Story by Dean on MTP re woman who thinks she is pro-life but who we would

[Pirate Smile]

consider pro-choice.

I thought this was an important story he told and if anyone missed it, I wanted to point it out.

"Let me tell you why I think we ought to--why I want to strike the words "abortion" and "choice." When I campaigned for this job, I talked to lots of Democrats. And there are significant numbers of pro-life Democrats in the South. And one lady said to me, you know, "I'm pro-life. I don't like abortion. I would never have one. I would hope my daughter would never have one. But, you know, if the lady next door got herself in a fix, I'm not sure I should be the one to tell her what to do." Now, we call that woman pro-choice, but she thinks of herself as pro-life. The minute we start with the "pro-choice, pro- choice, pro-choice," she says, "Well, that's not me."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7924139/

[JDPriestly]

1. He was great on the right to privacy for women issue.

[KaliTracy]

2. that's me, too -- though always considered myself "pro-choice" to Reframe

Reproductive Freedom and/or Reproductive Rights

I have no right telling anyone else what to do -- and neither does the government.

[Carolab]

3. How about "pro-rights" or "pro-personal freedom". n/t

[KaliTracy]

5. Could work -- Pro-privacy ? let's see....

"My opponent is AGAINST privacy -- AGAINST personal freedom, and AGAINST the rights guarenteed to you within the Consitution and the Admendements of this United States...."

[sandnsea]

26. Reproductive Privacy

Reproductive Responsibility. I suggested this to NARAL two years ago. We also have to remind people of medically necessary abortions because that is getting totally lost. Mothers, daughters, sisters, are going to die if we don't get some truth and reason back in this debate.

[Quixote1818]

28. Why call it anything? Why not just say "Safe, legal and rare"?

Does it really have to have a name? I don't remember Clinton ever calling it anything but he always used the terms "Safe, legal and rare". Seems to me it's that simple.

[KaliTracy]

30. Because those who are opposing birth control (not just the morning after

pill) as abortifacients don't see it that way. The issue has include anything that surrounds reproductive privacy and reproductive rights.

http://msn.prevention.com/article/0,5778,s2-1-93-35-4130-1-P,00.html

[Quixote1818]

35. What about defining the other side as: Anti Privacy? Our side should be

"Pro-Privacy".

Anti-Privacy puts them on the defensive and makes them sound like they want in your bedroom.

So then you end up with the "Pro-Privacy" and "Anti-Privacy" labels.

[KaliTracy]

39. yes, could work. See post # 5 --

[sandnsea]

38. moral judgment

We need to take the morality out of it and put the medical and practicality back into it. It's a private decision between a woman and her doctor. Reproductive Responsibility encompasses prevention, responsible parenting, economic responsibility; which leads right to the reason abortion needs to be a private decision. Those who have the responsiblity have to have the right to make reproductive decisions.

[KaliTracy]

29. What do you feel about Reproductive Freedom? I think your ideas

are very good, too. It's got to be out the "pro/anti" abortion issue -- and about Reproductive Rights.

[Quixote1818]

31. I think "Privacy" resonates with people more than "freedom" on this issue

For many the word "freedom" with ethics implies "I can do what ever the hell I want because I am a godless heathen".


Privacy says "Get your fucking ass out of my bedroom Tom Delay".

[sandnsea]

37. Exactly n/t

[XemaSab]

47. I definitely don't want

the image of tom delay's quote fucking ass unquote in my bedroom.

[Gelliebeans]

51. 1000% Agree.

Most people can agree that protecting privacy has become a huge issue. We need to add this to the pro-choice debate.

These have been winners with the public at large in spite of the Republican hyperbole.

1.Identity theft= private information that shouldn't be made public

2.Terri Schiavo= private decision for spouses to make regarding health
and welfare

3.Patriot Act= private citizens living their lives without government
interference

[gorbal]

32. How about "pro-decision"

I always hated the phrase "Pro-choice" It's general tone puts having children on the same level as going shopping.

[Quixote1818]

34. Going Shopping!!!! Perfect analogy!

I have always felt the same way about the term "Pro Choice". It's like:

Dear, I am going to stop by the grocery store to get some milk and have an abortion. Which grocery store should I chose to have my fetus sucked out at? Love you honey!

[Quixote1818]

36. Pro-privacy is by far the best label!

The other side could then be labeled "Anti-Privacy". This reminds people of things like the Terri Schiavo case.

[FreedomAngel82]

41. Same here

Although I'd never have an abortion it's not my right to tell someone else they can't. It's between the woman, her doctor and a God if she believes in a higher being.

[customerserviceguy]

4. Did she have a relative

150 years ago who said, "Well, I wouldn't own a slave, but I'm not going to tell the plantation owner next door what to do."

Would we consider her pro-slavery, pro-abolition, or pro-choice?

[mzmolly]

6. What a ridiculous comparison.

:eyes:

It sounds like something Republicans would say in order to argue against choice.

[customerserviceguy]

8. My point is this

There are people who try to use language to hide or gloss over things. Republicans do this all the time, why should Democrats?

As you can tell from my comment, I differ from a lot of people here on the issue of abortion. I guess being an infant adoptee defines this issue for me in a way that most of the people here cannot relate to, just as I cannot relate to racism the way a nonwhite person can. But I do have much more respect for people who are willing to admit being pro-abortion. I disagree with them, but at least I can acknowledge that they're intellectually honest about it.

Choice is nothing but a loaded buzzword, I'm not willing to be pro-choice on the issues of homophobia, racism, or religious tolerance. The right wing can use the word, too, and they do in the cases of evolution vs. creationism, or to keep their kids ignorant of birth control, homosexuality, and non-Christian religions.

[mzmolly]

13. There are adopted people who are pro-choice.

I am pro-child. I believe every child born should be wanted, clothed, fed, nurtured, educated etc. I believe as a society we should care about children outside the womb. I also believe that women need our support to make the choice that is best for them.

