General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDoes "abortion should be safe, legal and rare" pretty much describe your approach to the issue?
25 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes. | |
19 (76%) |
|
No. | |
6 (24%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
Demobrat
(8,962 posts)Abortion should be safe, legal, and available on demand.
Without explanation or apology.
Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)"Rare" is just another way of shaming.
phylny
(8,368 posts)I think anyone should be able to have an abortion if they want it. I would, however, like our populace to be educated enough to use birth control when they do not want to become pregnant, and therefore would like fewer unwanted pregnancies. I know birth control is not 100% effective, but fortunately, I was always diligent and never became pregnant when I didn't want to. I felt with sexual intercourse came responsibility.
There's no shame in saying it would be nice if abortion were rare for someone who 1) doesn't want to use or didn't use birth control and becomes pregnant and wants an abortion; 2) someone who used birth control and becomes pregnant and wants an abortion; 3) someone who has a change of mind or heart and decides to have an abortion; 4) other.
livetohike
(22,124 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)So when I say "safe, legal, and rare", that's part of the deal.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)my take on it too.
Those saying "on demand" are splitting hairs. Of course it's on demand.
Rarely needed because there's adequate birth control available is altogether different.
sakabatou
(42,141 posts)CrispyQ
(36,424 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)For other Options, please see Option #1.
get the red out
(13,460 posts)Combined with access to birth control being absolutely easy and cheap.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Myrina
(12,296 posts)n/t
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)uppityperson
(115,677 posts)GoCubsGo
(32,075 posts)silverweb
(16,402 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)MadrasT
(7,237 posts)uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Contraception and child care.
RKP5637
(67,089 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)though I imagine with better access to birth control and real sex ed, it would be rarer than it is.
RKP5637
(67,089 posts)woman really wants to go through an abortion for the fun of it. Easily available birth control and real sex ed IMO would reduce the sudden urges with no birth control and mistakes through innocence. Also, I don't have the link ... but as we know states/localities which want to hide the fact sex exists are generally highly correlated with unwanted pregnancies.
Nay
(12,051 posts)the child to be able to get the abortion with no impediments involved. Abortions can be prevalent, for all I care.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)"Safe" and "legal" are no-brainers for me. I also advocate "rare" because when sex education, contraceptive availability, and freedom of choice for women are what they should be in society, abortion will be rare. That's a good thing. Abortion is usually a very traumatic experience for a woman, even when it's completely legal and accessible.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)War Horse
(931 posts)Was going to post something, but the post above says it all.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)You said it better than I could.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Demobrat
(8,962 posts)We also know how likely it is that sex education and birth control availability will make a dent in accidental prefnancy rates any time soon. So in the meantime lets go for safe, legal, and available on demand, mmmkay?
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Demobrat
(8,962 posts)Safe, legal, or on demand?
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)And yes, I've helped many women get abortions. For some it is traumatic, for others just a huge relief. No "usually very traumatic" at all.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I've seldom (if ever) met a woman who wasn't at least some degree traumatized by the experience, even when simultaneously greatly relieved.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)I've assisted at many first term, also assisted with ivf as well as working as a volunteer and managing a women's health care clinic.
I also see a HUGE difference between "Abortion is usually a very traumatic experience for a woman" and "at least some degree traumatized". My disagreement was with "usually a very traumatic ".
Getting my teeth deep cleaned is "some degree traumatizing" also.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I can certainly accept that the level of traumatization is often comparatively minor (from both a physical and mental standpoint).
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)There can be emotions tied up in it all, and being able to look at it otherwise, and use non-hyperbolic language, is a good thing. Sorry if I came off snarkily, don't mean to, am just really really tired right now. Best wishes to you.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)It's gratifying when passion and strongly-held opinions don't get in the way of civil discourse. I wasn't in the least upset by the tone you took. Best!
