HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » OK. How about "safe...

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 04:05 AM

OK. How about "safe, legal and SECONDARY TO BIRTH CONTROL?"


I realise some here don't like the idea of the opposition being given control over language, but I think if the phrase in the title of this thread is what we actually believe, that's what we should say.

Unless I'm wrong to think abortion should be secondary to birth control...? (really can't see that...)

61 replies, 4040 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 61 replies Author Time Post
Reply OK. How about "safe, legal and SECONDARY TO BIRTH CONTROL?" (Original post)
sibelian Nov 2013 OP
REP Nov 2013 #1
Laffy Kat Nov 2013 #2
SunSeeker Nov 2013 #3
sibelian Nov 2013 #4
on point Nov 2013 #14
gollygee Nov 2013 #5
sibelian Nov 2013 #11
Ava Gadro Nov 2013 #6
TorchTheWitch Nov 2013 #8
sibelian Nov 2013 #10
CTyankee Nov 2013 #12
CTyankee Nov 2013 #7
quaker bill Nov 2013 #9
PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #13
theHandpuppet Nov 2013 #15
boston bean Nov 2013 #16
PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #17
CTyankee Nov 2013 #29
PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #30
CTyankee Nov 2013 #32
sibelian Nov 2013 #33
PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #34
haikugal Nov 2013 #52
prairierose Nov 2013 #56
HereSince1628 Nov 2013 #18
Skidmore Nov 2013 #19
NaturalHigh Nov 2013 #20
PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #22
NaturalHigh Nov 2013 #26
PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #28
NaturalHigh Nov 2013 #40
ismnotwasm Nov 2013 #27
NaturalHigh Nov 2013 #38
PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #39
NaturalHigh Nov 2013 #41
PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #42
Niceguy1 Nov 2013 #51
CTyankee Nov 2013 #31
Zorra Nov 2013 #21
NaturalHigh Nov 2013 #23
Jeff In Milwaukee Nov 2013 #24
ismnotwasm Nov 2013 #25
PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #35
SidDithers Nov 2013 #36
PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #37
giftedgirl77 Nov 2013 #43
Doctor_J Nov 2013 #44
Nye Bevan Nov 2013 #47
Doctor_J Nov 2013 #48
Nye Bevan Nov 2013 #49
Bluenorthwest Nov 2013 #45
elehhhhna Nov 2013 #46
renie408 Nov 2013 #50
ZombieHorde Nov 2013 #53
treestar Nov 2013 #54
Drew Richards Nov 2013 #55
bettyellen Nov 2013 #57
Brigid Nov 2013 #58
PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #59
liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #60
DevonRex Nov 2013 #61

Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 04:13 AM

1. How about just "safe and legal"?

Why does it need to be more than that? It's what I support.

As for birth control: free, on demand, including sterilizations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to REP (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 04:27 AM

2. +1

With you 100%. Let's keep it simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to REP (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 04:41 AM

3. +2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to REP (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 04:44 AM

4. Hm!


TBH I don't even know where "safe, legal and rare" comes from. If it were up to me the phrase would be "abortion is a personal matter between the physician and the woman, and doesn't really involve anybody else at all with the *possible* exception of the father."

But... since we're talking about it, I do think effective birth control is going to be nicer for women than abortion and it's a shame if that can't be said in some way. And I can't think of a way of including that observation in any kind of snappy phrase that couldn't be potentially reinterpreted in nasty ways...

Maybe snappy phrases around these kinds of complex situations are just inherently bad...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to REP (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:00 AM

14. That is the language right there

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 06:59 AM

5. People don't use this language for anything else in health care

There are tons of medical procedures that would be less necessary if people made different choices before they were in a position to need that medical procedure, and in none but abortion does anyone make a comment about how they wish it were rare.

Dental fillings: Safe, legal, but secondary to regular tooth brushing.

Heart surgery: Safe, legal, but secondary to not smoking and eating well.

