Liberals STILL suck at explaining why abortion should be legal.

[Guaranteed]

You ready for a flamefest?


We're losing ground on the abortion issue, and that's in large part because when we speak about it we speak in dogmatic terms. There's no actual reasoning, only question-begging.

Why should abortion be legal? Because women have the right to choose.


That's not enough. You have to set out the reasoning for why women have abortion rights.


Take the Iraq War as an example. If someone asks you why we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, you can't just say "Because it was wrong." That's not a reason. It's begging the question. Instead, you say things like, "Because it's wrong to attack a country who hasn't attacked us, and we've killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, distracted ourselves from rooting out Al Qaeda, wasted hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars, destroyed the goodwill the world had for us after 9/11, etc." That's reasoning.

Now, believe it or not, you can reason your way to abortion rights. You don't have to limit yourself to yelling and shaking your fist and brute repetition of the desired conclusion itself. I'm not going to give reasoning here, lest I be accused of arrogance and chauvinism, but I will tell you that the way we've been going won't hold up and there is another way. Both sides of the issue have been relying on dogma to prop up their arguments for so long, and the religious side is winning due to their organization. Yes, if we're going to win we have to actually explain why we're right. And that's when we'll win, because dogma and the Bible is all the fascists have.

[HeresyLives]

1. No state control of your body

and forced pregnancies. How's that?

[Guaranteed]

4. That's pretty much it if we elaborate a bit.

The state can't force a person to allow a fetus to feed off of their body without violating their liberty interests. A woman has the right to stop that process at any time during pregnancy, for any reason. She doesn't even need a justification, at all- it's absolute.

You kind of have to attack the law itself, what would be done to stop abortion if they could get it passed. The state would be overstepping its authority.

[HeresyLives]

11. Well state control of your body

also means they can force you to have ten kids, or none at all, or whatever the state wants from you at any given time.

China has a one-child policy, and that is state-control of someone's body. That means forced abortions if you try to exceed the limit.

So it works both ways.

[Guaranteed]

13. Right, but we have to be careful not to make it too broad, because

the idea of autonomy (which is the basis of so many rights, in general) can lead down an unbelievably slippery slope. Drug use is the best example- I tend to think drugs should be legalized and regulated, and that we should get drug users out of our prisons, but if our argument starts getting applied to every issue in which someone could say, "It's my body!" it makes it very easy to attack.

[Guaranteed]

12. There's more, too- the health issue.

Outlawing abortion wouldn't stop it, only send it underground and make it unsafe.

And there are economic issues as well.

[CrispyQ]

2. A pro-life group in CO is trying to get a fetal personhood rights bill on the ballot.

I'm not sure if they got the signatures or not. These whack jobs scare the shit out of me.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-egg23nov23,0,7508110,print.story

snip...

DENVER -- Antiabortion activists in several states are promoting constitutional amendments that would define life as beginning at conception, which could effectively outlaw all abortions and some birth control methods.

The campaigns to grant "personhood" to fertilized eggs, giving them the same legal protections as human beings, come as the nation in January marks the 35th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. During those three decades, abortion foes have succeeded in imposing a variety of restrictions, such as waiting periods and parental notification for minors. But there are still about 1.3 million abortions a year in the U.S.

[Guaranteed]

15. The great thing about a proper pro-choice argument is that it takes personhood into account.

Whether the fetus is a person or not, it doesn't have the right to use someone else's body to sustain itself against that person's will.

[Bluerthanblue]

30. tangent here, but if 'pro-lifers' are concerned about the person- why

do some of pro-life people make an exception for "rape" and "incest"?

Is the 'personhood' of the fetus to blame for the actions of his or her parent?

McCain says he doesn't approve of abortion except in cases of rape incest or life of the mother- how can he defend this?

[Retrograde]

91. because they don't really

care about the life of the resultant child - it's all about controlling women. If the pregnancy is a result of rape, then the woman bears less blame for it because she was not a willing participant - no female enjoyment of sex for "pro-lifers!" (And it may have interfered with a man's sacred right to his womenfolk's bodies). I think the argument for the incest exception is similar. Personally, I agree with you: if every conception is sacred, why do the actions of the parents make a difference?

