I'm sick of defending abortion. Its time to attack.

[lvx35]

Has anybody else noticed that the Republicans have us right where they want us on the abortion issue? In my opinion it was Kerry's weakest moments in the last debate, when he was asked to essentially defend abortion. The problem with this is that we are allowing Repubs to frame the issue for us; nobody really wants to have an abortion, in fact its a really tough thing for anybody to have to go through, usually born out of necessity...So my question is, why aren't we attacking the Republican stance on this? I mean in essence what they are saying is that it does not require a woman's consent to force her to have somebody else's child. They are saying that if a man rapes a woman, then she is obligated to carry his child and raise it, while he goes off and does whatever...They are arguing against consent, and for those who act without consent, i.e. rapists. Therefore, I believe its time to attack the Republican fight for rapists rights instead of defending abortions as if they are something anybody wants to go through.

The argument isn't about the ACT of abortion, its about a woman's right to consent to the act of having a child. Its about consent. Their position is not defendable, so I say we should spend more time ATTACKING! :)

[mazzarro]

1. Totally true

acccuse the rethugs of being pro rapist and women abusers - period. Let them make the arguement for denial of the accusation. And before they are done denying that, we should pile on another, and another, and another.

[kiraboo]

2. I think we're going to have a hard time framing the issue

if we don't address the "prolife" (hah) assertion that the fetus is a human being. This is the point on which we get hung up, because we haven't been able to successfuly present proof that this is not so... or, that whether it is or is not so, abortion is still a justifiable choice for the pregnant woman. I think we must acknowledge the facts here and yet march on. A pregnant woman is also a human being, and one whose potential is actual. So this does bring us to what you are talking about, consent. Consent by the woman to carry a child to term at the risk to her own health and well-being. Nobody should be forced to do this! Not in cases of rape, or teenage pregnancy, or otherwise unwanted pregnancy. Period. Yes, let's talk about consent; but let's not ignore the thrust of the conservative argument or we are bound to be overwhelmed by it.

[troubleinwinter]

6. "fetus is a human being"

I have been thinking about this for a few days. The constitution grants citizenship to those BORN in the U.S.

Should the repub RW fundies deem that a person is a citizen only if CONCEIVED in the U.S.?

[Guaranteed]

42. What difference would it make if the fetus was a person

or a citizen?

If it was, could the government then force a woman to leave it in her womb and allow it to feed off of her while it grows?

[kevinbgoode]

9. The Right Wing is all about demanding human sacrifices

of everyone else but themselves. I'll listen to their nonsense about women and abortion the day they propose that any man who impregnates a woman outside of marriage gets his peepee cut off.

[lvx35]

10. Damn good points! The solution:

edit: This post is not intended to make a moral statement on the rightness or wrongness of abortion, but to show that debates about it can exist outside of a woman's right to choose.

IMHO is to shift the burden: If the rapist puts his child in a place that is against a woman's consent, HE is responsible for the death of fetus, whatever that ultimately means. Thus, the fundies should see the rapist as the murderer if they look at the death of a fetus as such. This also stretches beyond rapists, ALL men need to take responsibility for who they screw, and the risk of putting a baby in an unconsenting woman is to partake in the death of the baby, if they see it as such.
We men need to take equal responsibility for the abortion, to whatever extent it is moral. We need to look at a woman's right as absolute, a force of nature. If we put babies where they will naturally die, it is our fault. Within this framework, the morality of abortion can be debated outside of any debate of a womans's absolute right to consent.

[Guaranteed]

41. It doesn't matter if it's a person or not.

Abortion is perfectly defensible if the fetus is a person.

[bluestateguy]

3. Banning abortions sets all kind of bad precedents

Then the legal precedent is set that birth control pills can be banned or tightly regulated, sexual relations between consenting adults can be regulated, the sale of condoms can be restricted or banned and even masturbation could be turned into a criminal offense.