I am pro-choice, pro-child, not pro-abortion ... It is not my wish that every woman have an abortion, it is my wish that woman have a CHOICE. Clinton framed the issue as such: "safe, legal and rare."

Now, I'm out. :hi:

[customerserviceguy]

55. The only difference between us

is the definition of when that living being with the 46 human chromosomes becomes a child, in other words, a person with human rights. You've decided that its at birth, I believe it happens before that. We share the values that children should be cared for, we just disagree on when that responsibility begins.

Like me, I'm sure that you're glad you weren't aborted.

[cheezus]

58. to extend your logic

Like me, I'm sure that you're glad your father didn't use a condom


just how far back are we willing to take the "potential for life"?

[customerserviceguy]

72. I never really thought about the condom, frankly

but as some wag once put it, it is humbling to believe that we all could have been prevented for a quarter!

There are those here who consider human rights to begin at live birth, but I suspect there are some who think it might be at some time before that. A woman who gives birth to a stillborn baby (obviously alive at some point since conception) would be extended every sympathy, and I hope no one would try to make her feel better with the explanation "that it wasn't really a baby." Same case, I hope, with any miscarriage.

What defining event occurs between conception and live birth? I can't put my finger on one (some use "quickening", or movement of the fetus, but that seems imprecise) and until science can prove to me that it goes from "clump of cells" to "human being" at some detectable event, I err on the side of expanding the definition. Throughout history, whenever those in power (be it an absolute ruler, a legislature, or a direct vote of the people) have narrowed the definition of humanity, they have been wrong more times than they have been right, and the reverse is true when the definition of humanity is expanded. I recoil in horror at seeing the humanity of gay and lesbian people denied at the ballot boxes in even the blue states, like Oregon and Michigan. I'm glad that people of color did not have their humanity put on the ballot back in the 1960's, but I suppose that happened indirectly with candidates like George Wallace.

Can't take it all the way back to the sperm and egg, sorry. And I won't get trapped into some fundie "all sex is for procreation" crap, either.

[mzmolly]

62. Actually, If I were aborted, I'd not have an opinion would I?

:eyes:

And if my Mother would have been in a position to feel it was her best option, that would be her choice, and I'd rather she had access to a legal abortion than an illegal one.

However, if were going to make the "I'm glad everyone was born argument," I bet Charles Manson's glad his unfit/unprepared mother didn't abort him too? There is a huge cost to society picking up the pieces of children who no body gave a shit about. Republicans want everyone to exit the womb, but what happens after that matters not.

Further, ethics are involved in terminating a pregnancy today. People are not having regular abortions at 7 months gestation, that can't be said for the days abortions were not legal.

Most abortions today, are completed during the first three months of gestation, 88 percent in fact. That's far different then it would be if abortions became an illegal proposition. Today we can encourage early abortion ~ make them illegal and that will change.

And, for the record ... the abortion rate is increasing dramatically under this so called "pro-life" administration. It always does under Republican policy. Go figure?

[customerserviceguy]

73. Interesting logic

And if your mother had used effective contraception control, you wouldn't have an opinion either. So what?

Of course, if the essense that is "you" would have been deposited into a different conception, where there was no question that you were a wanted child, then there might have been a "you" to have an opinion. Such things involve philosophical/religious debates, but as I'm an agnostic, I don't get too involved in such things. Suffice it to say, I believe that human beings may just very well be more than a set of interacting chemicals, that we just might have something that makes us different from animals, and that this "something" probably enters our bodies prior to live birth. I don't believe that the womb (and its surrounding tissues, including skin) are a barrier to this possible transfer of "humanness". I don't need a god-figure to presume human dignity, and the worth of human life.

Your mention of trimesters echoes the "reasoning" used in Roe vs. Wade. It's really just the scientific knowledge of 1970 fused into law. It has always puzzled me that certain rights of unborn humans could be found even in a penumbra of an emenation of a Constitution that failed to even hint at the concept of a "trimester". Since that decision stood solely on the basis of existing science, its potential frailty is the possible weakness of that science. If science discovers the existence of the "soul" (or something like it), and finds that it exists at, say, one month of pregancy, are you ready to accept that the law will have to change?

As for your final point, can you cite some statistics that show higher abortion rates under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the Bushes, than under Carter and Clinton? I'm interested to see if they really exist, or is this just something you made up? Even if true, what does that prove? That abortion "rights" are enjoying a greater excercise of freedom under Republican administrations?

[mzmolly]

75. No, the presence of a soul would not change my position on the issue.

If one believes in the concept of a soul, then one presumably belives in an afterlife?

As for documentation here is some info for starters:

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Increased_the_number_of_abortions

Increased the number of abortions
From dKosopedia, the free political encyclopedia.

Facts

Republican controlled government leads to more abortions, not less.

During the Reagan and Bush Sr. presidency the abortion rate per pregnancy was much higher than during the Clinton presidency. In the 1980's the Republican leadership did nothing while over 25% of pregnancies ended in abortion. In the 1990's the Clinton presidency oversaw the abortion rate go down to just over 20%. The Reagan and Bush leadership failed and the result was a high of 1.6 million abortions per year under their leadership.

Republicans cannot blame anyone else for their failures in abortion policies. In Kansas, for example, where the Republicans control nearly every facet of Kansas government abortions are more common than ever. From 1990 to 1996 the Kansas abortion rates skyrocketed by over 15% as abortion rates declined in the rest of the country by over 5%.

Republican policy is hopelessly outdated. Over the last two decades the Republican focus has been on using the court system to control availability to abortion facilities. In the meantime progressive alternatives to abortion have been delivered across the country. Progressive solutions include providing services to poor teenagers to address basic social and economic problems or creating Pregnancy Centers in poor areas ...