People don't talk about things they're OK with happening in those terms. The "rare" bit is only thrown in for abortion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 08:19 AM

11. TBH, I'd never head the phrase used before seeing it on DU.

I have no idea why it even exists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 07:08 AM

6. Safe, legal and PRIVATE

Or Safe, legal, and keep your nose out of my vagina.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ava Gadro (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 07:46 AM

8. ^^^THIS^^^

Safe, legal and private just like every other medical procedure anyone has for anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ava Gadro (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 08:17 AM

10. Yeah. Definitely coming round to that...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ava Gadro (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 08:26 AM

12. I getyour point but I'm not sure adding "private" will do very much.

WE have privacy laws around health care now so I'm not sure what benefit there is to adding the word "private."

I know you mean "and none of your damn business" and I agree heartily with that sentiment. And, in conversations with people we could certainly add that phrase with gusto!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 07:18 AM

7. That's not a bad idea.

I think the whole reason "rare" was added was to make the point that the speaker didn't consider it a form of birth control (which it ultimately is, really). By saying "rare," the speaker is then able to add that contraception is preferred. Not because abortion is necessarily bad, but because contraception is easier, less expensive and does not entail surgery, which is invasive.

If you take "rare" out you don't render that value judgment. I think the time has come for us to stop playing this game by the other side's rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 08:10 AM

9. It already is secondary

The number of pregnancies prevented by birth control cannot be known precisely, as it is tough to count things that did not happen. However any rational estimate would indicate that the number of pregnancies prevented is 100s of times larger than the number of abortions.

I would go with "safe, legal, and private".

I would hope for it to eventually become uncommon because a high level of support, acceptance, and economic opportunity for single mothers was a given that any woman could count on without question. (we are obviously nowhere near that place).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 08:36 AM

13. nope. still none of anyone else's business why a woman needs to terminate.

Over half of the women who have abortions were using birth control. Look, it's entirely possible to focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies without the judgment that abortions are 'evil' or 'bad'. This judgement is harmful to people who have abortions and clinicians who perform them.

Change the narrative. Anything else still stigmatizes women's health care choices.

Abortion is a moral & positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, & protects families.

http://www.ansirh.org/_documents/library/weitz_jwh10-2010.pdf

The opening paragraph:

Abortion is the most contested social issue of our time. 1 Recent events, including the assassination of Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider in Kansas, and the fight over health care reform, demonstrate the intense polarization of the ongoing debate over abortion. 2 This article examines how the desire to find an end to the abortion wars led to the widespread adoption of the rhetorical mantra that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” By tracing the history and consequences of this paradoxical position, this paper provides insight into the intractability of the abortion conflict in the United States. The paper begins with a review of the transition from libratory to consolatory language regarding the role of abortion in society. I then argue that women’s health and well-being are harmed when desires to resolve the social conflict over abortion are prioritized over women’s need for abortion. Additionally, the adoption of the mantra that abortion should be rare increases the stigma associated with abortion. I demonstrate how focusing on making abortion rare reduces access to care and sets up unrealistic goals related to the number of abortions that should occur in the United States.

For those who don’t have time to read it, the main points are:

- By saying that you want abortion to be “rare,” you’re passing a negative judgement on the people who perform abortions and the women who have them. This judgement is harmful to people who have abortions and clinicians who perform them.
- Saying that you want abortion to be rare implies that there is something wrong with abortion, that abortion is somehow different from other parts of health care.
- Wanting abortion to be rare suggests that training clinicians to provide abortions is unnecessary. In reality, we need more abortion providers to increase access to safe abortion care.
- The “rare” framework legitimizes the need for abortion restrictions, and these anti-abortion laws have the most dire consequences for people with the least resources.
- The “rare” framing sets up the unrealistic expectation that there’s a magic number of abortions that are acceptable, and once we reach that number, abortion will cease to be a divisive issue in American culture.

As Dr. Weitz puts it, saying that we want abortion to be rare “does not achieve the underlying goal of reducing the social conflict over abortion and has real consequences for women’s health and well-being, including reducing access to care, increasing stigma, justifying restrictions, and establishing unattainable goals.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:07 AM

15. +1

Great post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:20 AM

16. Rare means different things to different people.

If one thinks abortion should be rare because it traumatizes women, it's an invasive procedure, women regret it, we need to control how women practice any form of birth control, it's a right wing argument. That is how right wingers feel about it.

