General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)What the fuck?
whistler162
(11,155 posts)must be true even if there is no reference to what set them off.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I think Adopting kids is a good and noble thing.
If a woman feels that she can not keep a child but she also feels she can not have an abortion that is her choice.
We believe in choice.
pnwmom
(108,974 posts)
Decaffeinated
(556 posts)Or worse, if you advocate for others to make a different choice then you really are the enemy it seems.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)According to one OP, we need a lot more abortions.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Choice is choice.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)getting an abortion possibly could.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)prior emotional instability, etc. Things are hardly so one size fits all, and there's nothing at all wrong with having enough security and self knowledge that you experience relief instead. But there;s a whole lot of people here wanting to hand out sack cloth and ashes, and that is pretty fucking offensive.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)besides relief, something like grieving.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)or it's frequency. Are many here overestimating the relief- or just countering all those who insist it abortion be always be portrayed in a negative light? I must have missed that.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)surely we are not gonna now suggest women should feel guilt about that, exclusively....
it is a reality with protected or unprotected sex, that a preg can happen. it is life. unless suggesting women should not have sex until the point of wanting a child, then it is a reality all women will live with.
men, not so much. just not the same. though it too can be an absolute life changer.
so, since this is the biological reality, maybe UNDERSTANDING should be in order.
REP
(21,691 posts)Abortion, as it turns out, doesn't effect a woman's well-being - except when it is denied.
New York Times (as printed in the San Jose Mercury 2/12/97)
Abortion does not trigger lasting emotional trauma in young women who
are psychologically healthy before they become pregnant, an eight-year
study of nearly 5,300 women has shown. Women who are in poor shape
emotionally after an abortion are likely to have been feeling bad about
their lives before terminating their pregnancies, the researchers said.
The findings, the researchers say, challenge the validity of laws
that have been proposed in many states, and passed in several, mandating
that women seeking abortions be informed of mental health risks.
The researchers, Dr. Nancy Felipe Russo, a psychologist at Arizona
State University in Tempe, and Dr. Amy Dabul Marin, a psychologist at
Phoenix College, examined the effects of race and religion on the
well-being of 773 women who reported on sealed questionnaires that
they had undergone abortions, and they compared the results with the
emotional status of women who did not report abortions.
The women, initially 14 to 24 years old, completed questionnaires and
were interviewed each year for eight years, starting in 1979. In 1980
and in 1987, the interview also included a standardized test that
measures overall well-being, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.
"Given the persistent assertion that abortion is associated with
negative outcomes, the lack of any results in the context of such a
large sample is noteworthy," the researchers wrote. The study took
into account many factors that can influence a woman's emotional
well-being, including education, employment, income, the presence of
a spouse and the number of children.
Higher self-esteem was associated with being employed, having a
higher income, having more years of education and bearing fewer children,
but having had an abortion "did not make a difference," the researchers
reported. And the women's religious affiliations and degree of involvement
with religion did not have an independent effect on their long-term
reaction to abortion. Rather, the women's psychological well-being before
having abortions accounted for their mental state in the years after the
abortion, the researchers said..
In considering the influence of race, the researchers again found
that the women's level of self-esteem before having abortions was the
strongest predictor of their well-being after an abortion.
"Although highly religious Catholic women were slightly more likely
to exhibit post-abortion psychological distress than other women, this
fact is explained by lower pre-existing self-esteem," the researchers
wrote in the current issue of Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, a journal of the American Psychological Association.
Overall, Catholic women who attended church one or more times a week,
even those who had not had abortions, had generally lower self-esteem
than other women, although within the normal range, so it was hardly
surprising that they also had lower self-esteem after abortions, the
researchers said in interviews.
Gail Quinn, executive director of anti-abortion activities for the
United States Catholic Conference, said the findings belied the
experience of post-abortion counselors. She said, "While many women
express `relief' following an abortion, the relief is transitory."
In the long term, the experience prompts "hurting people to seek the
help of post-abortion healing services," she said.
The president of the National Right to Life Committee, Dr. Wanda
Franz, who earned her doctorate in developmental psychology, challenged
the researchers' conclusions. She said their assessment of self-esteem
"does not measure if a woman is mentally healthy," adding, "This requires
a specialist who performs certain tests, not a self-assessment of how
the woman feels about herself."
The Relationship of Abortion to Well-being: Do Race and Religion Make a Difference?