What this proves - is that poverty and hopelessness (created by such administrations) increase the desire for abortions. It proves that promoting abstinence only programs do not work. It proves the so called pro-life movement has it backwards, because if one want's to promote LIFE one must do so beyond the womb. It proves that those who support such administrations because of the abortion issue, have it backwards.

[LisaLL]

83. slight flaw

All due respect, the flaw in your logic is that making abortion illegal prevents abortions and more children will be born. it actually doesn't work this way.

Preventing unintended pregnancies and maximizing contraceptive use, in country after country, results in a long-term decline in abortion rates.

Making abortion illegal has very little impact on abortion frequency. Some of the countries with the lowest abortion rates (like the Netherlands) have very liberal abortion laws. Some of the countries with very high abortion rates (like Chile, Peru, Africa) have restrictive laws. But, making abortion illegal drastically increases the number of women injured and killed.

In summary, contraception and adequate resources for families decreases abortions. Making abortion illegal only increases the number of women who die or are injured. Not sure if it changes your view but at least it's important to know the cause and effect of policies.

Re: numbers. Abortions have been declining for the last 12 years in a row. I believe that the decline has slowed recently. In the past few years abortion overall declined in most groups but *increased* in poor women. I believe that they are representing the canary in the coal mine of Bush policies. They are first hit by less access to contraception, less access to accurate education about contraception, less resources for families to raise children--resulting in an increase in abortions.

We can learn from our own country and the experiences gained from other countries about what works (the Democratic, Pro-Choice Policies result in fewer unintended pregnancies, fewer abortions, and fewer women dying). Or we can choose to remain ignorant, make these problems worse because some people would rather throw tantrums about how bad abortion is rather than help prevent unintended pregnancies.

[Larkspur]

69. God aborts two thirds of all feterlized eggs and zygotes

within the first 2 trimesters. If you assume that life begins at conception, you either believe in a horrible blood thirsty god or you ignore this scientific fact. How do you explain that two thirds of fertilzed eggs and zygotes are purged naturally?

[Quixote1818]

79. I am glad my my great, great, great, great, grand father met his wife

I am glad my parents forgot to use birth control when I was conceived, I am glad the big bang happened, I am glad stars blew up to produce the necessary elements for life to begin.

Their are an unlimited number of things that could have prevented any person from being born. Then again with your reasoning perhaps we should make sure every woman on the planet has as many children as possible so as many people as possible can say "I am glad my Mom didn't abort me." Where does it end?

[napi21]

15. Are you really pro-abortion?

or are you pro abortion rights? None of my business, I admit, but if you are pro abortion, you are the first one I've ever heard of.

I don't dispute your point in saying you're not pro choice because you're just not flexible on the issue, but words mean different things to different people.

The RW have used the term pro abortion to portray all Dems as insisting that all women think abortion is a great thing, and their ploy has worked very well for them.

If you don't like the words pro choice, which I understand to mean the decision is YOURS, not the Government's, what terminology would you prefer?

[customerserviceguy]

56. I'm not

I was just trying to say that I consider the people who call themselves pro-abortion as intellectually honest. I call myself anti-abortion, for two reasons. I wish to distinguish myself from the people who call themselves "pro-life", because it is a meaningless term. Everybody is pro-life when it comes to people they consider worthy of life, and everybody has some category of living beings bearing the 46 human chromosomes that they consider unworthy of life. The other is, I wish to distinguish myself from the fundies, whose so-called "pro-life" stand also prohibits dying people from requesting an end to their sufferings. They also deny other categories of human beings, like gay and lesbian people, from participating in full human rights.

You're right about the way the RW has portrayed abortion, as sort of a feminist sacrament, but there are a few people out there (like the shock jock on Clear Channel with his "abortion contest") who are easy for them to seize on. I find that many abortion advocates, who vigorously defend any abortion, any time, anywhere, no matter what the circumstances, sound like gun nuts who advocate any weapon, for any body, any time, and zero regulation.

[mzmolly]

76. Are you pro-illegal abortion? I consider that to be the intellectually

honest position as it pertains to the so called "pro-life" movement.

What is at issue is here is whether or not abortions will be legal vs. illegal.

If you are not for making all abortions illegal, then I haven't an issue with your personal opinion on the matter.

If you are pro-illegal abortion, I do take issue.

By the way, I am more than willing to say I'm PRO-LEGAL ABORTION.

[TankLV]

19. Bull. I am personally against abortion - I wouldn't have one.

And I am pro-choice - I wouldn't be against anyone who would have one!

Get it?!?!?!

It's up to the individual to CHOOSE what's strictly a PERSONAL DECISION for THEIR OWN BODIES!

Pro-choice IS the compromise position!

[customerserviceguy]

57. Again

Our difference is in the definition of what is one's own body. I prefer definitions of humanity that are expansive, not limiting. I'm always able to silence rightwing critics who come to me about abortion, yet deny full humanity to gay and lesbian people.

[Horse with no Name]

20. NOBODY is pro-abortion

It is simply respecting other's rights to make their own personal decisions.
Decisions that have absolutely no impact on how YOU live YOUR life should never be general discussion and certainly never political fodder.
Kind of like--mind your own business and I will mind mine and nobody loses. You don't have to worry about things that don't concern you and I don't have to defend myself for making decisions that concern me.

[customerserviceguy]

59. We had "mind your own business"

when husbands were beating "their own" wives and children. We had "mind your own business" when people were refusing to rent homes to people of color. We had "mind your own business" when South Africa had apartheid.

We DID "mind our own business" when Rwandans were being slaughtered, but they didn't have any oil. We DID "mind our own business" before there were Megan's Laws to protect children from child rapists. We DID "mind our own business" when old people were destitute from the Depression, and didn't have Social Security. That's the appeal of BushCo in private accounts, "mind your own business, and let the stupid poor people starve, if they're too simple minded to fund their 401K's".