The "pro-life" advocates are really about denying the availability of safe (meaning conception-free) sex to women. The same people are now trying to ban contraceptive pills because they may "kill" newly fertilized eggs. (I don't quite understand their objections to condoms.) It's all about control.

McCain's position is common: it's an attempt to weasel around the subject by saying something to appease the anti-abortion crowd while simultaneously trying to skirt some social and medical issues.

As for me, I think the best way to prevent abortion is to make contraception readily and cheaply available, along with better instruction in schools on how human biology works. If I were dictator of the world I'd fund research on how to make all humans infertile until they took special deliberate measures to produce offspring, but that's another thread.

[CrispyQ]

53. Years ago a co-worker was pregnant.

She was a very open minded young woman & we got along very well. She told me her doctor told her that a fetus is a very efficient parasite & that it would draw whatever nutrients it needed from the host, even to the host's detriment, to survive, if it had to. I alway thought that was an appropriate analogy.

[Guaranteed]

55. It is appropriate, but not politically correct.

I try to stay away from the word "parasite"- although I feel free to describe the process.

[saracat]

3. Because it is a "privacy issue " and protected by the Constitution?

Roe actually has a lot in common with FISA and pro choice folks should be very concerned about FISA support from anyone.Protected privacy was the basis of Roe.

Another argument is that it is a medical procedure and women have the right to make their own medical decisions.Men do not have reproductive surgery such as vasectomies legislated.In fact, there are NO laws governing any other kind of surgery for either sex regarding reproductive aligned surgery. It isn't even a question of legality to perform sexual gender realignment.

Bu
t whatever the argument, it gets back to the basis that it is a private and "personal decision and that right has to be respected. If it is not , then women will never have equality and we are de facto saying "biology is destiny"

Sandra Day O'Connor posed an interesting argument when she stated that government intervention in abortion issues swings two ways. She said if the government had the right to deny a woman the right to an abortion, it also had the right to "order" her to have an abortion at the same time and that is causes a very dangerous precedent. I tend to agree with her.

[CTyankee]

81. As someone who has worked for Planned Parenthood, I firmly believe that the privacy issue is the

most compelling to lots of Americans because Americans believe that they have right to privacy against government intrusion into their bedrooms (this is a particularly good argument to use with men!). You can easily extrapolate this to the use of birth control. Most people in this country use bc. You can make a very compelling case that the same people who want to outlaw abortion also want to outlaw bc (and this is true). A tiny group of zealots is trying to get in the way of YOUR constitutional right to privacy.

Secondly, you need to point out that in the past laws against abortion didn't stop abortion. It only killed women and it will again if safe, legal abortion is outlawed. This is a public health issue of the greatest magnitude (would you want your teenaged daughter to die because she made one "mistake"?).

Third, and this is very important, you need to point out that 90% of all abortions occur before the end of the first trimester and most of the rest occur in the first 2 weeks of the second trimester, WAY before any "partial birth abortion" occurs. In fact,there is no such medical term as "partial birth abortion," it is completely made up to "sell" to a gullible public. The Alan Guttmacher Institute has all of the stats you need.

It's too bad that I am having to reiterate these arguments to people over 30 years after Roe. But there are lots of people who are affected but were not alive or very young when Roe was decided. The fight is never over. We CANNOT be complacent.

[wurzel]

5. "Pro Life" advocates are not "anti abortion!"

They are only opposed to state funded abortion. The wealthy can go on having as many abortions as they like in private hospitals. I have yet to hear of a "Pro Life " rally at a private clinic for the wealthy.

[MiniMe]

97. Then why isn't the right opposing the government paying for viagra?

[sharesunited]

6. What about dominion over your own body? That's a reason.

A big problem is that most people agree that state has a compelling interest in the life of the fetus after the first trimester. That's what Roe holds.

So you end up ceding ground from the very start of the debate.

[Bluerthanblue]

34. if that was really honored would we outlaw suicide, recreational drugs

mandate seatbelt use- helmets- etc?

