankful for government educational grants! That is what I'm talking about when I say if ever there was a time where abortion would be illegal, they better make damn sure they have the resources to help support the people who don't have the means to take care of these children, i.e. taxpayer-paid education, healthcare, childcare, etc. for all. This is my point.

[brer cat]

56. Sorry, I was not making a personal attack on you.

Note the question smilie at the end of my rant. There are grey and red areas on both sides of this equation, and I was not seeing that in the posts that I had read. I am totally pro-choice, but I have seen first hand that some pro-choice advocates are too pro-abortion, and I have to really question that.

Wonderful parents can come from bad situations, especially if there is support, whether from family or government resources. Bad parents can happen whatever the situation, and we cannot see that in a fetus.

[hijinx87]

11. abortion is murder.

I have been raised that way

[Donnachaidh]

13. so is WAR.

your point?

[hijinx87]

17. no, no, no

we declare war on he other side . .

[NMMNG]

23. It is still murder

Our declaration of war does nothing to change the fact that innocent men, women and children (and unborn fetuses) are killed every day.

And there are conflicts in which we don't officially declare war yet kill thousands, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands. Vietnam, Iraq... Are you OK with all of those murders?

[QShok]

39. No. Homicide does not always equal murder.

The innocent have died in every war along with enemy soldiers and enemy combatants. The killing of enemy soldiers and enemy combatants is justified homicide. The killing of the innocent is not justified ever.

That doesn't make it murder either. The unintentional killing of the innocent is negligent homicide. There must be intent or malice to make it murder.

Also keep in mind just because Congress authorizes the use of military force or declares war doesn't mean that justified homicide is moral or right.

Shok

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

40. Even before the embryo develops a central nervous system?

And what about anencephalic fetuses? No brain -> No "self" -> No soul.

[Stinky The Clown]

45. I'd like to thank you for ........

Hijacking my fucking thread.

This was NOT about policy it was about perspective and it was thoughtful till your non sequitor started a flame war. You wanna do that, start your own damn thread.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

46. Aw, come on, we like to play with them

At least until the pizza arrives.

[Donnachaidh]

14. stay the hell OUT of other people's uteruses

Period.

My right to privacy has more bearing than YOUR right to poke your nose in my business.

[Lindacooks]

29. Yep. Nobody has any right to tell anybody else what they

can or can't do with their own bodies.

The issue is privacy and something called 'bodily integrity'. If you don't have say over what happens to your own physical body, you don't have freedom.

[liberal43110]

15. Pro-Choice Shades of Gray

Thanks for a thoughtful post. Like you, I consider myself pro-choice without any shades of gray. Period. As long as a fetus is inside a woman's body--even full term--it is living off the mother's body and is not fully human because it lacks full consciousness and any "rights" it may have are subsumed to the mother's right to determine her physical fate.

However, I see some shades of gray in terms of acceptable abortion policies.

For example, I am willing to compromise and restrict access to abortions in the third trimester, with exceptions for the health or life of the mother. Not because I believe it, but because I think it is a reasonable compromise.

Also, I support parental notification laws. Because--with the exception of emergencies--doctors can not treat minors without parental consent. Granted, some families have some highly dysfunctional dynamics that make parental involvement problematic, or even dangerous. But we notify the parents nonetheless. So I support parental notification laws not because I think the fetus is human or because I would wish for the young mother to carry the fetus to term (to the contrary!), but because I think it is fully reasonable and a good compromise in public policy.

[Rosemary2205]

43. Another one of those is informed consent.

I hear a lot of Pro choicers complain that informed consent laws that require a mother to be education on the stage of development on the fetus or on the procedure itself is a barrier to abortion. I am staunchly pro-choice but I agree with this provision. We can't sell a bottle of aspirin without educational labels on the bottle. IMHO women SHOULD know what is going with their body and make an informed choice. Some will certainly see that the fetus is more developed than they thought at their stage of pregnancy and decide abortion is not for them. Better to know beforehand than to find out later and spend a lifetime of pain and regret. IMHO

[liberal43110]

58. Exactly!

Great point. I can agree with that too. Before a doctor performs ANY medical procedure, one should hope that the patient has been informed what will happen, what the risks are, what potential complications could be, what the risks of not having the procedure are, etc. Of course, this is different than the faux abortion clinics that lie and mislead women about abortions and stall it is too late to perform an abortion. Genuine informed consent is completely reasonable--and you're right: it almost certainly does guide some women away from having an abortion. And that is fine. If a woman isn't comfortable having an abortion, then it should be her choice not to have one.