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)crowns, bridges and every procedure imaginable in the dental field. I would rather have an abortion than all that dental work, and believe me, I know of what I speak.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Abortion rates have risen in states with moron teahadists in control.
leftstreet
(36,101 posts)I can't remember
FFS
redqueen
(115,103 posts)by trying to ingratiate themselves with the religious right.
leftstreet
(36,101 posts)I think it was the Clinton admin, but I can't remember
Can you imagine if some pol claimed gay marriage should be 'safe, legal, and rare?'
redqueen
(115,103 posts)traumatic, tragic thing. No one says that about gay marriage though. Their arguments are even stupider.
But by portraying an abortion as some horrible, evil thing that we should hope almost never happens, they are stigmatizing abortion, and seriously that shit needs to stop right goddamn now.
leftstreet
(36,101 posts)Sad, but very true
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,578 posts)a response to an unwanted physiological event. That might have been prevented through other, less invasive, means.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)In 1987, Kennedy delivered an impassioned speech condemning Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork as a "right-wing extremist" and warning that "Robert Bork's America" would be one marked by back alley abortions and other backward practices. Kennedy's strong opposition to Bork's nomination was important to the Senate's rejection of Bork's candidacy. In recent years, he has argued that much of the debate over abortion is a false dichotomy. Speaking at the National Press Club in 2005, he remarked, "Surely, we can all agree that abortion should be rare, and that we should do all we can to help women avoid the need to face that decision." He voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ted_Kennedy
redqueen
(115,103 posts)He apparently had enough religiosity to stick that "rare" bullshit on there for his own reasons.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)In 1987, Kennedy delivered an impassioned speech condemning Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork as a "right-wing extremist" and warning that "Robert Bork's America" would be one marked by back alley abortions and other backward practices. Kennedy's strong opposition to Bork's nomination was important to the Senate's rejection of Bork's candidacy. In recent years, he has argued that much of the debate over abortion is a false dichotomy. Speaking at the National Press Club in 2005, he remarked, "Surely, we can all agree that abortion should be rare, and that we should do all we can to help women avoid the need to face that decision." He voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ted_Kennedy
Demobrat
(8,962 posts)n/t
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Demobrat
(8,962 posts)Abortion should not only be safe and legal, it should be rare.
BILL CLINTON, speech at DNC, Aug. 29, 1996
I can still remember how appalled I was.
http://www.notable-quotes.com/c/clinton_bill.html
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)And so are you, of course.
He wants to advocate easy access to birth control, and sex ed? Great!
He personally wants to have as few abortions as possible HIMSELF? Absofuckinglutely! And so are you!
Your body, your choice.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)leftstreet
(36,101 posts)That's what I was thinking
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)ancianita
(35,950 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)I'll echo redqueen: None of anyone's business.
pampango
(24,692 posts)There are many medical procedures that I would categorize as ideally "safe, legal, available" and "rare" (as in not often necessary).
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)implied judgment when rare is attached to the statement.
Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)
LiberalLoner This message was self-deleted by its author.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)if they were serious about reducing abortion.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)spanone
(135,795 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)I also want "medically necessary" situations to be less required as women's health issues are better addressed.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Every abortion flows from an unwanted pregnancy, and of course unwanted pregnancies should be rare. That's why we promote education about contraception.
In an ideal world, there would be virtually no abortions because there would be virtually no unwanted pregnancies, as a definitional matter.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)Until then, safe, legal and easily accessible covers it.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)for any reason, and it's nobody else's business.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I would like to see all medical procedures to be rare due to excellent preventative medicine and health education. However, we're not really there yet. A more realistic phrase for today may just be "Safe and legal."
eta missing word
Warpy
(111,174 posts)That is, the "rare" part does. Support for mothers would also help, meaning paid leave and affordable day care as well as financial help if the man ran out on her.
Abortions have always been relatively rare, whether or not it's been legal. Illegal abortions were just harder to survive and many women didn't. Desperate women seeking illegal abortions are prepared to die since suicide is often what they perceive to be their only rational alternative. Since safe operations are available, women shouldn't have to risk death just to please the preachers and men's rights groups.