Not advocating for or against these things, but we don't really allow people 'dominion' over our own bodies already-


peace~

[RoyGBiv]

7. You have a point ...

One major issue is the use of language and the way the debate is framed. I'm not talking about the typical pro-choice/pro-life dichotomy explicitly, although that's a part of it. It's the fact of the dichotomy itself and how we who are pro-choice feed it.

To provide an example, I'll offer a provocative statement. I am anti-abortion. I always have been. I suspect I always will be. In fact I've become more adamantly anti-abortion as I've progressed in age, to the point now that I do not believe one should have an abortion for any reason other than a threat more serious to the life of the mother than pregnancy in general or in cases of rape.

Sounds like fodder for a right-wing ad doesn't it?

Well, it isn't. My voice *should* be at the center of the pro-choice argument, but it isn't because, as you say, we approach this issue in dogmatic terms.

Having made that provocative statement, I'll explain what, in a less dichotomous debate should be clear, that in terms of law, I am firmly pro-choice because I believe the Constitution secures the right of all citizens to be secure in their persons and to make their own choices about their bodies. What I believe personally about this personal choice is not what I would attempt to enforce on others. Of course the problems with that argument are legion if one is to be intellectually consistent. I also am opposed to all drug laws that punish, in any way, users. I am opposed to laws that criminalize sex work. I am convinced that legally one is not a "person" until the moment of birth.

This debate is then not a single issue. It is not either/or. But we, as much as the right-wing, frame it that way, and many of those who are pro-choice are not consistent with their argument, even when they give one, opening themselves up to the moral debate in a way they cannot defend consistently.

[beam me up scottie]

8. Bubba's STILL stuck on the word "troglodyte".

Bubba doesn't listen to us emoshunal wimmen.

[EFerrari]

9. Liberals don't suck at explaining abortion. They suck at being Liberals.

We continue to lose ground on most issues because there is little or no support for most liberal issues inside the Beltway.

/typo

[Fumesucker]

10. Because making abortion illegal does not stop it..

And often ends up killing the woman as well as the fetus.

[noel711]

It's a right to 'life' issue... define 'life.'

Most 'pro-life' people are anti-abortion, and support the fetus'
right to be born. They'll do anything, say anything in respect to
the protection of the life of the fetus.

But after the baby is born.. meh, not so much.

No health care for the mother, nor the baby.
The hell with welfare or food stamps, etc all to
support the mother/baby as they try to find a way
especially if there's no father/family in the picture.

What to do if the woman is poor/homeless/in poor health,
or the victim of rape/incest ?

Well, those are the breaks.

Those same folks who are vehemently pro-life and anti-abortion
are the same who are rabid pro-captial punishment.
there 's a bizarro dichotomy of reasoning...

So, don't be a hypocrit: if you must be pro-life, be pro-life
throughout the human life cycle.

If not, you're a lying hypocrit who wants to judge and punish people
for their choices...

How to define abortion? A woman's right to direct her own life.

I can't tell you how many pro-lifers, conservatives, and
many roman catholics who spout off these lines when they apply
to others, particularly poor women and ethnic women.
But these same mouthy women also avail themselves of birth control
and abortions when convenient. It's do as I say, not as I do.

( I worked as a chaplain in a women's clinic in one of the mega-hospitals/medical
schools in a large east coast city... its enough to make one a radical;
I never ever talked a woman out of an abortion.. sad to say, many very young teens
elected to have their babies because of all the claptrap out there about
protecting life.. and these girls didn't have a safe place to go with the baby once
born. How is that pro-life?..)

Once again, its about the privileged classes who have more rights.

[Guaranteed]

18. Outstanding post. nt

[Bluerthanblue]

49. so well said-

I agree.

Pro-life means LIFE. Any caring, concern, responsibility that one feels towards an "unborn" life, only becomes more essential- (and requires more than simply telling someone what they can or cannot do) once the child takes breath.