Nancy Felipe Russo and Amy J. Dabul
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 1997, Vol. 28, No , 23-31
Relationships of abortion and childbearing to well-being were examined for 1,189 Black and 3,147 White women. Education, income, and having a work role were positively and independently related to well-being for all women. Abortion did not have an independent relationship to well-being, regardless of race or religion, when well-being before becoming pregnant was controlled. These findings suggest professional psychologists should explore the origins of women's mental health problems in experiences predating their experience of abortion, and they can assist psychologists in working to ensure that mandated scripts from 'informed consent' legislation do not misrepresent scientific findings.
RUSSO, NANCY FELIPE
ZIERK, K.
Abortion, Childbearing, and Women's Well-Being
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice 23 (1992): 269-280. Also, http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_resea...
Cohort(s): NLSY79
ID Number: 4029
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
This study is based on a secondary analysis of NLSY interview data from 5,295 women who were interviewed annually from 1979 to 1987. Among this group 773 women were identified in 1987 as having at least one abortion, with 233 of them reporting repeat abortions. Well-being was assessed in 1980 and 1987 by the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The researchers used analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple regression to examine the combined and separate contributions of preabortion self-esteem, contextual variables (education, employment, income, and marital status), childbearing (being a parent, numbers of wanted and unwanted children) and abortion (having one abortion, having repeat abortions, number of abortions, time since last abortion) to women's post abortion self-esteem.
Most Women Do Not Feel Distress, Regret After Undergoing Abortion, Study Says
The majority of women who choose to have legal abortions do not experience regret or long-term negative emotional effects from their decision to undergo the procedure, according to a study published in the June issue of the journal Social Science & Medicine, NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest reports. Dr. A. Kero and colleagues in the Department of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology at University Hospital in Umea, Sweden, interviewed 58 women at periods of four months and 12 months after the women's abortions. The women also answered a questionnaire prior to their abortions that asked about their living conditions, decision-making processes and general attitudes toward the pregnancy and the abortion. According to the study, most women "did not experience any emotional distress post-abortion"; however, 12 of the women said they experienced severe distress immediately after the procedure. Almost all of the women said they felt little distress at the one-year follow-up interview. The women who said they experienced no post-abortion distress had indicated prior to the procedure that they opted not to give birth because they "prioritized work, studies, and/or existing children," according to the study. According to the researchers, "almost all" of the women said the abortion was a "relief or a form of taking responsibility," and more than half of the women said they experienced positive emotional experiences after the abortion such as "mental growth and maturity of the abortion process" (NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest, 7/12).
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports...
The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion--denied and completed
PK Dagg
Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont., Canada.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review the available literature on the psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion, addressing both the issue of the effects of the abortion on the woman involved and the effects on the woman and on the child born when abortion is denied. METHOD: Papers reviewed were initially selected by using a Medline search. This procedure resulted in 225 papers being reviewed, which were further selected by limiting the papers to those reporting original research. Finally, studies were assessed as to whether or not they used control groups or objective, validated symptom measures. RESULTS: Adverse sequelae occur in a minority of women, and when such symptoms occur, they usually seem to be the continuation of symptoms that appeared before the abortion and are on the wane immediately after the abortion. Many women denied abortion show ongoing resentment that may last for years, while children born when the abortion is denied have numerous, broadly based difficulties in social, interpersonal, and occupational functions that last at least into early adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: With increasing pressure on access to abortion services in North America, nonpsychiatrist physicians and mental health professionals need to keep in mind the effects of both performing and denying therapeutic abortion. Increased research into these areas, focusing in particular on why some women are adversely affected by the procedure and clarifying the relationship issues involved, continues to be important.
Am J Psychiatry 1991; 148:578-585
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/conten...
Psychological sequelae of medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation.
Ashok PW, Hamoda H, Flett GM, Kidd A, Fitzmaurice A, Templeton A.
From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.
Background. Although not much research comparing the emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion is available, few studies have compared psychological sequelae following both methods of abortion early in the first trimester of pregnancy. The aim of this review was to assess the psychological sequelae and emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation. Methods. Partially randomized patient preference trial in a Scottish Teaching Hospital was conducted. The hospital anxiety and depression scales were used to assess emotional distress. Anxiety levels were also assessed using visual analog scales while semantic differential rating scales were used to measure self-esteem. A total of 368 women were randomized, while 77 entered the preference cohort. Results. There were no significant differences in hospital anxiety and depression scales scores for anxiety or depression between the groups. Visual analog scales showed higher anxiety levels in women randomized to surgery prior to abortion (P < 0.0001), while women randomized to surgical treatment were less anxious after abortion (P < 0.0001). Semantic differential rating scores showed a fall in self-esteem in the randomized medical group compared to those undergoing surgery (P = 0.02). Conclusions. Medical abortion at 10-13 weeks is effective and does not increase psychological morbidity compared to surgical vacuum aspiration and hence should be made available to all women undergoing abortion at these gestations.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005 Aug;84(8) 61-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...