Thanks for finding another point we liberals can compromise on in the name of finding reasonable policies that liberals and conservatives can all live with.

[Extend a Hand]

16. The term 'pro-life' is a misnomer

when applied narrowly to those who oppose abortion.

Would these same people euthanize an old cat that quit using his box? Kill a fly? Pull the plug on a person in a vegitative state? Advocate the death penalty for a murderer? Support a war? Ignore genocide in another country? Use birth control? Eat meat?

I guess I can respect a person who is opposed to having an abortion as long as they don't try to impose their values on others AND as long as they only describe themselves as 'pro-life' if they are pro-life in a very broad sense. Most self-described 'pro-lifers' that I've met are self-righteous idiots that haven't even bothered to try to think their position through.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

19. Keep Government OUT!

I personally don't have any problems with anybody who is personally opposed to abortion and wants to peacefully and legally advocate for their position in public but I DO have a real problem with people who insist on using government to try and force their anti-abortion views (and their other religiously inspired beliefs) on other people whom might not share their views. If there is anything that government has absolutely NO business legislating on, especially in such a pluralistic society such as ours, it is the sexual/reproductive/marital lives of other human beings. Also, I believe that the "Pro-Choice" vs. "Pro-Life" dichotomy is false because people whom are "Pro-Choice" are every bit as "Pro-Life" as everybody else and, furthermore, I find the implication that people who are "Pro-Choice" are not "Pro-Life" very offensive. I think that we can all agree that everybody is essentially "Pro-Life" regardless of our philosophical and moral differences about abortion. I mean, are there really people among us whom are really "Pro-Death" or "Anti-Life?" Also, I have a real philosophical problem with people who profess to be "pro-life" because of their opposition to abortion slavishly defend the use of the death penalty in our criminal justice system but I guess they are entitled to their beliefs since it seems to work for them.

[Senator]

24. Everybody's "pro life." -- The Clear Difference is between ...

... those that want to put frightened women and their doctors IN JAIL ...

... and the rest of us.

--

[a la izquierda]

26. A lot of my family is pro-life, but...

they also understand that it should be legal because it is a woman's choice. They just would prefer that no one in my family have to have one (though some of the women in my family have). When they did, nobody shamed them, it was their choice.

[demokatgurrl]

27. I see it is pro-choice, anti-choice. Other issues of

"life" are separate. Many anti-choice neocons are NOT pro-life; I won't give them the benefit of that label and I really think we on the pro-choice side should take it the hell away from them.

[Totally Committed]

28. Absolutely!

Fantastic frame, and exactly how I feel as well!

TC

[blondeatlast]

30. Regarding politicos: they can champion "no abortion" publicly

but never take action to make abortion illegal and I'm fine with that.

I've also known of someone who claimed to be against abortion up until someone they loved desperately needed one--to their credit, they did anguish much over it but accepted the loved one's decision.

Al of us want to see the NEED for abortion reduced or eliminated, but we know that ain't ever gonna happen.

I think we're all shades of grey on this.

Sensible legislation is the only way to go on this one.

[Lindacooks]

31. There isn't anyone who is pro-abortion.

Women who get abortions do so after much thought and agonizing. It's a difficult and often painful process. No woman goes to the doctor with a light heart, even for ordinary checkups, much less to get a medical procedure done.

The issue is privacy. That's what we have to keep pushing. Privacy between you and your doctor. Nobody, but NOBODY, is allowed to get between a doctor and a patient. Privacy to decide what happens in your own life. Privacy to decide what happens to your own body. It's PRIVACY.

[riderinthestorm]

32. The problem is they don't "respect" my rights

to choose, to privacy, to make medical decisions on my own about my body and my reproductive choices. If they can respect that, then I can respect them. (unfortunately though, if they are pro-life, they don't).

Secondarily, if they are truly "pro-life" then they honor ALL of life: whether that is a blastocyst, a child, an adult with disabilities, a criminal in jail or other people in other countries which would mean they are against abortion, and into social welfare and against the death penalty and against war etc. This type of person would get my respect (but unfortunately again, I've never met one of these either).

[QShok]

41. Pro-lifer: "Blastocyst have rights too!"

In a pro-lifers mind that single cell has as much rights as an infant in a mother's arms. A pro-lifer explained to me once that the only guarantee we got is "due process". Criminals rights are taken away all the time with "due process" under law including their right to life. That baby (blastocyst) is denied "due process" and therefore is murdered.

You can't argue with people that give rights and personification to a single cell.