[lvx35]

11. Sounds like a whole new slew of rapists rights.

Block a woman's power to not become pregnant, ban a man's way of sexually release when he is not in a relationship. I'm telling you this "rapists rights" thing has momentum! :)

[Dogmudgeon]

14. THAT is the Winning Frame!

No More Rapists' Rights!

Yep. That's the winner.

--p!

[Guaranteed]

43. Rape is going to be our defense?

Come on.

[Dogmudgeon]

50. What would you prefer?

--p!

[Warren DeMontague]

52. CHOICE is the winning frame. MOST AMERICANS SUPPORT IT.

The argument that we're losing on abortion (and, as such, we need to 're-frame' anything) is a bald-faced political LIE, designed to confer a greater share of political power onto fringe religious right members of our society than they deserve by their actual numbers.

Most Americans Are Pro-Choice.

[mrcheerful]

4. It ws tried with Reagan, it failed

because the fundies have it breed ino them that all kids have a right to be born. After they are born though its ok that they get murdered by parents, strangers,cops,other kids, or they are imprisoned because they are poor and chances are they won't make it through 8th grade before hard ships have them taking the easy dollar.

[lvx35]

12. What do you think of my point above?

I don't think we necessarily NEED to declare the rightness of abortion to fight for choice:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=141956&mesg_id=142065

[Bjornsdotter]

5. Choice

...it's all about choice. Nobody has the right to take away my freedom of choice.

Okay I'm with you....I'm tired of defending also.

What works for me is when I'm confronted by the pro-lifers, I ask a few questions.

1. How many pregnant strangers have you personally supported monetarily? How much do you donate weekly for their prenatal care and living expenses?


2. How many children have you adopted?

They have always answered that they don't support them monetarily and they haven't adopted any children. They can't afford it, they don't want any more kids etc. I then ask why they deserve to have a choice and others do not. I then ask how they would feel if they were forced to adopt a child. This usually stops them in their tracks.

It's all about choice.

Cheers!

[troubleinwinter]

7. Yes, I'd not thought of this one:

"I then ask how they would feel if they were forced to adopt a child."

I regard anti-abortion as "Forced Birth". As evil as forced abortions.

[Bjornsdotter]

8. Exactly!

I think we have to be sure to use the word "forced". It has such a strong meaning, it's like a gut shot.

Cheers!

[lvx35]

13. I agree, I think we should look at choice as absolute

in fact, OUTSIDE of any debate about fetal rights. What do you think of my post above?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=141956&mesg_id=142065

[troubleinwinter]

17. I think it's garbage. You have used all of their words.

"his child"
"murderer"
"death of the baby"
"babies"

[lvx35]

18. You think the absolute right of a woman to choose is garbage?

I was demonstrating that a pro-life argument could exist outside of questioning a woman's right to choose, that's all. Why stand around defending abortion when the real argument is about consent? I'm not saying abortion is murder, I just don't believe its the case....but I've been through one, and I didn't like it, and I don't want to defend it as though its something desirable.

[troubleinwinter]

23. I do NOT.

I do NOT think the absolute right of a woman to choose is garbage. You asked opinions of your post #10 (which you edited AFTER my response). I meant that I saw your post as garbage. You use ALL of their words... "murder" of "babies".

You claim to have "been through" an abortion, but your profile states that you are a male. You have not been through an abortion. I have.

No woman "likes" an abortion, or finds it "something desirable".

[lvx35]

28. I agree.

And I did go through it, in the emotional aspects, though not the physical ones. It was harder for her, yes, but its something that is really tough for everybody, because we were both involved, it was a decision made by both of us, and if we had it, it would have been ours.
Was it right or wrong? What I knew WOULD HAVE been wrong was having it without being able to give a real life, to feed it, which is the scenario we were in. So I never had the luxury of contemplating it all that deeply. But in my heart I don't believe it was wrong. However, I think we both agree that its not something that's desirable, for anybody, at all.