Post abortion syndrome: myth or reality?
Koop CE.
What are the health effects upon a woman who has had an abortion? In his letter to President Reagan, dated January 9, 1989, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop wrote that in order to find an answer to this question the Public Health Service would need from 10 to 100 million dollars for a comprehensive study.
PIP: At a 1987 briefing for Right to Life leaders, the author--US Surgeon General C Everett Koop--was requested to prepare a comprehensive report on the health effects (mental and physical) of induced abortion. To prepare for this task, the author met with 27 groups with philosophical, social, medical, or other professional interests in the abortion issue; interviewed women who had undergone this procedure; and conducted a review of the more than 250 studies in the literature pertaining to the psychological impact of abortion. Every effort was made to eliminate the bias that surrounds this controversial issue. It was not possible, however, to reach any conclusions about the health effects of abortion. In general, the studies on the psychological sequelae of abortion indicate a low incidence of adverse mental health effects. On the other hand, the evidence tends to consist of case studies and the few nonanecdotal reports that exist contain serious methodological flaws. In terms of the physical effects, abortion has been associated with subsequent infertility, a damaged cervix, miscarriage, premature birth, and low birthweight. Again, there are methodological problems. 1st, these events are difficult to quantify since most abortions are performed in free-standing clinics where longterm outcome is not recorded. 2nd, it is impossible to casually link these adverse outcomes to the abortion per se. Resolution of this question requires a prospective study of a cohort of women of childbearing age in reference to the variable outcomes of mating--failure to conceive, miscarriage, abortion, and delivery. Ideally, such a study would be conducted over a 5-year period and would cost approximately US$100 million
Health Matrix. 1989 Summer;7(2):42-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...
Psychological sequelae of induced abortion.
Romans-Clarkson SE.
Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago Medical School, Dunedin, New Zealand.
This article reviews the scientific literature on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion. The methodology and results of studies carried out over the last twenty-two years are examined critically. The unanimous consensus is that abortion does not cause deleterious psychological effects. Women most likely to show subsequent problems are those who were pressured into the operation against their own wishes, either by relatives or because their pregnancy had medical or foetal contraindications. Legislation which restricts abortion causes problems for women with unwanted pregnancies and their doctors. It is also unjust, as it adversely most affects lower socio-economic class women.
PIP: A review of empirical studies on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion published since 1965 revealed no evidence of adverse effects. On the other hand, this review identified widespread methodological problems--improper sampling, lack of data on women's previous psychiatric history, a scarcity of prospective study designs, a lack of specified follow-up times or evaluation procedures, and a failure to distinguish between legal, illegal, and spontaneous abortions--that need to be addressed by psychiatric epidemiologists. Despite these methodological weaknesses, all 34 studies found significant improvement rather than deterioration in mental status after induced abortion. There was also a high degree of congruity in terms of predictors of adverse reactions after abortion--ambivalence about the procedure, a history of psychosocial instability, poor or absent family ties, psychiatric illness at the time of the pregnancy termination, and negative attitudes toward abortion in the broader society. As expected, criminal abortion is more likely than legal abortion to be associated with guilt, and women who have been denied therapeutic abortions report significantly greater psychosocial difficulties than those who have been granted abortion on the grounds of their precarious mental health. Overall, the research clearly attests that abortion carried out at a woman's request has no deleterious psychiatric consequences. Problems arise only when the woman undergoes pregnancy termination as a result of pressure from others. Legislation that undermines the ability of the pregnant woman to assess herself the impact of an unwanted pregnancy on her future impedes mental health and should be opposed by the psychiatric profession.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1989 Dec;23(4):555-65
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...
Psychological and social aspects of induced abortion.
Handy JA.
The literature concerning psychosocial aspects of induced abortion is reviewed. Key areas discussed are: the legal context of abortion in Britain, psychological characteristics of abortion-seekers, pre- and post-abortion contraceptive use, pre- and post-abortion counselling, the actual abortion and the effects of termination versus refused abortion. Women seeking termination are found to demonstrate more psychological disturbance than other women, however this is probably temporary and related to the short-term stresses of abortion. Inadequate contraception is frequent prior to abortion but improves afterwards. Few women find the decision to terminate easy and most welcome opportunities for non-judgemental counselling. Although some women experience adverse psychological sequelae after abortion the great majority do not. In contrast, refused abortion often results in psychological distress for the mother and an impoverished environment for the ensuing offspring.