It goes beyond just rephrasing, imho. It's a discussion about the culture and why some feel the need to judge in this way, even if they say they are pro-choice. Because the judgment isn't being made just for themselves (which is ok imho) but extends to other women as well. I do believe that these persons wouldn't advocate for any law that limits the choice, however they are stigmatizing it and are lending their voice to the opposition who would advocate for less access. If one is pro choice, all their opinions regarding trauma, procedures, they have a right to feel that way for themselves. Not for other women. That is what choice is. I think it's gettiing lost in the discussion.

One's morality needs to be left out of the discussion regarding choice, unless you are speaking for yourself, imho. It's an interesting discussion and one I am happy to have even if people accuse me of being the word police or forcing my opinion others. That is just derailment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #16)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:23 AM

17. Exactly. That's why I discuss with liberals who use that antiquated phrase whenever I can.

LeftyMom said it perfectly in a thread the other day.

LeftyMom
19. That's the political genius and moral cowardice of the phrase.

To pro-choice people it means "unplanned pregnancies shouldn't be common, for women's sake." To the mushy middle it means "abortions for deserving women but not for those trampy other women." To anti-choicers it means "let's whittle away at legalized abortion even if we can't get a ban past the Supremes yet."

It's a political Rorschach ink blot. It means what you want it to mean.


And, to be honest, I am disgusted at the number of DUers who are "the mushy middle" (while denying that they are). The 'soft' support of choice has helped to create the horrific mess that we face today with massive restrictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:05 AM

29. I like to add that women are moral agents and therefore, can make these decisions on their own.

I think it is important to emphasize that women are capable of "moral choice." I like to strike a blow against paternalism of all kinds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #29)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:06 AM

30. control-z's signature of "Trust women" sums that up perfectly.

Women and their doctors can be trusted to make decisions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #30)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:08 AM

32. correct!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:12 AM

33. ...


I'm sorry, but I don't think you've responded to me.

"it's entirely possible to focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies without the judgment that abortions are 'evil' or 'bad'"

I don't understand what you think I was saying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:14 AM

34. oh, I was responding to you

The implication in your OP is that women you are having abortions are irresponsible and are not using birth control. The fact is that 54% are. Framing it the way you did still implies judgment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 01:40 PM

52. Excellent post..K&R

I'm sick of the game playing with women's bodies and rights as human beings. We have as much right to strike 'rare' from our language as any other group who is fighting for their rights. It's negative, period. This war on women needs to stop...our time has come. This whole argument is about tradition and religious beliefs being imposed on 1/2 of society due to accident of birth. Stop it!!!!

Wonderful post!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 04:55 PM

56. Great post...

the other aspect of the "rare" language is that it also implies that women are not able to make the decision themselves. That they need some kind of patriarchal help to decide. It really is part of the patriarchal denigration of women that is common in our language.

It started as a appeasement of the forced birthers to deflect the discussion back into the sane lane but in the end, it is really comes back around to judging and controlling women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:25 AM

18. Must there be a marketing/campaign meme?

Abortion is self-defense.

As we all learned thru the Zimmerman trial, self-defense is not a question of what coulda and shoulda been done.

Abortion is about a woman's recognition and response to threat.

Yes, surgical abortion would be an expensive form of birth control, but birth control is a red herring.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:35 AM

19. How about "between a woman and her doctor"?

It is nobody's business if and when a woman uses contraceptives, when and for what reasons she obtains a legal abortion, or whether or not she chooses to have children. For those so concerned with personal privacy and argue for limiting intrusions on personal liberties, it is not consisten to argue tha the language around the most fundamental right of a woman to her body. Why should you seek to limit that right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:43 AM

20. Even some pro-choice people consider abortion to be wrong.

A lot of people have mixed feelings about it and don't see it as a black and white issue. Until everyone is willing to admit that and discuss it rationally, abortion will always be a polarizing issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:48 AM

22. Correction: Until abortion has the same legal status as any other health procedure

and fully integrated into women's reproductive healthcare, it will remain a polarizing issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #22)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:59 AM

26. That wouldn't really change what I wrote.

People will still discuss the moral side of the issue. Denying any moral aspect won't change the conversation; in fact, it will help fuel the conversation, as it does now.