I would say "as rare/common as they need to be." Abortion is painful, whether surgical or chemical. No woman has one because childbirth would interfere with a hair appointment.
Just keep it "safe and legal, putting the butchers out of business."
Autumn
(44,986 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 4, 2013, 03:08 PM - Edit history (1)
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Abortion Safe and Legal? Yes. Make it Rare? Not. The. Point.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1152484
I know a lot of people are 'personally' opposed to abortion and claim that they would never have one or encourage a loved one to. I hear and see a lot of Democrats using the "safe, legal, rare" phrase and, honestly, it bugs the SHIT out of me. Why? Because the "safe, legal and rare" language still stigmatizes women's health care choices. We don't owe anybody an explanation when we need abortions any more than we do when we need breast exams or pap smears, and their frequency is a medical matter, not a legal one.
I see Democrats reference party icons like Kennedy, Clinton and the party itself using this phrase. Thankfully the Democratic Party dropped that seriously antiquated language in 2008: http://thecoathangerproject.blogspot.com/2008/08/reclaiming-morality-of-abortion-and.html
And here is a good piece summarizing my feelings on this matter: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/04/26/safe-legal-rare-another-perspective
A common narrative in the political and cultural discussions of reproductive health focuses on reducing the number of abortions taking place every year. Its supposed to be one thing that those who support abortion rights and those who oppose abortion can agree on, the so-called common ground. The assumption is that we can all agree that abortion itself is a bad thing, perhaps necessary, but definitely not a good thing. Even President Clinton declared (and many others have embraced) that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. According to the Guttmacher Institute, almost half of all pregnancies among American women in 2005 were unplanned or unintended. And of those, four in 10 ended in abortion. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#1) In other words, between one-fifth and one-quarter of all pregnancies ended in abortion. Without any other information, those statistics can sound scary and paint a picture of women as irresponsible or poor decision-makers. Therefore reducing the number of abortions is a goal that reproductive health, rights and justice activists should work toward, right?
Wrong. Those numbers mean nothing without context. If the 1.21 million abortions that took place in 2005 (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#1) represent the number of women who needed abortions (and in my opinion, if a woman decides she needs an abortion, then she does), as well as the many women who chose to terminate pregnancies that they very much wanted but could not afford to carry to term, then that number is too high. The work of reducing the number of abortions, therefore, would entail creating an authentically family-friendly society, where women would have the support they need to raise their families, whatever forms they took. That could include eliminating the family caps in TANF, encouraging unionization of low-wage workers, reforming immigration policies and making vocational and higher education more accessible.
On the other hand, if those 1.21 million abortions represent only the women who could access abortion financially, geographically or otherwise, then that number is too low. Yes, too low. If thats the case, then what is an appropriate response? How do we best support women and their reproductive health? Do we dare admit that increasing the number of abortions might be not only good for womens health, but also moral and just?
What if we stopped focusing on the number of abortions and instead focused on the women themselves? Much of the work of the reproductive health, rights and justice movements would remain the same. We would still advocate for legislation that helps our families. We would still fight to protect abortion providers and their staffs from verbal harassment and physical violence. What would change, however, is the stigma and shame. By focusing on supporting womens agency and self-determination, rather than judging the outcomes of that agency, we send a powerful message. We say that we trust women. We say we will not use them and their experiences as pawns in a political game. We say we care about women and want them to have access to all the information, services and resources necessary to make the best decisions they can for themselves and their families. That is at the core of reproductive justice. Not reducing the number of abortions. Safe yes. Legal absolutely. Rare not the point.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And condom use has the advantage of protecting against STDs.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Cry all you want but it's a fact.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)so I voted yes, but that's probably not an exact statement of my position.
appleannie1
(5,062 posts)Iggo
(47,537 posts)MineralMan
(146,262 posts)is one only for the woman making that choice. The "rare" part is irrelevant, so I can't vote yes.