Br J Clin Psychol. 1982 Feb;21 (Pt 1):29-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)Psych studies are always so poorly executed from a statistical standpoint.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Remember the negative reaction the movie juno got?
RandiFan1290
(6,229 posts)What was your old username?
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)I have never left. I am who I am...nothing more nothing less. I have never been banned or have had posts deleted.
RandiFan1290
(6,229 posts)Did you join in January 2013 and go through the archives to read the posts about Juno?
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)And the reaction to that movie is well known.
RandiFan1290
(6,229 posts)Sounds legit
Response to RandiFan1290 (Reply #52)
seaglass This message was self-deleted by its author.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Alot of people had issues with it.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)it's not something I would ever recommend to another person if asked. I'm not anti-adoption per se, but the problems and issues it causes for birth parents get severely downplayed or ignored completely in the rush to offer it as some kind of "alternative" (hah!) to abortion, and that's something that badly needs to change.
Other people's MMV.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)REP
(21,691 posts)StevieM
(10,500 posts)until I read that disgusting quote: "You're the one who spread your legs and got pregnant out of wedlock," she told Jordan. "You have no right to grieve for this baby." I will take those words to my grave.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)I don't believe anyone has any problem with adoption as an informed choice, but as an enforced alternative to abortion? That's something else. That's the issue under discussion as it's been suggested by some of DU's anti-choice contingent (which we apparently have; unsurprisingly they also seem to be mostly male).
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)there are a lot of people here who just don't get the finer points.
FWIW, I agree that adoption should always be an option, but never forced. It's not so much the birth or the abortion that causes problems, but forcing someone to do someone else's choice that's the problem.
Ms. Toad
(34,060 posts)has suggested it as an enforced alternative to abortion. An alternative - and one which ought to be better supported - yes. Enforced, no.
And if you aren't seeing people who have problems with adoption as an informed choice, then you must have a lot of people on ignore - or you're not reading very carefully.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)one thread that said that abortion was wrong and in the thread there was talk about abortion being the alternative women *should* choose. And it was the word "should" that was the problem.
And then someone said that he would urge a woman not to have an abortion and then talked about how adoption solved every single problem of an unplanned pregnancy, which is just not true.
I think the adoption threads have been in response to those two discussions.
Ms. Toad
(34,060 posts)and even urging a woman not to have an abortion is not the same as calling for forced childbearing.
And there have been a number of people condemning it, in general.
(And I don't believe you are correct about the timing of at least the second post.)
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Pro choice is not to tell everyone why one is personally against an abortion.
For real it's not. It's to be supportive of each choice.
Ms. Toad
(34,060 posts)why one is personally against adoption. That is not support of that particular choice.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)as though it is a terrible thing to do, creates the climate necessary then to force childbearing
it is this sort of non-sense that allows these TRAP laws to pass and creates a climate of misogyny
boston bean
(36,221 posts)here on DU.
It goes well past stating ones own opinion when it crosses over into shaming women, like saying abortion is:
"killing an unborn child"
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Giving birth is the opposite of abortion. Adoption is not. Adoption is not an alternative to abortion. Abortion is not about not wanting to raise a child. It's about not wanting to be pregnant and and not wanting to go through childbirth.
Why is this very simple fact so hard to understand? How much simpler can we make this point?
Ms. Toad
(34,060 posts)If you discover you are pregnant and not ready to be a parent, you consider a number of options. Abortion, adoption, and raising the child yourself are all options for how to deal with the fact that you are pregnant when you don't want to be.
And one of the reasons some people choose abortion is not because they want an abortion - but because even if they want to carry the child to term and either raise it or put it up for adoption, they cannot afford (emotionally, financially, or in other ways) to do so. When that is the "choice" being made it is very directly an alternative to having an abortion.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)It's anti-forced childbearing.
There is a difference.
Ms. Toad
(34,060 posts)including providing support so that women who want to carry to term and give their children up for adoption (or raise them) have the means to do so is not forced childbearing. It is supporting a wider variety of choice than abortion for women who currently don't have the resources to be able to carry out a choice they might like to make to continue their pregnancy, but feel they can't because abortion is a quicker, cheaper, and because it is invisible (which is more socially/emotionally acceptable option than being visibly pregnant and responding to all of the assumptions made about someone visibly pregnant), and they feel they don't have the financial, or emotional resources to make a different choice.
That is not to say that every woman who faces an unwanted pregnancy would choose adoption over abortion, but some would make that choice but for the lack of resources to support that decision - and those who are desperate to make that choice often end up at the mercy of the only entities currently providing support - right wing which attach pretty heavy emotional and financial strings to that support.