If you see a preborn human being as not being a person, your stand is consistent with that view. But if you really see a preborn human being as a person, and not just as a dandy way to punish a woman for having premarital sex, then what do you do about it? I work to persuade others for the rights of my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to have full human rights, because I don't believe their orientation denies their complete humanity, why shouldn't I do the same thing for any other entities I regard as human persons?

[Larkspur]

70. God aborts two thirds of all feterlized eggs and zygotes

within the first 2 trimesters. At what time during the pregnancy do you claim that life begins? If you say conception, then explain why two thirds of fertlized eggs and zygotes are terminated naturally?

Do you support birth control, or do you see that as a form of abortion?

[customerserviceguy]

74. As for your statements about "God"

we will have to disagree, because I'm an agnostic, who thinks that some "God" character doesn't roll the dice with human beings, or any other creatures, for that matter. Certainly, not every conception is designed to become a full, living breathing human being, the mistakes that are made in sexual reproduction argue against "intelligent" design. But, then, perhaps the process that these "mistakes" are weeded out could be a part of the design, either intelligent or evolved, that insures that more viable offspring are born.

Stuff happens, millions of people die each day. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to prevent (or delay) a goodly proportion of those deaths, and it certainly doesn't mean that murder is of no consequence. Even without presupposing a higher being, we still have a duty to treat each other with dignity. And I believe that there is a higher standard of dignity to be accorded to a human being as opposed to a rock, a flower, a mosquito, or even a dog. Call me 'specieist' if you like, but I do believe there is something special here, in all of us.

As for your correct observation about the two-thirds of conception products being naturally terminated, it is obvious that even a greater percentage of pre-conception products are similarly not destined to become full human beings. I've read that each woman is born with about a thousand ova, and clearly, no woman has a thousand kids. Although it does seem like that here in Utah! The "wastage" of spermatozoa in males is even greater, when you consider the quintillions (just a wild assed guess on that!) produced over a man's lifetime. Adding a few more sperm and eggs to the "sorry, you didn't win the grand prize drawing" is not a problem for me, I do believe in conception control.

Like I said in other posts, there is some point when we become human, with entitlement to human dignity. Since, other than live birth, I cannot really see any definable point (and I choose not to accept that late a point as the beginning of humanness), then by default, it falls back to conception as that defining point. In the abscence of clear, convincing science about when we become human, it is just a philosophical point, and I'm entitled to draw the line where I see reasonable. And if enough of my fellow citizens are of a similar conclusion, then we can codify our perceptions into law. It happens every day, on tens of thousands of issues.

[Larkspur]

77. In my opinion, life starts after the celebral cortex is connected with

the thalamus, the part of the brain that translates thoughts into nervous-system commands. This happens around the beginning of the third trimester but not sooner. Fetal scientists have detected brain waves similar to a newborn's at this point. Prior to that the brain is just sending spasms to muscles and other body parts to help them develop and to connect them to the brain.

After the celebral cortex and the thalamus have connected, the fetus begin exhibiting consciousness. It reacts to it's world, the womb, and at this point the fetus reacts to pain and pleasure stimuli. British doctors recommend the use of anesthesia before forming abortions on fetuses at this stage, unless they are already dead.

Based on fetal science, I do not believe that life starts at conception. It starts after the celebral cortex and thalamus have connected. It makes sense, because from this point onward, the fetus' chances of surviving outside the womb and developing into a healthy human being increase exponentially.

I support Roe vs Wade's premise that first term abortions should be unrestricted, 2nd term abortions done after consulting with a doctor, and 3rd term abortions prohibited except to protect the life and health of the mother. I would also include in the exception to 3rd term abortions, fetuses that exhibit disabilities incompatable with life. I don't favor aborting the disabled, but there are some disabilities so severe that they will reduce the newborn to an animal or to a vegatative state. In these cases, I'd allow the woman to make the decision to abort or not.

[customerserviceguy]

78. Interesting

I've never seen the cerebral cortex/thalamus research. If you have a link, I'd be interested in reading it. While I disagree with you about fetal life not beginning at conception, I find the arguments about fetal consciousness intriguing. I do believe that once a person's consciousness is irreparably gone, that person is, for all intents and purposes, dead. That can be a tall order, I'm not pulling the plug on Granny when she's been out of it for a week. I've been stoned nearly that long!

I'm with you on dealing with severe medical defects, but I really wish there were clear ethical standards on this. When homosexuality is postively discovered to be genetic in origin, I don't want that being used as an excuse. It's bad enough that we allow abortion for sex selection.

[Larkspur]

88. Dr. Nicholas Fisk had an article on fetal sentience published in 1999

N.M. Fisk et al, "Fetal plasma cortisol and beta-endorphin response to intrauterine needling." The Lancet 344, 77-81 (1994)

Dr. Fisk was a professor at the College School of Medicine in London when Gregg Easterbrook interviewed him. I don't know if he is still there.

You can google for "fetal sentience" but be careful there are a lot of anti-abortion sites that misuse this information, but they may be able to provide a link to the original source or at least a biography note to it.

[mzmolly]

84. Very interesting post.

Thanks!

[KaliTracy]

22. with all due respect, this is why the issue needs to be reframed. I

understand your point of view, (I am not adopted, but my brother and my husband both were). But my mother was asked to get and sign a document and that had TWO psychiatrist signatures stating that she would be "mentally instable" if she had another stillborn because she had an RH negative incompatibility (prior to Rogam, and prior to Roe-V-Wade). That was the climate on Reproductive Rights, prior to Roe-v-Wade, if you had the plumbing, you were expected to procreate, never mind that you might not be able to have a full-term birth. She had already had 1 still born after me (as I sensitized her), and had a 1-in-4 chance of having a live birth. My father wasn't asked to sign any papers to get a vasectomy, which he did.