So I think we need to get at some of the social aspects that deal with sex, and men and women, in general. The real problem as I see it is that that Republican stance is men shouting "murderer" while attacking birth control, without demanding men take any responsibility at all in the situation, or demanding that our society take any responsibility for the conditions which make abortion a NECESSITY, such as poverty. Instead, they try to heap all responsibility on the woman, saying it is hers alone to deal with. The point of my post, what I was trying to get at, is that they can have their opinions about abortion, so long as they take the burden off women. If somebody is TRULY against abortion, and TRULY wants to build a pro-life society, then they will have to look at creating a world where every child is welcome, every child can get health care and eat, and not die the mothers arms when it is no longer a zygote. I am not opposed to this goal, but it has NOTHING to do with what Republicans are doing. What they are doing is trying to instill guilt on women for a situation of their own making. That's what I'm trying to say.

[Guaranteed]

44. You need to be more specific.

You're not saying anything at this point.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Here's the attack: If "pro-life" groups were really interested in reducing

abortions, they wouldn't be

WAGING A SIMULTANEOUS WAR ON LEGAL BIRTH CONTROL.

That's it. If you feel you need an argument beyond "it's no one else's fucking business besides the woman whose BODY it is"...

(I don't, personally, and I'm a little tired of hearing how "we" need to "reframe" the debate when the majority of Americans are ALREADY pro-choice.)

...but, really, if you feel you need an argument, IMHO That's the argument. Don't like abortion? Good, you must be really pissed off that right-wingers are encouraging Jesus-drunk pharmacists to dispense lectures instead of the pill.

[lvx35]

19. Its still a weak point

I can't get the image in my mind of Kerry bumbling over it in the debate. Sure its a minority position, (40%?)but its something that really needs to be attacked in order to move beyond at this point. Its a big issue in the religious parts of Bush's base that would otherwise be dems, so I think we should absolutly go on the offensive.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. Yeah, well, Kerry bumbled over the Iraq war, too.

My opinion? Lets stop running people who can't take a position and stand behind it.

Keep hammering it home.

Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control. Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.Pro-lifers are opposed to legal birth control.


It's not about abortion, it's about self-determination. Why is anyone more qualified than the woman in whom the pregnancy is taking place to make decisions regarding that pregnancy?

I think the idea that abortion is LOSING us votes is an utter lie. Maybe what's losing us votes is the fact that urban, socially libertarian minded voters are put off by the control freaks on the left almost as much as they are by the control freaks on the right- for shits and giggles, maybe we should run someone who defies 'conventional political wisdom'.. someone who says it's nobody else's god-damn business what a consenting adult wants to do with his or her own body, be that smoke a joint, use birth control, get an abortion, or have a pain-free exit of his or her choosing when terminally ill. Someone who says the First Amendment, and the Establishment Clause, are inviolable and SACRED parts of our National Heritage-- and anyone who fucks with 'em must hate Freedom and HATE AMERICA.

I'm of the opinion that taking strong stands on personal liberty and the separation of church and state, combined with unapologetic commitments towards universal health coverage, renewable energy leading to independence from foreign oil, and getting our troops out of Iraq-- if we took those positions and STOOD behind them without apologizing.. I think that would gain us a SHITLOAD more voters than we're ever going to get by perpetually chasing after these so-called "values" heartland voters who aren't gonna vote for our guy anyway.

[OctOct1]

16. My wild attacks

Old white men who make the laws, can only feel things if it effects them in the wallet or between the legs.

1) If I am forced to carry a child, Then I should be able to sue for LOTS of $. All Money up front. None of this "poverty making" child support.
It only cost $483,034.00 to raise a child today.
I will settle for $450,000.00
2) You can't pay, get a loan.
3) can't get a loan, work camps can be set up
Women pay the pain, labor and sacrifice. Men pay the financial cost.
Lets face it, The traditional role of Father has always been financial. And since we are going back to the Traditional values.... cough it up!!!

4) If father disappears, leaves the country or fails to pay, then the government will pay the mother and hunt down Father. The father will then be indebted to the government and mom and child will be fine.
5) All sexual offenders will meet with snip snip. Period!!

6) date rape = snip snip (You can not just ruin a womans life and go on with your own) Snip snip

If a woman traps you, oh well, you should have kept it in your pants. The life of the baby is more important then how it got here and if you are the father you pay. That is the same thing they are telling women by forcing her to have a child.
Jeez, I woman could collect a few million before turning 30.
Then when we become rich and powerful, we will buy the government and get things right

[sandnsea]

20. I'm right here

I like this one. This ones got some real snippin' possibilities! I think we need to find a new Roe, and sue the state of Mississippi for support.

[leeroysphitz]

27. The traditional role of Father has always been financial

As a loving, committed and involved FATHER to an incredible and beautiful child. I find your statement to be ugly and hateful.

I feel that I am forced, for economic reasons, to sacrifice 40 plus hours a week (or in other words the MAJORITY of my waking hours) to help provide for my family. I do this out of love. I would rather be at home with my 13 month old son. I would rather see his first steps, I would rather hear his first words, I would rather feed him his first jar of number 3 gerber, I would rather be able to go with him to the surgeon so I can ask questions and be 100% informed about his next surgery, I would rather not have to come home exhausted every day only to spend a scant hour with my wonderful son before he must go to bed for the night.

I agree that abortion must be kept safe and legal NO EXCEPTIONS EVER but fathers are MORE than just PAYCHECKS. I think your statement was born of ignorance, I encourage you to reconsider it.

[bumblebee1]

36. I can add a few more questions

Where will you get the police manpower to arrest all the women who are getting abortions? Arrest the doctors who are performing the abortions?

Would you rather have police resources staking out the abortions clinics or investigating the armed robbery of a convenience store or bank?

[leeroysphitz]

38. Your avoidance mocks me... N/T

[Warren DeMontague]

47. To play the devil's advocate for a moment.

While you're gleefully envisioning snippin' bits off all these rapists, I might add that one of the primary objections many people have to the death penalty is that occasionally our wonderful justice system nabs the wrong person.

People have been exonerated -many years later- on death row by DNA evidence for crimes they didn't commit. This has occurred in cases of rape as well.

Still think it's a good idea to run around mutilating men on the basis of convictions for rape -- or date rape? (I don't actually make a distinction between the two, but you apparently do)

Let me add that, vis a vis this thread- I agree with you, old white men, or anyone else for that matter, shouldn't be telling individual women what to do with their own bodies. Regarding abortion, I think every woman is entitled to make that call - about precisely one body, her own. (There are old, white, WOMEN who want to pass pro-life legislation, too) Every man is entitled to make that call about exactly zero. It's a woman's own choice because that's where the pregnancy takes place, it's her body. So I'm with you there. And I personally think sex offenders- in fact, any violent criminal- should be locked up. In most cases, for good, with no chance of getting out (barring, of course, incontrivertable proof of innocence) ... AFAIK, that's what prisons are primarily for; even though our Mandatory Minimum laws have turned them into mainly warehouses for non-violent drug offenders.


So I'm not saying be lenient with sex offenders- if anything, they should be treated more harshly- but when you're talking about hacking some guy's naughty bits off, like the DP, you're talking about something that's irreversible.

Finally, I would add that most of those wrongly convicted on death row, and presumably those wrongly convicted for other crimes as well - are poor, black men.

I wonder if you've really thought all these things through.

[ruggerson]

21. Frame it this way:

Keep asking Republican politicians, everywhere and anywhere, what they would do with all the women who broke the law and had abortions anyway?

Would they build extra prisons to house these MILLIONS of women?

WOuld they only hold the doctor accountable, and if they believe that abortion is murder, how could they only hold the doctor accountable, but not the woman?

What would the prison terms be?

How would you pay for all these prisons to house all these women?

No Democrat ever puts a Republican up against the wall with these questions. And they're so FUCKING OBVIOUS.

In any debate with an anti choice Republican, the attack should be: "So, you want to imprison women who have abortions. How many years would you sentence them for."

MAKE THEM DEFEND THEIR POSITION.

