Disassembling the Anti-Abortionists debating tactics....

[Solon]

and also a little rant against them. A couple of things first off, I don't use the "pro-life" label for these people, its too good for them, I also do not, repeat, do not, use over generalization on who the supporters of outlawing abortion are, they come in all shapes and sizes, and they are all wrong. First my position, I do not believe in any, in other words, none, nada, zip, governmental interference in a woman's right to access to a doctor of her choice, to perform WHATEVER services SHE DEEMS necessary for her own health and life, regardless as to whether or not she is pregnant. In other words, I'm pro-choice, not only that, I'm a radical pro-choicer, so there!!! :)

I'm starting this rant because of some stupid stuff I see here and elsewhere, and wanted to vent, to put it mildly, as to what the talking points these people use, and to dismantle them easily, with logic and facts on my side.

Talking point #1: "Women will use abortion as birth control/contraception."

OK, first things first, abortion cannot be used as a contraceptive, that's stupid. As to the basic premise, even I find it insulting, its the same canard as "Women are sluts, Men are players." unless you are a misogynist, this point has no point whatsoever. To put it simply, yes some women will "abuse" the "privilege" of actually having control over their own bodies, so fucking what? I mean seriously, even if you wanted to regulate this, how the hell are you going to do it? Are you going to use mind readers or psychics? Its ridiculous!

Talking Point #2: "I'm pro-choice, but I think there should be some restrictions on abortion."

OK this is basic illogic argument, your either for government regulation of a woman's body, or you aren't. The reason I say this is, even if you wanted to, how the hell are you going to regulate anything about this, and what the fuck are these restrictions anyways, related to #1 perhaps?

Talking Point #3: "The fetus is a human life! Aborting it is murder!"

In the first trimester, the fetus is hardly has differentiated cells, much less anything related to cognitive function of a human brain, nor feelings, or even pain, kinda hard to have that when you don't have nerve endings. Just because it shares genetics with you does not a human make, what next, men getting arrested for mass murder for scratching their balls? (Note: this isn't a generalization that is wrong, I'm a guy, and I scratch my balls, so sue me. :))
Even into the beginning of the 2nd trimester, my argument stands, and later than that, abortions become rarer and rarer, until finally they are damned near non-existent in the third trimester, I wonder why?(Rhetorical question)

Talking Point #4: "I'm pro-choice, but I'm for the PBA(Partial-Birth Abortion Ban)"

OK, I don't use those words, its the D&X procedure, and even before this asinine law was passed, it was exceedingly rare. Why you ask? Because even the women who had it done wanted the fetus. D&X procedure is for medical necessity, and is only used for such, why the FUCK pass a law that puts more burden on traumatized women and their doctors than they already go through? D&X procedures are done when one of three conditions are met, the Woman's life is in danger to carry out the pregnancy, her health is in danger, or the fetus in question is not viable, i.e. already dead or soon will be. How they are enforcing this law and ones like it I have no idea, I guess they will start putting "Pro-Life Commissars" in every women's clinic in the country.

But make no mistake about it, even those claiming to be pro choice who mention these talking points for any reason simply want to take away a woman's right to control her own body and destiny. It is NOT their choice, only the woman's, they just want to replace the scalpel with a coat hanger. Please don't get me started on the rape argument either, talk about hypocritical, they claim that the fetus is holy, except for when it is conceived in a not so ideal manner. Where is the sacredness of human life there, according to their own talking points?

[flamin lib]

1. Please don't flame me 'cause I'm on the same page in

the hymnal as you.

But (everybody's got one) the SCOTUS left a some troublesome issues in Roe V Wade. Paraphrasing, the ruling says that the States have no interest during the first tri-mester, limited interest in the second and may regulate the third tri-mester. What a mess! Number one it relegates abortion to the States as a states rights issue when the ruling is based on a constitutional right to privacy. If it's in the Constitution, it's not a states rights issue. Two, the term tri-mester didn't really exist prior to R v W, it's a completely arbitrary time line.

Like I said, I agree completely with you but looking at it pragmatically it's a legal/constitutional mess.