I could never have an abortion - in fact, 5 years ago I had an unexpected pregnancy at 35 in the middle of a marriage crisis, which in turn increased the marriage crisis (as we both didn't plan on having children). However, I do not feel it is up to any government to make limit or restrict or make decisions that limit reproductive rights for females. It's one thing for a neighbor to not agree with my pro-choice (reproductive rights) stand. When pharmacists can start saying we aren't going to fill this prescription for birth control because we don't believe in it, we've got a problem.

http://www.prevention.com/article/0,5778,s1-1-93-35-4130-1,00.html

edit: clarity

[customerserviceguy]

63. I'm sorry for the personal tragedies

in your mother's life. My adoptive mother had several miscarriages, and to her, they were all deeply felt losses, same problem, RH factor. I certainly can relate to your description of the way things were about being expected to procreate, that ethic is still alive and well in modern day Utah.

As for using governmental power, I certainly hope that someday soon, the Supreme Court uses governmental power to allow gay and lesbian people to marry all across this country, and not just in the blue states. It's going to piss off a LOT of red staters when this happens, I guarantee they will be just as upset as most liberals would be if Roe vs. Wade were overturned. We used governmental power in a similar fashion to guarantee rights for people of color four or five decades ago. Governmental power has its good points, when it expands human freedom. The only difference I seem to have with most everybody here is on the definition of who is a human person.

I'm glad that no one aborted your brother or your husband. I'm glad that their birth mothers did not make a decision many years ago that their lives were going to be crap, and would not be worth living. That's what Roe vs. Wade did, it put the power of defining a fetus either as a baby or a nuisance in the hands of one individual. When that individual has this circumstance forced upon her, as with rape or incest, I can understand the need to rid one's self of the consequences of the violence. When that individual allowed the circumstances to happen, by refusing to use adequate conception control methods, and by choosing to engage in reproductive behavior with a person who is unsuitable to be a father, then I feel there is some responsibility to the products of this activity, if one genuinely believes that it just might be a person. Your husband and your brother were in that situation, in fact, we all were to some extent, and I'm glad for you that the individuals who created them, gave them to you.

[KaliTracy]

85. thank you. but I do have to say your comparisons to gay marriage

and marriage in general do touch very heavily on this issue --
for marriage wasn't originally about love -- it was about power.

This is a part of a letter I send out in support of Gay and Lesbian marriage -- (please note, the tone is not towards you -- I was peeved when I wrote it)

**

Marriage is not some sacred institution – years ago if a woman didn’t have enough in her dowry she was “passed” up for marriage, even if she was pious and righteous. Marriage was economic and about power. Marriage has many different histories – many religions arranged marriages, (yes, even in the States) – and that has nothing to do with personal commitment. Having a good dowry (or a poor dowry) had nothing to do with personal commitment. And I would not even say marriages were originally based on tradition. Marriage was originally seen as ownership – a man owned his wife, his cow, and his land. That’s why divorce was so difficult (if impossible) to get. It’s not that sexual liberation made marriage and divorce so easy – it’s that our laws became more understanding to the fact that if two people were not happy married together, then they didn’t have to be married anymore (and it didn’t have to be something so hideous as physical abuse to be the only way to get out). Sure, people would like to see that the couple at odds “tried” to make it work, in whatever ways possible – but if it doesn’t work – then they are not tied to an arcane law that says they must live out their days in misery.

The fact of the matter is that the US would not suddenly crumble if there were a change in our marriage laws. Those who want to get married, with a religious ceremony or not, still could do so. Those who wanted a different relationship structure could also do so. The fact that certain people want to make marriage “one man, one woman only” discount that people of the same gender can love honestly, respectively, and yes, many even religiously. To legislate love between consenting adults is something I don’t understand – it used to be illegal for interracial couples to commit their bond in a “legal” ceremony. We got beyond that.

But even into the 1960s, it was illegal in most states to marry interracially. (For a very interesting look at this, and other marriage issues, see http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar3.htm ). The arguments against interracial marriage then were much the same from the far right against same-sex marriage now – “against natural law” -- the same reasons we have heard from our very own President of the United States. However, people who were in love and were of different ethnic origins still got married. They still wanted the commitment, and the ability to buy a house or car together, to live together, to laugh together or to be by each other's side in times of trouble. Soon, that stigma, that racism, was seen for what it was, and the laws were gradually lifted -- allowing all races to mix and mingle at will.

****

For me, and I would suppose (but not presume) other "pro-choice" people -- this issue is about government control and personal privacy.
There are lawmakers who have already tried to circumvent Roe V Wade with bills that make it a *crime* if a woman doesn't report a "fetal death" (including miscarriage) within 12 hours. I'm sorry, but since when does having a miscarriage become a crime?

Scenerio and information here:
http://democracyforvirginia.typepad.com/democracy_for_virginia/2005/01/legislative_sen.html

Additiona information/additional clarification and links http://democracyforvirginia.typepad.com/democracy_for_virginia/2005/01/lesgislative_se.html


***
I completely feel that this is an issue of privacy between a woman and her doctor. Any government that can tell me what to do with one aspect of my body can tell me to do other things, too (like China, who limits number of children and prefers one gender over another) -- like The Handmaid's Tale - by Margaret Atwood, in which fertile woman become Handmaids because of the cost of war and infertility among many women/men. Fiction? You bet -- and it is my wish that is STAYS fiction.

Abortion should stay rare, safe and legal.

[girl gone mad]

33. I'm adopted..

and I think your statement is nonsense.

I'm pro-choice, and I don't for a second believe that being adopted gives me some kind of perspective on the issue that non-adopted people don't have. I also think that it is absurd for you to compare the issue to racism or slavery.

On the other hand, I do think that being a woman gives me special inight into the issue.