I have not seen a single person on DU supporting adoption who says it ought to be forced as an alternative to an abortion.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)in recent days do feel like they're saying women shouldn't have abortions, they should have the babies and give them up for adoption.
Certainly the ones that overtly state: I wouldn't be here if my birth mother had gotten pregnant before Roe v Wade strongly imply that.
People overlook the fact that women have been having abortions since the dawn of time, and women have been relinquishing babies to adoption even where abortions are readily obtained.
I also have adopted cousins and my husband's oldest brother and sister were adopted.
egduj
(805 posts)
stranger81
(2,345 posts)I broadly support adoption and think it's generally a great thing. It almost certainly was for me; though I don't know who my birthmother was, I know she was a young teenager (under 16), and probably ill-equipped to be a mother at that point in her life.
That said, I also think adoption is a complicated issue, from just about every perspective. I understand why it generates the complicated emotional responses that it does. Doing the best thing under the circumstances for one person is not always consistent with doing the best thing for another person involved in the situation.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Follow that up with WTF?
Expect everyone to know what you're talking about.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Days like this, I wish UNREC were a possibility.
Ms. Toad
(34,060 posts)insisting that adoption is emotionally devastating etc. because of the maternal instinct to protect one's infant (but apparently abortion a day earlier (and yes, that is advocated as an emotion-free choice by some of the same people condemning adoption) is not - guess the maternal instincts only kick in at the moment of birth).
More black and white, no shades of gray, posturing which is hitting a number of people connected to adoptions pretty hard because of the rhetoric.
It is not one DUer, I can name a half dozen very vocal ones, starting multiple threads, who have been pushing this for the last couple of days.
Be grateful you missed it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Not here, not anywhere. Only shit stirring weirdos looking for a reaction would say such a thing. Why do people get "offended" when idiots shoot their mouths off?
One can talk about hormonal influences all one wants, but it's not the business of anyone other than the biological mother what she chooses to do with her offspring--either adopt it out with or without financial consideration, or walk into a fire station or hospital and just leave the child.
It's like the damn Olive Garden Breast Feeding Pitbull Smoking Wars...just add one more stupid subject to the mix.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)"DU is now against adoption?" Most people post a link or did that part just slip your mind?
On edit: Another driveby. Posted simply to stir up shit where it doesn't exist.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)part of the Clinton's statement about abortion. One thing led to another (as these things often do on DU) and when the CHOICE of adoption came up, some people started attacking that as an alternative.
Apparently, they don't understand what the word "choice" means.
Bottom line, they don't want you voting for Hillary.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)I was wondering what started up that idiotic hornets nest up.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)And what better way to undermine abortion rights than to get allies to attack one another over something so inconsequential?
The religious right has driven out the only PP near my area (as they have done in other parts of the country) and rather than working together to fight back we have one group of pro-choice supporters chiding and talking down to other pro-choice supporters over wording.
We share the shame position in every way, but because of one word one group is going to attack the other and treat them like they are the anti-abortion zealots? I am not the one that needs to grow up.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I explained in explicit detail why.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)instead of being pro both!
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)We should discuss the harm, stigma and confusion that can be caused by the words we choose. ESPECIALLY with people who support choice and may not realize the potential harm or that the party has updated the language. The words in question of this thread are "safe, legal and rare" - specifically taking note of the word rare. In context of abortion (not unwanted pregnancies, abortion). The national party removed it because of the fact it's open to interpretation... and all of the reasons outlined in this OP.
*I* get that you and other liberals are very very likely to fully support choice. *I* get what you *MEAN* by rare. We *all* want to make unwanted pregnancies rare... but do you not see, even a little, how using the "rare" language can be harmful? There have been massive attacks in every state on abortion since 1989. And they are getting worse. And, as such, I feel it's incredibly important to discuss how our language forms our societal beliefs and vice versa. To quote LeftyMom from another thread...
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.
I have had at least 2 conversations here with people who literally said, "oh, hey. wow - I really hadn't thought about it like that, I will change my language". Others have been nasty, combative, dismissive and rude. And there's been a lot in between.
Bottom line - it's a discussion. This is a discussion board. It's an important topic to me and I thought to many other DUers. Again- the word that causes confusion, anger, harm, etc was REMOVED from the party platform for these reasons. It's just weird that so many DUers are fighting it.
Here is this is the Democratic Party altered platform (with "safe, legal, rare" removed):
Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.
See? It's possible to support all of the things you discussed and leave the frequency out of the policy discussion to avoid the confusion and/or potential harm.
Ideally, abortion rates drop as a byproduct of the rest but we keep the focus on what it should be. We typically don't fight to expand access to something we want to be rare.