[Solon]

2. I never said it was nice and neat...

If I was on the court at the time, I wouldn't have left any ambiguities in the decision, sadly, I wasn't born yet. I Probably would have used a very liberal(pun intended) interpretation of the 4th amendment that left no room for governmental intereference, but that's just me.

[flamin lib]

3. Yeah, the Court tried to be all things to all people

added compliment

and got us all in trouble in doing so. They were no doubt hoping for the resolution that Solomon got with the two women claiming one child. Just goes to show that basing a legal decision on ancient Hebrew folk tales is no way to go . . .

BTW I like your sig line. Have you been to oldamericancentury.org and read the 14 characteristics all fascist states share?

[Solon]

4. Yes I have...

I came across the quote while researching the attempted coup against FDR by JP Morgan and Company(Pun intended). At American Almanac I think, and yes, basing our legal decisions on some bad ones of the ancient past is a bad idea.

[REP]

5. IDX Abortions are Done in the Second Trimester

D&X is Dilation and Extraction, the older method of dismembering the fetus in utero and extracting the pieces. IDX is Intact Dilation and Extraction, the newer method where the fetal skull is collapsed and the fetus is extracted intact. It is not just used in cases of dead and dying fetuses, as Katha Pollitt's April 3, 2003 column, "In The Waiting Room" explains (a 2004 issue of Harper's documents the same thing).

From Pollitt's column: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030421&s=pollitt

"We are in a funding emergency today," read the e-mail from the New York Abortion Access Fund. Four women, who had come to New York City for second-trimester abortions unavailable in their home states, were about to be sent home because, despite heroic efforts, a clinic social worker had been unable to raise enough money to pay for their procedures, which cost between $1,600 and $2,000. Belinda, from Maryland, needed $750 more. Miranda, from Philadelphia, needed $595 more. Evelynne, from Maryland, needed $445 more. Karina, a 15-year-old rape victim from Massachusetts, needed $1,500 more. The women (these are not their real names) had traveled long distances and had spent the night hoping against hope that the money would be found: At twenty-three weeks, this was their last chance.

Belinda, Miranda, Evelynne and Karina are the human face of the current Congressional debate over "partial-birth abortion," a term invented by anti-choicers that has no precise medical meaning and cannot be found in any medical text. Yet it has obtained wide currency thanks to the media, which, whether out of laziness or ignorance or fear of seeming too liberal, use it far more often than such terms as "dilation and extraction" and "dilation and evacuation," which describe actual methods used in second- and third-term abortions. (A recent Nexis search found that over the past six months, "partial birth" was used 427 times, while "dilation and extraction" was used only 32 times.) The oxymoronic "partial-birth abortion," with accompanying gory description--crushed skull, sucked-out brains, half-delivered fetus--was a stroke of public relations genius; another is the phrase "late term."

When is "late term"? Well, it's when you have a "partial-birth abortion." It is, in other words, a foggy expression that intentionally conflates the second trimester of pregnancy, when according to Roe v. Wade, abortion can be regulated before viability only to safeguard the woman's health, and the third trimester, when abortion can legally be banned except to preserve the woman's life or health. By this sleight of hand, "late term" suggests that most second-trimester fetuses are viable (although they almost never are, except at the very end) and paints "partial-birth abortions" as legal infanticide. Thus the anti-choicers reframe themselves as the commonsensical moderates and pro-choicers as the callous extremists.

...

Abortions at twenty weeks and beyond make up less than 2 percent of all abortions. So how does a woman twenty-three weeks pregnant come to be sitting in an abortion clinic waiting room so far from home? According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the three most common reasons are "she didn't realize she was pregnant" (71 percent of women surveyed); "she had difficulty making the arrangements" (including gathering funding, finding a provider in her area or making travel arrangements--48 percent of women gave this response); and "she was afraid to tell her parents or partner" (33 percent). The stories of the four women bear out these findings. Belinda, for example, kept getting her period through the first trimester; Karina, the rape victim, is an immigrant living in a parental-consent state, whose parents still live in South America. Even with help from her boyfriend and his parents, she had only $300 to pay the clinic. Young women, poor women, women in a hundred kinds of trouble--this is the real face of "partial-birth abortion."

Edited to add: in case I didn't make it clear, I'm not in favor of ANY limits on women's reproductive freedoms.