[leeroysphitz]

22. You are, of course, absolutely right lvx35.

But so what? As soon as you try to use this argument on fundies all they hear is "Blah blah blah." They tune it out reflexively. And if your talking to the non fundie average American all they EVER hear is "Blah blah blah." unless you are talking about American Idol or Brad Pitt.

So the real question is how do get your excellent argument past all the mental filters of the people who need to hear it?

[lvx35]

30. Good question! I was just thinking about that.

The thought came that maybe its time to stop trying to communicate with them, and start studying them from an external perspective, like Jane Goodall with the Chimpanzees. Then build a behavioral explanation for republican actions and start working with that. Hey its a start! ;)

[leeroysphitz]

33. like Jane Goodall with the Chimpanzees

Excellent approach! Observe the fundie in it's native environment. Hostem Cogere (Know your enemy).

[FreedomAngel82]

24. If you have time go to

PBS' "Now" and read the transcript of a recent show with some "right to life" woman. They don't care at all about actual life because they turn around and are for programs that MAKE life such as welfare, social security, better PUBLIC education, enviornment, etc. Here is the transcript:

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcriptNOW130C2_full.html

[lvx35]

34. Thanks for the link nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

25. Here's your attack... Pro Lifers' dirty little secret...

Did you know that far more zygotes (considered life by the "Pro Life" groups) are killed in the process of using In Vitro fertilization than in all the abortions done in the U.S.? Did you also know that Christian fundamentalists are among the biggest users of In Vitro? Did you know that this is one of their dirty little secrets that they refuse to talk about, and preachers won't mention out of fear of losing congregant$?

[lvx35]

31. Oh sweet!

That's a good angle, I didn't know that at all!!!

[EC]

26. True

and instead of just saying that we are defending a woman's right, how about making it personal, that we are protecting our rights not to have to concern ourselves in other people's medical/psychological care? I just say no I won't defend abortion, but I will defend my right to keep it my own business.

[Ilsa]

29. If you give them the right to control reproduction, then they can make

you have an abortion when it becomes convenient for them. They'll be weeding out undesirables eventually by use of abortion if there is a remote chance public assistance will be needed.

[lvx35]

32. That's a good point too

and the post right above you also makes it well. There is a much bigger issue of simple state power in the abortion argument. There really are only two options here, the individual controls reproduction or the state does. Banning abortion is still reproductive control, and its also potential defacto release of that control into the hands of rapists!

[omega minimo]

35. "at issue is the individual right to privacy and dignity for women"

Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL, author of “With Liberty and Justice for All.”

"What is at issue is the individual right to privacy and dignity for American women and the issue of who’s going to get to decide the most intimate aspects of our lives."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10721401/page/3 /

RE: RESPECTING CHOICE WHEN IT'S NOT YOUR CHOICE TO MAKE

MR. RUSSERT: Can you be a pro-life, pro-anti-abortion rights feminist?

MS. MICHELMAN: You can be a feminist and oppose the act of abortion on moral and ethical, religious, on personal grounds; absolutely can be. And, in fact, many people who are pro-choice in terms of their beliefs that the policies of this nation should respect the diversity of views on these issues related to pregnancy and childbearing, abortion, and reproductive matters, that there is a diversity of views and they are informed by one’s values, as they are mine. My personal values informed my decision about abortion. But you can be absolutely anti-abortion, if you will, and pro-choice; believing that women ultimately, not the government, not Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, but women themselves must determine the course of their lives, and central to that determining the course of their lives is determining when and under what circumstances they will become mothers. Because the thing that most women want is to be successful at mothering. And the first ingredient is being able to determine when that time is right and not being forced by the government and by politicians or by judges to bear a child under circumstances of one—not of one’s choosing.

RE: PRINCIPLES OF DIGNITY AND PRIVACY FOR WOMEN

MR. RUSSERT: Are the Democrats changing their vocabulary on abortion, because to Kate’s point, the political—the politics are changing?