[customerserviceguy]

65. Interesting...

so, you got through the gate, the hell with those who didn't/can't/won't? I think in your case, you're right, you don't seem to have the perspective that every infant adoptee that I've talked to has. Your attitude is more like a Republican "can't they pull themselves up by their own bootstaps" disbelief.

I believe that every infant adoptee is different from people who were born to intact families (the majority of people you see were), because for those folks, they always knew that from the moment of their conception, there was never an issue as to them being here. It's sort of like the difference between naturalized citizens and native born (I was born in Canada, by the way), the native borns take it for granted, and the naturalized feel very lucky that circumstances have gotten them to American citizenship.

Infant adoptees always know that at some time in their preborn life, they were candidates for extinction. Maybe it was illegal at that time (but still available) or maybe their biological mothers just simply regarded them as too important to flush away, but they always know that they're damned lucky to be here. Do you feel that way, or did you just have some sort of special divine right that guaranteed you'd get to this point?

Sorry, the "woman" thing is just a way to shut men out of the debate, I don't buy it. Did you get upset when you saw white people boycotting South Africa during apartheid, or do you get offended when you see straight people observe Gay Pride parades? Half the children being aborted are male, and I believe all of them are human.

In a cruel, insensitive world, I was given two gifts: my life, and my American citizenship. I'm damned glad, and exceedingly lucky to have both.

[loudestchick]

60. Hold on a minute.

I'm an infant adoptee. I've had an abortion (age 16), given birth to three wonderful children (when I was ready for them) and I remain pro-choice. Safe, legal, and rare!

[customerserviceguy]

66. I'm glad

it was rare in your case. Do your kids know about the abortion? Have they ever asked you why it was not them, too? Are you ever curious if they think that way?

It's not just academic. My ex wife and I conceived a child (before she was "ready" at the age of 24), she aborted it (when I went out of town, her mother dragged her to an abortion doctor), had a miscarriage two weeks after we married, and then three kids. She told them about the abortion, and they were curious about this. I guess they figured they were "safe" because she and I were married at the time of their conceptions and births.

[loudestchick]

82. My children are 10, 6 and 3. So, no. I haven't discussed my "history"

w/ them. But, I will, when I judge the time is right. I'll also tell them about drug use, sexual promiscuity, drinking and driving. I won't make many of the same mistakes my parents did.

[me b zola]

80. "Choice is nothing but a loaded buzzword"

So unlike "pro-life", where for the sake of their cause they blow-up clinics, support war based on lies, and support the death penalty. Yeah, "pro-life" certainly couldn't/shouldn't be seen as a loded buzz-phrase.

>sarcasm off<

[kaitykaity]

9. Did she have a relative who died 30 years ago

from a back-alley abortion?

[blondeatlast]

11. That framing comes right out of the Heritage Foundation,

whether that was the intent or not.

[customerserviceguy]

67. Gee

and Hitler drank beer. I guess I should stop.

I really don't care what the Heritage Foundation says about anything, even a blind pig gets lucky and finds an acorn every once in awhile. I don't base my thinking on trying to be opposite to people I disagree with in the main. This country is becoming polarized by people who say, "If you agree with me on X, then you need to agree with me on Y." Sorry, I do my own picking and choosing of my values.

[bloom]

24. How do you justify women being killed

for their unborn - not allowing health & life of the mother exceptions for "partial birth abortions".

Is that pro-fetus? or pro-death? It's not pro-choice, that's for darn sure.

[customerserviceguy]

68. I never said that

I do believe that when there are two lives in the balance, then the established life takes precedence. That's why I reject the "pro-life" label, the fundies make near zero exceptions for the life of the mother, or rape and incest. They don't consider the pregnant woman to be "life", but I do.

That said, the vast majority of abortions do not involve a threat to the life of the woman aborting the preborn human. I favor a society that gives these women REAL choices, with daycare opportunities, jobs at living wages, decent schools. I also favor open adoptions, with a chance for that child to live a happy life with someone who will cherish him or her.

[phylny]

81. Have you adopted

children? Special needs or otherwise?

[fortyfeetunder]

7. Where is the mind your own business factor?

I think the concept of pro-life and pro-choice should be based on individual decisions, and not to decide for other people you have no legal, emotional, or financial interest in.

I don't give a rip about someone else's reproductive decisions. Absolutely not...

[shoopnyc]

10. GREAT DISTINCTION HERE...

...just saw it, he was great, and I'm not so much a fan...

[OnionPatch]

12. I can see the logic here

Many people don't understand pro-choice correctly so we need to reframe.

I think the two terms that are important are:

Personal Rights
Personal Privacy

[Pirate Smile]

14. We need one more vote to get this on the Greatest Page. My views are

similar to the woman he is talking about although I always recognized that as pro-choice. I also always recognized that I haven't been in a position where I or my daughter, etc. had to make such a very difficult decision. Until it happens to you, you can't always tell what you will do.

[Carolab]

17. I have.

In the end, it seemed to me I made the responsible (i.e., moral) choice with regard for both my quality of life and the quality of life for my unborn child.

If a pregnancy is high-risk--either because of the mother's or the fetus's condition or the circumstances of the pregnancy--it endangers the quality of your life and/or that of the child.

[Tansy_Gold]

16. Many people believe "pro-choice" means

a lack of responsibility for one's actions. They equate "choosing" abortion over, say, adoption, with "choosing" Galas over Red Delicious apples. That's where you get the "It's not a choice, it's a child!" rhetoric.

And once the debate becomes "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice," it's difficult to counter "pro-life" -- which is intrinsically positive -- with anything else. "Pro-choice" can be turned into a negative; "pro-life" as a term (not as an ideology) is much more difficult to be turned into a negative.