As I wrote, even some pro-choicers think abortion is morally wrong. Legalities won't change that, and neither will condemning people who hold those opinions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #26)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:04 AM

28. we're discussing, not condemning.

The interesting thing I'm seeing is how the 'soft support' of choice helps fuel restrictions. The massive continued attacks on abortion since 1989 need to stop and part of that means changing the narrative. The stigma is harmful to the cause and those who are pro-choice and concerned about helping are open to discussing things they can do to help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #28)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:41 AM

40. There will always be "soft supporters."

A lot of people with mixed opinions, even people in the pro-choice camp, are never going to fight and die for that particular hill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:02 AM

27. I still don't get how it's anybody else's business

Except the woman involved. It's really not. Who she chooses to include in her decision making is up to her.

It really is disgusting that these conversations continue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #27)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:38 AM

38. So nobody else even gets to discuss it?

This has hurt the pro-choice movement for a long time, in my opinion. People who are forbidden to even have an opinion or discuss the issue are told that they need to fully support and fight for abortion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #38)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:40 AM

39. Honestly, no, you shouldn't have an opinion on healthcare choices of ANYONE.

And if you do, you should keep it to your damn self and out of public policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #39)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:42 AM

41. Fair enough. I'm out of here.

BTW...blanket statements like these are a big part of why the pro-choice movement has alienated so many people. I'll leave it to you now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #41)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:43 AM

42. Awesome. Step aside, there's work to be done to restore women's rights.

see ya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #27)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 01:36 PM

51. you would gain mire support

Without that attitude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:07 AM

31. but as I say elsewhere here, women are "moral agents" and are capable of making "moral choice" on

their own. That acknowledges those women who have mixed feelings and those who are solidly pro or anti. The point is that as moral agents women can make these choices in their lives and the government stays out of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:47 AM

21. Vasectomy means never having to say you're sorry. Safe, legal vasectomy

should be available for free to every man on demand.

Go for it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #21)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:56 AM

23. Mine wasn't free...

but it was a good investment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:58 AM

24. Safe and Legal are matters of law...

and determining that is the proper role of government.

Whether an abortion is rare has to do with how people live their lives, and that's a matter for individuals, their families and society. Not the government's role.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:59 AM

25. Just "none of anybody's" business

Would do me fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:26 AM

35. Another mistake you made: Abortion *IS* a form of birth control.

What it is not is contraception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:31 AM

36. How about safe, legal and available without restrictions...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #36)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:34 AM

37. afuckingmen. Canada's success is a role model to the world.

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2013/01/benefits-decriminalizing-abortion

On January 28, 2014, Canada will celebrate 26 years of reproductive freedom. Since their Supreme Court struck down Canada's abortion law in 1988, the country's experience is proof that laws against abortion are unnecessary. A full generation of Canadians has lived without a law and we are better off because of it.

Canada is the first country in the world to prove that abortion care can be ethically and effectively managed as part of standard healthcare practice, without being controlled by any civil or criminal law. Their success is a role model to the world.

After 26 years with no legal restrictions on abortion whatsoever:
- Doctors and women handle abortion care responsibly.
- Abortion rates are fairly low and have steadily declined since 1997.
- Almost all abortions occur early in pregnancy.
- Maternal deaths and complications from abortion are very low.
- Abortion care is fully funded and integrated into the healthcare system (improving accessibility and safety).
- Further legal precedents have advanced women's equality by affirming an
unrestricted right to abortion.
- Public support for abortion rights has increased.

Responsible abortion care: Since 1988, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has successfully managed abortion just as it does for every other medical procedure -- by applying policy and encouraging medical discretion for doctors, subject to a standard code of ethics.