Abortions should be safe, legal, and left to each individual woman to decide. It's nobody else's business.
gopiscrap
(23,726 posts)I agree it should be safe and legal but not rare. It should be free and those that get one should get a tax credit
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)She and only she alone has the right to decide why, when, and how many.
If one supports Universal Human Rights, there is no other choice but to accept the position described above.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)to avoid biasing the responses.
But I will now.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)It's a term chosen because it means different things to different people. The right seizes upon it because it means "legal restrictions" etc. to them. While the left thinks it means "education" and "contraception". I will keep my message on the subject more focused so the right can't claim my support/agreement.
BeeBee
(1,074 posts)because I would like to see the number of unwanted pregnancies reduced through education and birth control.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)For example, if the 1.21 million abortions that took place in 2005 (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#1) represent the number of women who needed abortions (and in my opinion, if a woman decides she needs an abortion, then she does), as well as the many women who chose to terminate pregnancies that they very much wanted but could not afford to carry to term, then that number is too high. The work of reducing the number of abortions, therefore, would entail creating an authentically family-friendly society, where women would have the support they need to raise their families, whatever forms they took. That could include eliminating the family caps in TANF, encouraging unionization of low-wage workers, reforming immigration policies and making vocational and higher education more accessible.
On the other hand, if those 1.21 million abortions represent only the women who could access abortion financially, geographically or otherwise, then that number is too low. Yes, too low. If thats the case, then what is an appropriate response? How do we best support women and their reproductive health? Do we dare admit that increasing the number of abortions might be not only good for womens health, but also moral and just?
BeeBee
(1,074 posts)I stated that I would like to see unwanted pregnancies reduced through education and birth control.
The key word in my response is UNWANTED. You can save your outrage for someone else.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I would like to think that it would be used as a last resort, but still not up to me.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)And that unwanted pregnancies should be rare.
HarveyDarkey
(9,077 posts)Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)It's just a solution to a problem -- that being unwanted and unintended pregnancies -- that some people don't like.
If we have universal, age-appropriate sex education, in addition to universal and no-cost access to a broad range of contraceptive choices, we'll have a lot fewer unwanted or unintended pregnancies.
AND if we have free and low-cost access to maternal and well-baby health care, in addition to quality daycare and decent-paying jobs, fewer women will decide that they can't afford to be a parent.
Rare....
Nobody should have to experience an unwanted pregnancy. The goal should be that every pregnancy results in a child being born to a parent or parents who are willing and prepared for the challenges that lie ahead of them.
All that being said, and because human beings are far from perfect (best-laid plans of mice and men and all that...), abortion should always be an option for those who choose it.
fried eggs
(910 posts)Even if you eliminate emotions and judgment, all surgeries carry risks. Not to mention the cost.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Thanks to all who voted.
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)But I still feel the loss of life is regrettable and so feel we should do what we can to minimize (through contraception/birthcontrol/education) it while making sure it remains as easily accessable as possible. More detailed answer in the other thread
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Which is in charge of making the decisions for exactly ONE body. My own.
Which means I dont need to come up with convoluted cognitive dissonance-causing rationales for why so sometimes i should be entitled to tell other people what to do, and sometimes I shouldn't.
Unfortunately telling other people what to do is a much beloved pastime, in many circles.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Or better sex education?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)You can encourage use.
In my experience, when given the tools and the freedom, people on the whole tend to make the right decisions themselves. On the whole.
Better sex education? Absolutely. Although one would need to define "better". Some people think "abstinence only" is better.
Teaching teenagers about birth control methods and how to use them is not, to my mind, the same thing as telling people what to do. I don't feel qualified to second guess any woman's decision making process in how she comes to the place where she's terminating a pregnancy. It does not strike me as even remotely my business.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)The only people that need have an opinion on whether a woman gets an abortion are a woman and her doctor.