The discussion of this is not new. It's just new to DU. It's not that controversial.
In conclusion: correct, we should not use 'rare' in context to abortion.
Ever.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Abortion is a moral and positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, and protects families.
Beausoir
(7,540 posts)future women that don't get a choice in whether or not they want to be aborted.
People can pretend all they want that abortion is a harmless victimless liberation of women. Sometimes it is. But always..a fetus dies. No way to get around that.
I am pro-choice. I'm also smart enough to realize what biology is involved in aborting a fetus.
My opinion, which has matured over many years, is that aborting a fetus ends a life. Knowing that, I still support a woman's right to chose what to do with her own body.
Simple as that. Flail and gnash your teeth all you like. That is my opinion and no amount of name-calling will change my mind.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Yes, I care infinitely more about living, breathing women with hopes, dreams and living people who love them than a zygote.
What you have made is indeed a sensational point, but, truth be told, it's actually a non sequitur. The fact is, if those women are never born, they are not here to mourn their potential non-existence. In other words, once Susan had reached an adult age, taking all her experiences from her would be an obvious crime, because there would be a tangible victim involved: the 30-year old Susan. But robbing a future person of these experiences, a person who will never exist, is impossible: it's like trying to loot a store that will never be built. It is impossible to harm a person who will never exist.
Beausoir
(7,540 posts)You know better.
At some point you will mature.
Trust me when I say that. At some point you will mature in your thinking.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Surrogacy and egg donation often have the same problems, fwiw.
Response to Beausoir (Original post)
Post removed
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)we all believe the NSA should be abolished, and we all believe meat at the grocery store is an abomination.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)It's not so black and white here. That's how republicans operate, not us. You'll find people here who can quite elegantly lay out the nuances of the issue and others who are more blunt and aren't willing to write a complete essay every time they post a comment.
This isn't a site for right wing conservatives so you're free to disagree with whatever anyone posts. And just because one person said something doesn't mean "DU" said it.
applegrove
(118,608 posts)GOP are going to run on the anti-abortion wedge issue and they are busy stirring up the DU to be pro "abortion on demand" which is like an abortion drive through. And once the have all these pro increasing abortion threads at the DU they can send their base here with simple links....to see how much democrats want to stop adoption. And all this after states around the country have passed or are talking about passing making abortion illegal after 20weeks. You see any abortion after 20 weeks will be called a late term abortion and democrats will be guilty of actually wanting to increase that. Is it making more sense for you now?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)
Warpy
(111,241 posts)like it has been all along.
Careful reading would have allowed you to figure it out.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)You know, RW talking points, bullshit straight out of forced-birthers handbook. Not really progressive, kind of against Democratic Party platform on woman's Right to Chose...
boston bean
(36,221 posts)
DLevine
(1,788 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)why do the women and the men who support them have to put up with that BS on DU. DU community left it to stand. Please DU community, understand that using rw propaganda bs talking points and then proclaiming one is pro choice, doesn't make it true.
Protect womens rights please.
DLevine
(1,788 posts)Response to boston bean (Reply #36)
seabeyond This message was self-deleted by its author.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)He used his adoption to proclaim that "people" shouldn't have abortions, because his birth mother decided to give him life, rather than what, killing him?
There was a whole lot of passive aggressive bs in that thread, and then a proclamation that of course all those things he feels makes him pro choice....
That is what prompted my thread. To state that, no... adoption is not an alternative to abortion. It's a totally different set of circumstances and a slew of different decision making comes into play.
It's not an either or option, where they are equal to one another.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Some posters have claimed adoption is an alternative to abortion. It isn't.
Sid
boston bean
(36,221 posts)
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)And there was no default setting where abortion was the primary option and everything else was alternatives. I had three options to decide between, none of them what I wanted, and I made the choice with none of them as the default setting to start from...
btw, I haven't seen anyone at DU advocate forced adoptions. Can you show me a link to any posts like that?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)And that decision was to continue with the pregnancy. Then overtime 9 months or so and after one has given birth they make a decision as to whether or not they can be a parent and care for the child, for whatever reason....
You are missing the larger point violet, with all due respect.
The issue is trying to force women into adoption over abortion, and they are not equal options, they are different, with a slew of different life altering circumstances. Right wingers make it seem that oh, instead of killing your baby, put it up for adoption. Not.that.easy. not.the.same option.
No one is stating that someone should not go through with an adoption, if that is what they want to do.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)I discarded adoption first, decided on an abortion, then changed my mind and did the single mum thing. But adoption is an option I considered along with the others...