Doctors abide by CMA policy and guidelines, and follow best medical practices based on validated research and clinical protocols. Criminal laws are inappropriate and harmful in medicine because they constrain care and negatively impact the health of patients.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:58 AM

43. How about nobody's business but the woman?

 

This shouldn't even be a damn discussion, it is a private matter between a woman & her doctor & is of no concern to you, me, or anyone else as to why she is getting it, if it is her first, if she has had one before, or the circumstances surrounding conception.

Birth control should be free to any female of child bearing age who feels they are in need of contraception. But as far as abortion goes the topic should have no room for discussion for the reasons I have stated above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:59 AM

44. how about "get lawmakers the hell out of doctors exam rooms"?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #44)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 12:37 PM

47. What if a lawmaker proposes free access to condoms for all high school students,

because he or she wants improved access to birth control, which would make abortions rarer?

Wouldn't we all approve of something like that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #47)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 01:06 PM

48. I don't see what your post has to do with lawmakers interference in the doctor-patient

 

relationship

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #48)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 01:23 PM

49. Nothing. And that's precisely my point.

Lawmakers can institute policies that make abortions rarer without interfering in any way in anyone's doctor-patient relationships.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 11:04 AM

45. You ignore the fact that many who oppose abortion rights also oppose other forms

 

of birth control. Francis says all of it is wrong. The RCC has clear anti birth control teachings. So how does adding mention of another form of that which they see as 'sin' do anything for the folks who oppose condoms and pills?
Like all health care it should be legal, safe, covered under health care plans and also private. It is not your concern what other methods were used, nor if any were used. And to repeat, the opponents of choice are opponents of choice, they oppose any form of birth control because what they favor is that the choices all lay with church and State, not with the individual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 11:17 AM

46. your body your decision, not by bidness

 

YOU do what works for you. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 01:28 PM

50. I prefer the phrase "Safe, legal and NOT MY DAMN BUSINESS".

This isn't even between a woman and her doctor. It is between a woman and herself. The end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 02:54 PM

53. How about "Like other medical procedures"?

Grammar note: the punctuation is outside of the quotes because it is not part of the quote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 02:55 PM

54. Yes, birth control would be so much easier

I read about how difficult it is to decide and go through with abortion, women should be spared that where possible. We need birth control to be really available to all. Rush and his minions notwithstanding. That's what they really fear. That they'll lose this wedge issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 02:59 PM

55. NO!!!! instead Safe, Legal and a Personal Choice!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 04:58 PM

57. safe legal, and readily available to those who need it.

 

you DO know that less clinics for abortions also means less birth control counseling, right? So support MORE women's services and options, and trust us to use them wisely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 07:01 PM

58. This is why I almost never post in threads about abortion.

No.matter what I say, it's going to anger someone. But here goes: I don't care if somebody I don't even know has an abortion. It is none of my business. But I do believe there is a moral component to it that is absent in other medical procedures. In an ideal world, there would be none, for there would be no unplanned pregnancies, no rape or incest, and no situations where abortion is necessary for medical reasons. But we all know we don't live in that kind of world. That is why there will always be a need for abortion services. But I am tired of feeling like I'm being pushed around by both sides. Apparently I'm not "pure" enough for either one. I am not going to "die on that hill" for either side, as NaturalHigh put it. I am the one who gets to decide what my views are, and what is important to me. Don't like it? Too bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brigid (Reply #58)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 07:08 PM

59. Do you support the sweeping restrictions that have been happening in every state?

I am not trying to be snotty, I am asking honestly. I am being serious. You're an admitted 'soft supporter'. As such, are you in favor of restrictions? If so, I understand why you'd continue to use language that supports these restrictions.

If you are not in favor of the restrictions and/or care about trying to stop them, then you would try to not do things that create additional roadblocks and stigma associated with abortions.

That's the whole point of asking that Democrats, liberals, DU, politicians, etc follow the party lead and stop using language that actively harms reproductive freedom.

It's not a purity test. We're not the word police. We just want women to have full access to a legal medical procedure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 07:10 PM

60. It should be secondary to birth control. Otherwise we will see a rise in STI's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 07:26 PM

61. Safe, legal and none of your business any more than my appendectomy was. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread