all this talk about Democrats and being pro-choice....

[wyldwolf]

If a Democrat believes abortion should be safe, rare, and legal...

..if a Democrat believes in fact-based education to help prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDS...

...if a Democrat believe an abortion is between a woman and her doctor (and her god if she has one and the father if she chooses...)...

...then that Democrat has my vote.

Hillary Clinton is right. Howard Dean is right.

...in my humble opinion.

Now back to our regularly scheduled flame wars...

[NVMojo]

1. Right on!!! Power to the People to chose!!

[buckup]

2. Just to be devil's advocate...

The people who are "Pro-Life" call themselves that for a reason... they believe that abortion should not be a "choice" any more than running over to your neighbor's house and stabbing him is a "choice." If you're going to talk with these people, you need to talk about if it really is a "life" yet... where does life "begin" and "end?" It's really a grey area.

[Malva Zebrina]

3. and if abortion isn't rare?

then what?

This is just another opening for the religious right to fudge statistics and declare that since abortion is not as "rare" as the Democrats would have everyone believe, it is time to have the state intervene and rule over the bodies of women and their health concerns.

Pro-choice and the right of women to determine what they need for their own health and well being should be the focus. It leads to the rights of all people to privacy, men and women alike.

But then, the religious have so infiltrated the minds of people to believe that a zygote is a full blown "baby" that women's health is now a bargaining point to use word play , to diminish them, in order to win an election.

this "rare" shit, is just another marketing tool and it does NOT elevate women.

I am tired of it. I want someone who tells it like it is.

[wyldwolf]

4. but it IS rare and could be even more rare

...with proper education.

When you compare the number of births to the number of abortions, abortion is indeed rare.

[Malva Zebrina]

6. Oh that is bull

what determines the end point of "rare"? Those who have two abortions? Those who have one? those who have three?

And those who have two--what are they? Dumb? Using abortion as birth control?

[wyldwolf]

7. no it isn't

look up the definition of "rare."

hint: something that doesn't happen much

[Malva Zebrina]

9. My question to you is

and was--what if it is not "rare"?

[wyldwolf]

11. I don't understand your question

are you asking that what if abortions are, in fact, not rare or what happens if the become more numerous? (or less rare)

[Still_Loves_John]

5. You make abortion rare

but not by outlawing abortion. By making sure everyone has adequate sex education, by making sure contraceptives are available to everyone, and by creating a society with less crime and less poverty, you lower the rate of abortion.

Do you like abortion? Do you think that there should be more of them? I'm not saying you do, because of course you don't. Nobody likes abortion. Anyone who has gone through one will tell you that its a painful choice to make--thats one of the things that really make me mad when the Christian Right talks about abortion and make it sound like the women having them don't even give it a second thought. Everyone would be happy if there were just no unwanted pregnancies, so no one had to have an abortion, and I think we can all agree on that. That's what safe, legal, and rare is about. It's about lowering the rate of abortions by lowering the rate of unwanted pregancies.

[Malva Zebrina]

8. I don't need a lecture

I saw many abortions being done under the guise of "D&C" before Roe vs Wade. Many. And it was "rare" only because the rich could be admitted to a hospital with a diagnosis of endometriosis or other, at the age of twenty one, to have an abortion. The rest, either went to the medical students who practiced on their kitchen table,

and suffered or died.

I agree that birth control is the answer and also education, We do NOT have that in the offing now,if the religions get their way, but if someone does make a mistake or two, has two abortions, what then? Are they using RvW as birth control because they are not "rare"?

So what then? OMG it is not rare and this woman is to be considered a deviant that is dragging down the rest? It says something about those women? What? Can you defend them for not being "rare"?

This "rare" crap is, imo, a tack that diminishes women in order to win an election. By not standing for women's health no matter what or if it is "rare"

[Still_Loves_John]

10. Apparently you do need a lecture

Because, in your post, you start going off on this random tangent that has nothing to do with anything. While I appreciate the history lesson, I never said anything about making abortion illegal, or, for that matter, any less accessable at all. I think that there should be as few restrictions on abortion as possible, and that is is primarily the choice of the woman. None of the safe, legal, and rare people disagree with that. See how that middle word is legal? Safe, legal, and rare has nothing to do with putting restrictions on abortion, its about reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place so that there are fewer abortions in the second place.