MS. MICHELMAN: You know, I think those public comments and that public angsting after the 2004 presidential election was unfortunate because the principle that underlies a pro-choice position are the principles of dignity and privacy for women. Abortion rights and reproductive freedom and choice needs to be seen in the larger context of individual liberties, of women determining the course of their lives and having control over their lives. I think that was unfortunate. I’m reminded of the ‘92 election when President Clinton was elected. The House and the Senate were under control of Democrats. The political pundits were writing the obituary of the right wing and the conservative movement, and you didn’t see the conservatives sort of back away from their values or their principles. They didn’t give up and start publicly talking about changing their language. What they did is they stayed focused on their values and that’s what we need to do. And the right to choose is an ex—the right to choose, the right of the individual woman to be guaranteed, to be free from the government and political interference in making this decision is a right that is embraced by the majority of Americans. There may be different views on the individual act of abortion, but in terms of who should make the decision, whether it’s government and politicians or women, there is universal acceptance that women must make...

MR. RUSSERT: But the Democrats want to recapture control of the Congress and the White House.

MS. MICHELMAN: They do, and they can do it on these principles.

RE: LANGUAGE MATTERS

MS. MICHELMAN: Could I speak to this “abortion on demand”?  I have to comment about this because I hear it over and over and over again. First of all, I ran a Planned Parenthood affiliate for years. I have been with women who have faced the decision about whether or not to have an abortion. I have never heard a woman demand to have an abortion. I think that that language reveals the lack of respect that those who oppose abortion have for women who face crises. We’ve got to get rid of that language. And Roe does not guarantee women a right to abortion without restrictions. It balanced rights of women to have an abortion in the earlier stages of pregnancy, and allows the states to restrict in the post-viability, roughly last trimester.

[KT2000]

37. As I recall

the abortion issue prior to Roe v. Wade in the 70's went like this:

Abortions will always occur, whether they are legal or not. The only question is whether they should be illegal and therefore dangerous and life threatening. It was revealed at the time that the wealthy had easy access to safe abortions.

There were many women, at the time, who had died from bad abortions and many who had permanent injuries. Legal abortions have removed the risks so now we are left with the simplistic debate which simply asks "do you approve of abortion?" Lots of people feel downright righteous answering NO. But I wonder how many people have actually thought this through. How many would want their daughters to carry a rapists baby?

You are right - this has become rapist's rights and I will use that term!

[SammyWinstonJack]

40. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one, it's that simple.

One does not have the right to tell another what to do with their body. Pretty simple! It's just that easy to understand. And no one has the right to dictate who one wants to spend the rest of their life with. It's just that simple! It's no ones business how one chooses to spend their life as long as their life style isn't hurting society.
And "hurting society" is open to interpretation just as the bible is.

[radwriter0555]

45. There is nothing to defend about abortion. It's a safe, simple & effective

form of birth control.

It works. It's safe.

Any "studies" linking it to suicide or depression are totally bogus and fabricated by charletons; any "studies" linking it to cancer have failed to produce a single victim.

Stop acting as if abortin is big bad scary evil naughty dirty wrong amoral. It's none of those things. It's no different than the pill or the condom or an IUD. It's just birth control.

Remove the sentimentality from it and you've got nothing more than an unwanted mass of cells the size of a peanut.

Stop moralizing the issue and reduce it to the nothing it really is... then you've taken control of the issue.

[Gloria]

46. Yes, the language has to be ratched up...,let's start describing

the "pro-lifers" as the ones who support FORCED CHILDBEARING. Take the language away from them. That's for starters.

Then we start talking reality:

"Dear American Women:

The REPUBLICAN PARTY does not believe in the safety of American women nor their ability to make independent decisions. You will now be subject to the same conditions that the US exerts on women in THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES. If you are lucky,you live in a state where abortion will remain legal, AT LEAST FOR AWHILE. If you are unlucky, you live in a state where you may be forced to undergo a "back alley" abortion UNLESS you have the money to travel to a safe state for a safe abortion.