Shok

[Pragmatic Pilgrim]

33. A vital thread! Candid, calm, thoughtful, understanding! K&R

You've done a magnificent job of expressing the conflicted but humane feelings of the vast majority of Americans on this topic, Husb2Sparkly! And I can't tell you how cheered I am to see the sensible, un-doctrinaire replies to it!

I believe we Dems should present ourselves the way you describe--compassionate, tolerant, but coming down, on balance, in favor of personal choice, while vigorously prosecuting any illegal actions against that choice. It would help the Moderate Pro-Lifers to trust us (candor, confidence, compassion & understanding leads to trust) and should help to relegate the Radical Anti-Abortion clique to the isolated powerlessness of any out-of-the-mainstream group in our democracy.

Once the public learns it can trust us, we can treat issues like this with "benign neglect," enforcing all appropriate laws "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right."

[Pragmatic Pilgrim]

34. This key "wedge issue" deserves a kick. Done!

Is there any issue that has muddied the waters of national discourse and played to the Repulsives' benefit more than this one? This discussion would seem to be pivotal to our future success.

[jbm]

50. and I loved the way you described...

how we should treat each other. Thanks for joining DU!

[Doctor_J]

35. The opposite of pro-choice is not pro-life

This is another false choice from the wingers. Those two are not opposites of each other. The opposite of pro choice is anti choice. Period.

[Indiana_Dem]

49. I'd like to use that term but often times when I try to use that word,

I mess it up and say inadvertantly that I'm the opposite of what I believe!! lol

[DemBones DemBones]

53. Then the opposite of pro-life is anti-life, isn't it?

I'll do you the courtesy of calling you "pro-choice" since that's your preferred term to describe your viewpoint, but you must do me the courtesy of calling me "pro-life" since that's my preferred term to describe my viewpoint.

[Pragmatic Pilgrim]

57. Those terms resulted from a "framing" race.

One side used to call itself "anti-abortion," which seemed to leave the other side in the position of being "pro-abortion." But when the other side began to define itself as "pro-choice," their adversaries switched to "pro-life." At least that's my recollection of the sequence.

I'm 100% pro-choice, but the Marketing Guy in me has to admit the pro-life people have the more emotionally stirring description.

[Omaha Steve]

36. Killing doctors or clinic escorts....

IS NOT PRO LIFE!!!

[xxqqqzme]

51. as far as I'm concerned there are only 2 groups -

pro-choice and anti-choice.

I consider myself pro-life because I protest war, vote to abolish the death penalty; support: universal health care; prenatal care for all women; public education; and head start.

I do not believe any laws should be passed that restrict a woman's health care decisions.

[DemBones DemBones]

52. I'm not sure you have any respect for people who are pro-life, only

a grudging acceptance for pro-lifers who "are okay with allowing it (abortion) to be legal" -- and who keep their mouths shut about their opinions regarding abortion.


As for your other "shades of gray":

No one who is truly pro-life can condone bombing abortion clinics or harming abortion providers. Period. (Just because someone says he is pro-life doesn't mean he is.)

Free speech is an essential part of American democracy. That gives all of us the right to pray at anti-war vigils or anti-abortion vigils, to speak at rallies, etc. It's unfortunate that you felt you had to refer to pro-life citizens as "fetus worshippers." To be pro-life means to believe that all life is sacred, not to "worship" any particular stage of life. Many pro-lifers who demonstrate against abortion also demonstrate against capital punishment, and war, which no doubt meets with your approval.

Another principle of our democracy is that we have the right to elect people who represent our values and we have the right to petition the government regarding laws that we believe are unjust. Pro-life organizations and their members have equal rights with NARAL and its members.


You state that "The notion of a person being pro-choice is pretty clear." But is it?

What of women who say they are pro-choice but would never have an abortion themselves, or men who say they would never want a child of theirs aborted? Are they clearly pro-choice? I'd say they are pro-life for their own children but refuse to consider society's responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves. They differ from pro-choice people who would abort their own children, and you could no doubt break the latter group down according to reasons they would abort vs. reasons they wouldn't.


Finally, it is just not helpful to the Democratic Party for pro-choice Democrats to repeatedly make negative comments about pro-life people, as has gone on at every "Democratic," "liberal" or "progressive" forum I've ever been involved with. In the big tent, there should be room for me and other pro-life progressives. Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton have made comments to that effect. If the Democratic Party wants to impose a pro-choice litmus test on its supporters, it won't be in power long.

It would be helpful to ask our party to make a serious commitment to reducing the number of abortions by helping couples prevent unplanned pregnancies by better educating the public about how to use contraception and where to get contraceptives. Also, as Dennis Kucinich has suggested, no woman should feel she needs to abort her child for economic reasons. The government needs to add to the programs that help poor women have and raise their babies.