It has nothing to do with diminishing women, either. It has nothing to do with tainting women who have multiple abortions. The "rare" doesn't mean on a personal level, but a societal level. It's not like anyone is saying we need to have a quota on how many abortions a woman can have. Once again, no one is pushing any new restrictions, they're just saying that hey, abortions aren't happy things, and we can avoid them if we can diminish the number of unwanted pregnancies. One more time, safe, legal, and rare means that abortions are just as accessible as ever before, its just that by diminishing unwanted pregnancies, there will be less of a need for abortion. Of course there will always be unwanted pregnancies, and there will always be a safe, legal means to abort them. But if we, as a society, can lower the number of unwanted pregnancies, the number of abortions will naturally go down, without changing the legal status of abortion at all.

[DemBones DemBones]

12. I agree. And Still Love John, too. nt

[Malva Zebrina]

13. Exuse me but my post has everything to do with the issue at hand

and is NOT a random tangent but brings up the point of the use of language and how it affects women.

You are resorting to poisoning the well, in order to foster your idea of what women need to do to take control over their own bodies.

Their bodies are NOT your body and their bodies are not yours to take control over and to set rules or parameters for them.

The arrogance is telling someone else they do need your sanctimonius lecture! You are off base on this.

The "rare" is, contrary to what you say in order to apply a standard for all women, applied to individual women if it would continue as a meme.

It is NOT on a societal level as you say and you are diminishing women by placing them in the abstract concept of "societal", because what you are calling a "societal level" is a conglomeration of INDIVIDUALS--living breathing women .

There you go again--women are not individuals, but are merely statistics that determine a societal level.

If you cannot see how this application of "rare' applies to individual women, then I can only surmise that you think that is it is not "rare" for the individual woman, then there is certainly something she needs to learn in order to meet your standards of "rare"

You are making a judgement call here. My original question and I will repeat

what if it is not "rare" Then what?

[Still_Loves_John]

14. Three points

1) You were going off on a random tangent. Sure, all those things you listed were bad, but none of them would come back under what safe, legal, and rare people advocate. They were horrible things, but unrelated. You might as well have started talking about how racism is bad. Sure, it is, and I agree, but that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

2) It's not diminishing women to talk about them on a societal level. This is a national political issuse--everything is discussed on a societal level. Putting it in quotes doesn't make it objectionable.

3) I keep getting the impression from your posts that you think safe, legal, and rare has something to do with any kind of new laws regarding the rights of women, when it simply doesn't. Abortion will be just as legal, and there won't be any laws to make women more responsible, since you obviously can't legislate that kind of thing. All safe, legal, and rare means is "hey, we'd all like to live in a world where women can only get pregnant if they want to and can afford a child, and can raise it in a good home, and not have to worry about any problems during pregnancy, but since we don't live in that world, abortions are a necessary thing." Thats it.

[Malva Zebrina]

15. Oh come on

placing an individual under the abstract concept of "societal" is, indeed, diminishing, in this case, women.

Placing anyone in the abstract concept of "societal" male or female, is diminishing the individual human being and conveniently putting them into black and white boxes on a shelf.

Andn you have no business, no one has really, telling women to do what you would like them to do.

Things are not always a "good home"

My question , and one which you have not answered is this: What if it is NOT "rare"? Then what?

Gotta go now to watch FDR

[Still_Loves_John]

16. Ok, this was my fault

I was too confrontational earlier, and I apologize. But all I'm saying is that, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need abortion. I'm sure most women would agree with me there as well. Thats all I'm saying: that sure, it'd be great if abortions weren't a necessity, but they are, and so we have to keep it legal.

[Orangepeel]

18. I like you, John

:-)

You are right, you express yourself articulately, and you are a gentleman about it. kudos for trying to calm tensions rather than escalating a flame war.

:thumbsup:

[Still_Loves_John]

20. Thanks, I appreciate it

Its always nice to be recognized for being polite.

[welshTerrier2]

17. Will you oppose the Party's endorsement of Casey in PA then?

source: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/2002/03/24/news/local/2927113.htm

On the other side, antiabortion activists are using their lists to urge a vote for Casey, who has said that if the legislature passed an abortion ban he would sign it.