Always always always lost in that debate is the postion, value, and "values" of the woman who has to make the decision, or, if you will, the choice. Too many laws restricting abortion have "exemptions in the case of . . . ." that still don't take into consideration the rights of the woman to ownership and control of her own body.

I get absolutely furious with the people who say, "But if we had no restrictions on abortion, women would be aborting full-term babies left and right just because they're tired of being pregnant!"

And no one calls bullshit on this. Instead, it sits in the arsenal of arguments AGAINST abortion rights.

On the other hand, when the statistics about late-term (or even second-trimester) abortions are dragged out and shown to be a tiny fraction of the terminations performed each year and virtually always with serious medical justification, no one also points out that few of them would be eliminated under the "exemption" laws.

Oh, sure, there might be handful of babies with unwanted extra fingers or correctable congenital abnormalities who would go on to full-term birth and happy lives. But what about the lives that would be ruined? WHAT ABOUT THE WOMEN?

There is no phrase of equal power to counter "pro-life." "Pro-choice" isn't the opposite, but it's probably the best we can come up with. And we're going to have to live with it and fight for it.

I'm sorry for all those who are or have been involved in adoptions who still believe that adoption is the only way, or even the "best" way. I'm sorry for all those who would love to adopt a nice white, blond, blue-eyed, perfectly healthy baby and can't because there's a shortage of them. No one, not even a young couple who wants a baby they can't have themselves, has the right to force another woman to carry a child she doesn't want.

I'm pro-choice, in the literal sense of the word. I have faith in my fellow human beings of the female persuasion that most of the time they will make the best choices for themselves, their families, their children. And since none of us is perfect, I'm prepared to accept that a few of them won't make the best choice, rather than deny the opportunity to choose to hundreds, thousands, even millions of other women.


Tansy Gold

[TankLV]

18. Then Dean is ignorant if he believes that.

He has no idea of what he is talking about. While disagreeing - he literally gave the definition of "pro-choice"!

And what's even more sad and distressing, is he doesn't even realize it!

Being "pro-choice" is just that - it's up to the INDIVIDUAL to choose - and NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ANOTHER WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR BODY!

Pro-Choice IS the "compromise" position.

Pro-abortion would be the opposite of "anti-abortion".

And "anti-abortion" is NOT "pro-life" by any stretch of the imagination.

[Quixote1818]

27. You don't understand the politics of language do you?

Dean is talking about how to get these voters back yet not give ground on any abortion laws. Their are a ton of people including myself who believe like that lady. Dean is doing exactly what needs to be done to get those voters back. I could care less what the fuck they want to call it as long as the laws don't change. Thats all Dean was getting at.

When he disagreed it was a slip of the tong. You could see he tried to cover himself. We need to get rid of the word "Pro Choice" and go back to "Safe, legal and rare". Did we not learn anything from Clinton?

[TankLV]

86. I understand very well. And to the next poster, I read well, too.

Then you are all letting the other side define the issues again.

There is nothing wrong with "choice" as a word or term.

So far I have read or heard NOTHING that changes my interpretation.

Maybe you should take off your rose colored glasses. You are seeing what you want to see.

And don't fucking lecture me or anyone else on our comprehension or understanding! You know what you can do with that!

It is not ME and others who share my interpretation who need to "understand the politics of language".

Language is VERY important. That is why I said what I did.

I stand by my statements.

[Carolab]

44. Dean didn't say that. Go to NBC's website and read the transcript.

Better yet, watch the rebroadcast of Meet The Press.

Link to video and transcript of the show:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608

[Mythsaje]

21. Words are symbols

for concepts and principles that can change (or be changed) over time. The RW has shown itself very talented at manipulating the way a word-symbol is recognized, twisting the language to seem to suit its position even if the original context would never have done so.

What the OP is talking about, in my opinion, is attempting to use their own "framing" technique against them. In fact, more than simply changing our language to avoid their techniques, we should go on the offensive and come up with terminology that makes it more difficult for them to adapt.

[Quixote1818]

23. Dean hit the nail on the head about the "language" of abortion!!!

Dem's can win on the Abortion issue if we just change the language we use. Get rid of the word "Choice" and just talk about it in terms of keeping it legal but working on reducing the number of abortions. "Safe, legal and rare!" Thats all we have to say....EVER!

The story about that lady was his best point of the morning.

[Carolab]

46. Exactly. He was saying we need to be responsible.

Responsible about getting pregnant in the first place. And, then, responsible about what we do once we are.

[Carolab]

87. Abortion isn't the problem. Unwanted pregnancy is.

http://www.edebra.com/BISS/abortion.html

Great slogan here: Want to end abortion? End unwanted pregnancy.

[Progressive4Life]

25. Dean is da man!

Such a relief to have a chairperson who has studied Lakoff. It's all about language!

[Catfight]

40. I agree with that woman 100%. A law designed against women is

not a law I want to back. I bet if we started pushing laws against men who got women pregnant and she didn't want to get pregnant, that'd be another story. Let's start making men accountable for getting women pregnant.

[RAF]

42. He made great points on "moral values" as well

When he described children not getting enough to eat, saving the greatest program ever created ( Social Security) so people have something later in life after giving their life to this country, etc.

[Occulus]

43. that is an excellent point

and one I would heartily agree with.

I'm gay, I likely won't ever have any kids of my own by the 'natural method', but if I did get someone pregnant, I would not want that child to be aborted. Better by far to put it up for adoption as I was if I feel I can't give that child all the support it deserves.

That said, I cannot agree that the woman next door, or even my own sister, be forbidden by law from seeking an abortion! It's not a question of whether it's right or wrong to me for everyone, but a question of whether it's right or wrong if it were my child.

I would counsel adoption to the mother of my child if there were one, and I didn't feel I could support the child. If she wanted to go off on her own, then, and raise it without my input or support, than that's her decision. Similarly, if she wanted to leave, abort the child, and either come back or disappear, that's also her decision. If I were given an option or a say in the matter, I would wish the child be adopted.