If you are compelled to seek an illegal abortion, prepare your partner and children for the possibility that you may be maimed for life or may not survive. The much-touted Republican "concern" for family values does not apply to you.

You are officially a second-class citizen, and now have the status of a dependent child."

[niyad]

48. it's about hatred for women. at the heart of each and every anti-choice

argument, whether religious or secular, lies a profound hatred for women. each and every anti-choice argument states that someone or something, whether it is the sperm donor, the fetus, the state, the church, whatever, is more important than the woman. it doesn't matter HOW they try to dress it up, or pretend it isn't so--THIS is the very heart of the matter.

you want to reframe the debate? try it this way, and watch them foam at the mouth as they try to convince themselves that NO, they are acting on the highest of moral grounds, and then call them on their BS.

[Guaranteed]

49. The best defense is an analogy that takes the pro-lifer's premises

and renders them moot.

The analogy is this:

Let's say a woman and her sixth-month-old child get into a car accident. The woman is knocked unconscious in the impact, and doesn't wake up until she has already been in the hospital for many hours. When she does, she discovers that the doctors have attached her baby to her through a complex series of wires and tubes.

She inquires of the doctor what the hell is going on, and he tells her that the only way that they could save her baby was to connect him to her internal organs. The baby would have died if they hadn't taken immediate action. Connected to his mother, it would take about nine months for the baby to recover to the point where he could live independently. The doctors also put together a special backpack in which to carry the baby for the next nine months. Let's also say that, in the event that the baby was to be detached from his mother by anyone other than a doctor, there would be a good chance that the mother could die, so the mother can't do it herself. A doctor has to do it.

Now, let's make one thing perfectly clear. To analogize the issues as closely as possible, we don't need to ask whether or not it is morally correct for the mother to detach her baby from herself. All we need to ask is this: Can our government FORCE a woman in this situation to stay attached to her baby through all of these wires, with the baby feeding off of her body, for nine months?

The answer, of course, is no.

Keep in mind that this baby is the mother's child and responsibility. She "brought the child into the world," as pro-lifers are so fond of saying, since in reality their ENTIRE argument and mindset when it comes to abortion is based on pointing at other people and moralizing (like "welfare mothers." "Take responsibility, damnit!")

To be FURTHER (and, actually, needlessly) "generous" to the pro-lifers, we could also say that the accident ITSELF was the woman's "fault"- like a an accidental pregnancy, although there is no need to do so since the analogy makes use of her own baby.

It makes no difference, though. The fact is that the analogy shows that no one has the right to force the woman to use her body to incubate another human being- or fetus, which is the point. So whether a fetus is a person or not is of no import. The woman can ask the doctor to detach her from her baby- if she WANTS to-, and a pregnant woman can do exactly the same thing. Anything else would violate the woman's rights.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

51. This is a tricky one.

I'm an atheist. I think that abortion is not immoral, but that it *is* contrary to Christian teaching. As such, I'm strongly pro-choice, but if I were to receive a flash of blue light and realise that Christianity is true I would change my mind.

As such, I don't think there are any logically valid ways of justifying abortion to the Christians who make up the majority of the populace of America; this means that those people who, like me, think that it should be legal, but aren't Christians, are in something of a bind.



I am aware that there are many pro-choice Christians, and I draw considerable hope from this, but while I think that they're undoubtedly more moral than their opposite numbers, I don't think they're following their religion as truely or that they are as logically consistent. They're better people, but they're not such "good" Christians.

[DanCa]

53. start picketing and protesting outside the rw wing churches.

It's the chicago way for every two guys the picket planned parenthood with I say we get four guys and stand outside thier "churches".

[donsu]

54. I'd like to attack them with the 90+ thousand NYC abortions last yr.

(this info was on c-span this a.m.)


ask them what they would do with 90+ thousand yr. old babies in the city this year?

boy, somebody has to watch yr. old babies 24/7

and boy, those babies are always hungry and cry a lot to be fed

and 90+ thousand babies are now in the health care system

this is exhausting

so what say you, anti-abortionists?