No, I'm not missing any larger point in this whole thing. I get that anti-choicers do that argument, as prior to finding DU I saw lots of them trotting out that crap on other parts of the internet, but I haven't seen that happen here at DU (of course I don't read every thread, so I may have missed something), not the forcing or coercing women to go for adoption. But if we want to talk about the antichoicers I used to see pulling that crap, they were revolting and dishonest pieces of crap, and one called Pat Goltz took the prize for zany reasons to give birth by claiming that women can have the bestest orgasm ever right in the middle of giving birth. She was one creepy old lady...
boston bean
(36,221 posts)You knew prior to deciding on an abortion you would not opt for adoption. Fine. Adoption had no bearing on whether you might or might not get an abortion.
I really do think you are missing somethings and how some are using DU to get their anti choice message out there, and then proclaim, but I'M FOR CHOICE. And I say that will much respect.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)I don't care what they think on a personal level as long as they support abortion staying legal. If they want to pretend that an embryo/foetus is a baby and bore everyone to tears with discussions of when life begins, but also strongly believe that abortion should be legal and a woman's right over her own body trumps all else, I'll leave them to it and focus on the real problem, which is anti-choicers who want to make abortion illegal. I've heard there's a lot of them in the US. They're who I'd be spending my time trying to cut off at the knees 
boston bean
(36,221 posts)I believe the same thing. Where my line is drawn is when they use their personal moral judgments to make sweeping statements as to why other women should feel the same way. And there IS a lot of that going on here. Read carefully, is my advice.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
Dorian Gray
(13,490 posts)is DU anti-adoption. I've seen a handful of posters (maybe three) who don't like it. But I wouldn't paint the whole site as anti-adoption because of them.
I think adoption is a wonderful thing (disclaimer: I was adopted). I'm thankful to my parents for adopting me. I'm thankful to my birth mother for allowing me to go to a loving family. I've been put off by some of the posts that claim it's a travesty, but I see very few people actually espousing that POV.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I'm looking at you, OP.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024026613#post63
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)...and maybe throwing in a few 'pro-aborts!' and 'babykillers!' for good measure. I was disappointed 
boston bean
(36,221 posts)You really think someone that says abortion is horrific killing is pro choice.
I don't put it past persons who are anti choice to add they are pro choice (no one really knows what they mean by that) to float their obnoxious views around here.
I've seen many anti choicers claim they are pro choice, and it aint anything that resembles a true pro choice stance.
I'm a bit more suspect than you and my tingly senses I believe are on target.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Anywhere else and it's just crap I read on the internet....
Yep, I have no reason to think they're not prochoice. They said they think abortion should be legal. You think they're lying. Who am I to believe? Having been on the receiving end of being told I'm lying about a stance I clearly defined here at DU, I'm going with the person who expresses the view they say they hold. I honestly don't give a stuff what they personally think of abortion as long as they want it to stay legal in the US...
I've seen a hell of a lot of anti-choicers. In fact, I saw lots of them labelling themselves prochoice. But not one of them claimed they wanted abortion to be legal. Most of them were 'I'm Pro-choice! I support the choice of the little defenceless babies who will grow up to be Nobel Prize winners if they're not aborted!' types.
Anyway, I'm outta this one now. I fear I could run the risk of being called an anti-choicer for disagreeing with some here on what makes someone pro-choice, and that would get messy. I'm just not knowledgable enough on the subject of reproductive rights to be able to spot an anti-choicer at 50 metres...
G'night...
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Someone who states abortion is "horrific killing" is spewing anti choice talking points..
You choose to believe this persons words stating they are pro choice. I choose to believe the anti choice rhetoric staring me in the face. If you don't see that as trying to shame women or make them feel guilty... I'm not sure what else I can say. Those types of comments are outside the realm of being pro choice, which means none of my business and to each woman her own choice, no judgments....
See you around!
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Even those obnoxious people that call women who have abortions murderers regardless of the circumstances for having the abortion (even saving the woman's life) and even though anti-choice is utterly contrary to the Democratic party platform and has been at least since Roe v. Wade.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I know... it was a bit rhetorical.
I was on forced ignore with that one on DU2.
Pisses me off.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Why is he/she still allowed to post here???
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I know... I know.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Care to enlighten us as to how you came to the conclusion that "DU is now anti-adoption"?
LWolf
(46,179 posts)To throw out, "So...." followed by a statement that was never actually expressed as a way to deliberately misinterpret what WAS actually said. I see it on DU all the time, but it's never effective. At least, not with me.
What, exactly, did somebody say to push your buttons? Does it have something to do with the real issue, abortion?