After all, if a woman feels she has to abort, is that really a choice?

[darkism]

55. If they're in the last group AND they have a vagina...

...then I can tolerate them.

Anyone with a penis (me included) needs to either support reproductive freedom or, to put it eloquently, shut the hell up.

[bluedawg12]

59. Yes, the radical righteous wing is pure selfishness

Religion --like mine.

My savior, my way.

Marriage like mine..me, me, me....me!

Abortion my way or no a all. Damn the women we could save...it's my selfish way.

I in my selfishness am best suited to bring God to you.

They are the opposite of Christian charity and goodness. The theocro-fascists.

Die piggy, die, die! Selfish, selfish.

[wildeyed]

62. Being against abortion is a morally defensible position.

I am not sure when life begins. It could begin at conception, but there is no scientific proof, so that is a feeling, not a fact.

The big question to me, is do you want to decrease abortion, or do you want to punish women for their bodies and sex lives? If you want to decrease abortion, it is pretty clear that good sex ed and economic programs that support women and families are the way to go. The lowest abortion rate in the world is in the Netherlands where abortion is legal. They do a fantastic job of educating youth about birth control. If that fails, there is a social safety in place for the parents, so there is little economic pressure to abort.

On the other hand, if you are interested in punishing women for their dirty bodies and sex lives, then focusing exclusively on making abortion illegal is definitely the way to go.

Not all of the rank and file "pro-lifers" are completely hateful, either. Many have genuine concerns about abortion, but have been badly misled by their leadership as to the cause and cures for the problem.

[tammywammy]

63. Just my 2 cents

This is a great thread.

I don't think that anyone that bombs a abortion clinic is pro-life, nor do I think most true pro-lifers would consider them pro-life either.

My mom is pro-life. She believe that life begins at implantation. She realizes that many eggs are fertilized and never implant. She's not against the morning-after pill at all. She's against IVF, because it creates many lives that are then destroyed. She's against federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, but is fine if private groups want to research it. But, my mom would never tell the girl down the street that she cannot have an abortion, because it's none of my mom's business. My mom and I have had a few discussions on this, and I understand what she is saying. (She's also against the death penalty and against the war)

Now for myself, I consider myself pro-choice. It's none of my business what a woman does. I believe that there should be a lot more education of birth control to make abortion rarer, and this "waiting until marriage" crap they're teaching in schools is a real disservice to young adults. I'm also against third term abortions, unless the mother's health is in jeopardy. I do realize that third term abortion is already rare, but I'm not against any law that comes into play regarding it, as long as the mother's health is protected. And even then I've had questions about how do you determine mother's health, does mental health apply? I'm don't know, I'm still questioning myself on what I think about that.

But then I'm also old-school and think that if you get pregnant is most cases you should get married. :shrug: It's my conservative upbringing that makes me still think that way.

I've never been pregnant. I've never had to make this decision for myself, so I don't know really what I'd personally do. I've know girls that had abortions, and I understand why each made that decision. I don't judge them, or hold it against them, because it's not my place to do that.

I think most people that are radical pro-lifers, considering in this country most of them are Christian, forget that it's not our place to judge others actions.

[Stinky The Clown]

65. Thanks for a thoughtful and obviously heartfelt reply

I can't take issue with your mother's positions or with yours. I don't agree with your mother, but its an honest and respectful disagreement.

[NMDemDist2]

64. interesting thread H2S, thanks to all who participated in it. What I know

and i *know* this deep in my woman's soul, is that women will abort babies

they have for millennium

they will use herbs, activities, knitting needles or what ever they can when they get that desperate

it happens and will always happen

so for me, it's a choice of giving women a medically safe and hygienic abortion or having them bleed out in a back alley

it's as simple as that for me

as for the "pro lifers" first of all, if they are male it's none of their GD business. if they are woman they can certainly support education and counseling to assist women who are in that frightening position. but it really comes down to, are you willing to let other women die because of your moral stance?

if you are, then I don't have any use for you.

[Vinca]

66. I can respect a person's view as long as they don't impose it on

me or anyone else. IMHO, there's a ton of hypocrisy in the "pro-life" position. Bombing clinics for starters. I also believe if a person is "pro-life" they would be against in vitro fertilization because so many embryos end up in the trash. They would be for universal healthcare, of course. Sadly, for many of them, it all comes down to Jesus and a bill of goods they've been sold by a mega-church preacher.

[Infinite Hope]

69. I can embrace anyone whose convictions lead them...

to believe their particular way as long as their opinion is thoughtful.