This is not a difficult question to answer, but it must be answered and enforced on an individual basis, not a public one. Abortions, in the end, should be legal, safe, and rare.

(A good social support structure for unwed and young mothers would help, but the fundies' desire to use birth and care as punishment for sex outside marriage gets in the way of that. They want those young women punished for their sins.)

[keep CHOICES legal]

45. Keep.......CHOICES Legal

I saw Howard Dean on MTP this morning too, and think he did an outstanding job. He gave a perfect example....and I think he proved his point.

I think that instead of focusing on Pro-choice....we should focus/reframe and talk about "Pro-choices" and to "keep choices legal". When you talk about "choice" in the singular, opponents say you are "pro-abortion". When you are focusing on "pro-choices", you are saying (as in Dean's example) that women might not want an abortion for themselves, but they believe each woman individually should decide for herself....women should have choices. Stress the point, too, that if a woman is against abortion, she shouldn't have one.

By stressing the importance of choices (in the plural), you are also stressing the Democratic view of respecting individual rights...by giving more than one option.

I don't think this is as difficult as it may seem....just say that Democrats stand for "choices".

[Pirate Smile]

49. Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[welshTerrier2]

48. How would Dean have answered this question ???

Dean kept saying (paraphrasing from memory) that Democrats believe in letting the individual make the decision instead of letting politicians make the decision ... btw, i vaguely remember Dean making several references to "it should be up to the states to decide" ... was he saying that "freedom of choice" should not be a federal issue and that each state should make its own laws in this area? i hope that's not what he was saying ...

I wonder how he would have responded had Russert (who was too busy playing gotcha to do a decent interview) asked him whether he supports Bob Casey's Senate bid in Pennsylvania ... Casey's position is that abortion should be outlawed unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother ... that's the only exception he wants to see ... given a choice, he would not allow abortions in the case of rape or incest ...

is this what is meant by being a "big tent" ??? forcing women to continue an unwanted pregnancy is nothing but barbaric and Democrats, including Dean, should not accept Casey as a candidate in the Democratic Party ... too bad Russert is such a total schmuck ... i would have been interested in Dean's answer ...

[Carolab]

50. Here's what he said--was talking about third-term abortions/ethics.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, the--but several heads of the American Medical Association endorsed banning third-term abortions because they said life of the mother is one thing but the health is a much different issue. It can be defined in so many different ways, it was a major loophole.

DR. DEAN: You know what I'd prefer to see, frankly? I'd prefer to see medical practice boards around the country, state by state--because people do believe different things about this in different states. I'd prefer to see medical practice boards around the country set ethical guidelines for abortion. I don't have a problem with that. You know, I don't know of people who do third-term abortions without a moral reason for doing it, which is to save the health and life of the mother. So let them set some ethical guidelines. But I think this debate ought to get out of the realm of having politicians standing up and grandstanding.

It is an incredibly difficult area. It is an area which is conflicted. I don't know anybody who ever had an abortion who feels, "Oh, boy, this is just great. I can't wait to have another one." That's not what this is about. This is a very difficult, horrible choice. Does the government make that choice or does the individual make that choice? There are ethical constraints around the issue of abortion. There is no question about that. I think those ought to be done state by state. And I think doctors ought to have a lot more say about it than they do now.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7924139/

As for how he would answer your question, why don't you ask him?

www.democrats.org

[Nobody]

52. For every difficult decision, someone is making a choice

And this woman has stated that it should be the woman invovled making that choice.

No stranger has the right or should have the right to dictate under what conditions you will raise a child, or give it up for adoption.

No stranger has the right to tell you when the risk of serious health problems are too high to continue a pregnancy.

No stranger has the right to choose for you something that they can easily forget about while at the same time causing the rest of your life to be affected.

When there's a difficult decision to be made, the one who should be making that choice is not the government, not the next door neighbors, not the hellfire and brimstone preachers across town, not the judgemental people who never met you and have no intention of actually doing anything to make it easier on you.

[CWebster]

53. Yeah, that was well-thought out. nt

[Pirate Smile]

54. kick

[ComerPerro]

61. We need to make the point, over and over

that "pro-life" Republicans (their term for it, not mine) aren't simply against abortion on a personal level. They want to make it illegal. For everyone. In every case.

I don't care if a politicain says "except in cases of rape or incest". For every GOPer who says that, there are two who want it illegal in all instances.

We need to find a way to connect with people like the woman Dean mentioned.

[Festivito]

64. Naw, I'm PRO-FEWER-ABORTIONS. Although Dean is getting closer.

Year by year Democrats effect fewer abortions, while RepubliCONs effect more and more each year.

CONs want to control abortions with laws, laws that will bring back back-alley abortions and lose, lose counseling opportunities that could save the life of the child, the mother, or even BOTH.

FEWER abortions year by year can lead us to ZERO abortions even while, especially while, still safe, legal, and so rare as to be nonexistant. This can even build a wall of determined separation between the pregnant and abortions. With that FREEDOM, they can expolore options like adoption, seek social help, research medical concerns, deal with family, freely and, yes, they very well might strengthen there desire not to abort.

Democrats actually hold the HIGH GROUND in this debate. CONs know it. That's why they already went on to gays.

We have too many assinine pro-choicers who cannot see past their own noses. Don't be too certain that anyone who clamors pro-choice is really on our side here. Abortions should be made legally FEWER RARE NONEXISTANT AND FINALLY UNWANTED.

[Larkspur]

71. Dean did a great job on this issue. His best one in the interview.

Dean equated abortion with healthcare decisions and who people want making those decisions. By equating abortion with healthcare, he can branch out to attack the RW on the Sciavo case as well as promote policies to improve healthcare for everyone, which is what I think he is planning on doing.