He personally opposes abortion except to save the life of the mother. But if a new law made exceptions for rape and incest, he said, he would sign it, reasoning that it would still reduce the number of abortions.

Some antiabortion Republicans are registering Democratic in order to vote for Casey, said Mary Beliveau, legislative director of the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, the state's largest antiabortion group.

[wyldwolf]

21. no

[welshTerrier2]

22. "then that Democrat has my vote"

so all the things you listed for a candidate to "have your vote" (safe, legal, rare, etc) also include "not legal" ... because "not legal" is Casey's position ...

glad your clarified that ...

[wyldwolf]

23. uh uh

I can't vote for Casey because I don't live in his state.

Even if I could, I'm not one issue voter. I never said or implied that the one issue alone was a deal breaker.

But regardless, I can't vote for Casey unless I move to his state.

[welshTerrier2]

24. that's pretty thin

first of all, i didn't ask if you would vote for Casey ... i asked: "Will you oppose the Party's endorsement of Casey"? i don't live in PA either but I oppose the Party's endorsement of Casey because he wants to deprive women of their constitutional freedoms ... we are talking here about your beliefs and your "voting strategy" ... we are not talking about whether you live in PA ...

secondly, and this is the more important point, your BP really was a bit disingenuous given your subsequent statements ... you provided a laundry list of positions (which i agree with, btw) that would allow a candidate to "have your vote" ... what you failed to point out in the BP is that you would support a candidate who would deprive women of the freedom to choose if you agreed with that candidate on enough other issues ...

the point is that you did not indicate the role the "freedom of choice" issue plays in your thinking ... you clearly left the impression that as long as a candidate met the list of items you provided, they would have your vote ... what you didn't say was that even if they didn't meet those tests, they would probably still have your vote ... that really is a very different position than the one you stated ...

the deception was one of omission ...

[wyldwolf]

25. nevertheless true

Unfortunately for you, your "gotcha" attempt failed.

first of all, i didn't ask if you would vote for Casey ... i asked: "Will you oppose the Party's endorsement of Casey"?

And I said no :shrug:

we are talking here about your beliefs and your "voting strategy" ... we are not talking about whether you live in PA ...

Well, since I started the thread, I believe I have better insight into my voting strategy and beliefs than you do. I listed my thoughts on abortion and said that those who adhere to them has my vote. I didn't say that anyone who DOESN'T wouldn't get my vote. Like I said, I'm not a one issue voter. I believe only a black and white/ either/or thinker would interpret it any other way.

Now, asking me if I supported Casey or the DNC's endorsement of Casey is irrelevant. I don't live in his state.

And you may not have asked it I would vote for Casey but you equated supporting the DNC's endorsement of him with voting for him by attemepting to build that association with you post #22.

the deception was one of omission ...

Your interpretation. :) I believe only a black and white/ either/or thinker would interpret it any other way.

[welshTerrier2]

26. well, allow me to restate your position

feel free to correct any misstatements ...

you would not "rule out" voting for a Democratic candidate even if that candidate wanted to impose his personal beliefs on American women. this would still be the case if those beliefs would result in the taking away of a woman's Constitutional rights as cited by the Supreme Court ... and it still would be the case even if a woman's pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.

this is because you are not a "black and white/ either/or" thinker and you are prepared to look beyond this taking of women's rights to look at the candidate in his totality.

fair enough?

[KittyWampus]

19. Reproductive Freedom! Dean's Whole Speech From CA Was Great

[LittleClarkie]

27. The extremes on both sides get on my last nerve, frankly.

If someone considers the removal of a fetus to be nothing more than removing something akin to a tumor, I have an issue. I question whether that person ever thought about having children.

And then there are those on the other side who won't even think about contraception. How irresponsible is that?!

I don't believe in one issue voting. I want to know about the candidate as a whole, not just whether he/she is pro-life or pro-choice.
But I can live with "safe, legal and rare." But others I've encountered, some here, figure that is too negative a way of thinking about abortions.

I'm one of those who would prefer we tackle unwanted pregnancies with education and contraception. But maybe that's just me.