Without any evidence from you in the form of more concrete detail and links, I'm going to go out on a limb and take a wild guess: people who defend abortion are "anti-adoption" because they want to abort the fetus rather than see a woman carry to term and adopt out? Is that what you are suggesting?
If so, you're wrong. If not, what ARE you talking about?
Orsino
(37,428 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)at killing babies personally.
this is pure, stinky, bullshit
boston bean
(36,221 posts)that an abortion is killing an unborn child, a horrific killing.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and i do not even do abortion/now adoption threads.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)and an easy alternative to abortion that women should be forced to choose if they are pregnant and don't want a baby.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)they proclaim abortion is the easy answer. Adoption is the real hard, hurtful choice. They will post studies supporting them as well.
Abortion is great for women. Adoption is harmful.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)and she has the best idea which will be easier for her.
Among women I've known personally, I do think that those who chose abortion seem to have had an easier time, but I don't know how representative the women I've known are.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Even had a thread called "Adoption Harms Women". It should not be adoption vs abortion, yet that's what some have turned it into over the last 24 hours or so.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Being pro-choice doesn't only involve abortion. Whether you decide to carry the pregnancy to term or have an abortion is entirely up to the woman.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)because his mother gave him life (adoption) instead of death, he thinks "people should not choose" abortion....
That is where this all started. At least let's be honest. And the discussions surrounding that spoke to adoption not be an actual alternative to abortion, ie, not an either or choice, and the arguments being made were sound.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)No you started it...I'm tellen MMMMOOOOMMMMMM.
avebury
(10,952 posts)1) the biological mother's right to annonymity is respected if that is her desire and
2) decent adoptive parents are found.
One of my uncle and aunts adopted all three of their children. Now my aunt (by marriage) most definitely had mental issues and ruined my uncle's military career and was extremely verbally and mentally abusive to one of my cousins. My uncle did what he could for the abused boy. After my uncle died, my cousin turned his back on his adoptive mother and never had anything more to do with her. The only ray of sunshine to the story was that, at some point while growing up, he found out that he had a twin sister who was adopted by another couple and he was able to make contact with her.
Realistically, my aunt never should have been allowed to adopt any children.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)Iggo
(47,548 posts)
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Without a major issue to debate, the fringe takes over.
Beausoir
(7,540 posts)DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)I think adoption is great for those that want to do it and is a great benefit to children that need parents and parents who want children. That being said, I don't "prefer" adoption over abortion and I certainly wouldn't think that someone who chooses abortion over adoption made a less valid choice. None of it is any of my business.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)alternatives to abortion. I had an abortion and I wish I had been strong enough emotionally to go through with the pregnancy and give it up for adoption. But, it was what it was. I was not strong enough emotionally and given all the circumstances abortion was the best choice for me. My daughter is on birth control so that she can prevent an unwanted pregnancy. I am happy that she doesn't have to even worry about pregnancy right now. She has told me she doesn't want to get pregnant. You'd think by some of the responses on some of the threads she has a responsibility to get pregnant and have an abortion just to support the cause.
Beausoir
(7,540 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)They just post alot.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)i want to adopt my future child. i am completely pro-adoption.
however i dont think its an equivalent choice to abortion.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Abortion and adoption are not the same. There should be no arguments that pit the two against each other. That is what Republicans do. But Democrats, Liberals, Progressives should not demonize adoption to bolster the argument for choice. There is NO NEED to do that. There is no need for threads like "Adoption Harms Women". That shit is just hurtful.
Even as an adopted child of rape victim I am pro-choice to my bones. I also know that adoption can be a good thing, is often a good thing. Bashing adoption as a way to somehow argue for choice is really offensive. It's hurtful. It's infuriating.
I'm pretty sure you have seen the comments and No, I won't go back and get examples because frankly I am too upset. Maybe because you aren't adopted it's easier to brush off.
The last 24 hours or so have left a bitter taste in my mouth because I am left with the feeling there are some here who would argue that I never should have been born.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts) 
actslikeacarrot
(464 posts)...but we are anti coerced or forced adoption, which should be called what it really is, legalized kidnapping.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)which was a long, protracted set of arguments over whether being "pro-life" is a position that should be supported on a site for Democrats.
From there the discussion moved to whether saying "I'm pro-choice but..." was a stance that was really pro-choice.
DU isn't anti-adoption but there are a number of us who think that stating "I'm pro-choice but I wish women would choose adoption over abortion" is at best naive and at worst just a backdoor way of being against choice. There are many, many reasons why women choose one or the other. The only thing consistent is that they don't need busybody strangers trying to choose for them.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Deep13
(39,154 posts)