Maybe the best way to fight 'pro-lifers' is to make them accountable for the reality of their stand.- There are a few who really understand this- but it is one of those issues that is so easy to support- at arms length- and in word but not deed.

you've voiced this so well. thank you

peace~

[undeterred]

14. Many of the arguments will not be the least bit persuasive.

First of all, "our side" has erred by using the phrase abortion-on-demand. It sounds like we are all demanding abortions. Since nobody wants an unwanted pregnancy, its safe to say that nobody WANTS to have an abortion. Women need abortions for unwanted pregnancies, but it is preferable not to have the pregnancy occur in the first place.

Our side needs to focus on reducing abortions, by making birth control and sex education more available, and by improving the economic status of women. This should be the focus of the pro-choice movement. A pregnancy prevented through birth control is better than an unwanted pregnancy that has to be terminated.

All the "religious" people are not on the other side.

I come at this from the perspective of a religious person who believes that abortion is "taking a life". However, I do not believe that taking the life of at this non-viable, extremely early stage of human development has the same moral weight as taking the life of a later term pregnancy or a child. Taking a life at this stage of development (first trimester) should be safe and legal, and available to any woman who does not want to carry the pregnancy to term.

[notadmblnd]

16. I call bullshit. Abortion is legal so "we've" already won.

it is the losers that have gone around crying an whining about it and trying to take it back. Women will continue to have abortions whether or not they remain legal. The argument is about power and control over others. Maybe the solution to abortion should be to imprison any man that impregnates a woman without being married to that woman? then I could live with abortion being illegal.

[Bluerthanblue]

32. well, "winning" in this case is like winning in war-

we may be the victors now, but the battle will likely rage again (especially if McCain were to somehow get in) and I'm not as sure as I'd like to be that we would still prevail.

peace~

[jody]

17. Interesting point. Narrowly one might ask if it's moral to abort a fetus 1 second before birth

as opposed to terminating the life of a baby one second after birth.

That leads to another question whether it's moral to abort a fetus 9 months before birth as opposed to terminating the life of a baby 9 months after birth.

Neither a fetus nor baby can survive on their own so to some people the argument about viability of a fetus or baby is not open for debate.

IMO there is no compromise on abortion because unlike other divisive, polarizing issues that are often referred to as victim-less crimes like using illegal drugs and prostitution, some people view the fetus as a victim of abortion.

I don't know the answer but when abortion questions are posed to people whose moral codes are based on their religions, don't be upset if the issue is divisive and polarizing.

IMO the only compromise policy is to let a woman make her own decision about abortion but at the same time I don't believe it's right to force those who oppose abortions to help pay for them.

I know that a similar line of argument could be made for those who are adamantly opposed to war under any circumstance and for other divisive, polarizing issues.

I expect by posting my thoughts I will attract alternate views some of which will be angry and hostile.
:shrug:

[notadmblnd]

20. wouldn't that be called a cesarian?

and don't most of those result in live birth?

[jody]

26. I didn't intend my comment to include caesarean birth but you raise an interesting point.

I assume one should include premature births in the discussion also.

I have friends who work as physicians and nurses in neonatal clinics and we've discussed records.

I believe the earliest recorded birth was 128 days premature and the smallest baby was about 10 oz.

I don't know how those facts contribute to the discussion of abortions.

[notadmblnd]

28. as long as it lives and breaths out side of the womb, then IMO it has a right to live.

[jody]

29. "lives and breaths out side of the womb" with or without help? n/t

[notadmblnd]

31. without assistance. I would no more put a baby on life support than I would my aged mother.

[jody]

36. Thanks. If I understand you correctly, you oppose neonatal clinics that specialize in treating ill

or premature newborn infants who could not survive without life support systems.

I believe the practice of not treating such babies was part of some government programs in the 20th century among which were the Nazi eugenics programs.

[notadmblnd]

43. if those premature infants are wanted by their mothers, then certainly

they should be given all the medical care that they can be afforded. Your attempt at baiting me failed. I stand by my words. I do not stand by the words you tried planting in my post. Also, by implying that I approve of tactics the Nazis used, is just sad. Was that your attempt to shame me and make me shut up?

[jody]

51. I was not trying to bait you. I pointed out a fact that eugenics included the practice of denying

health care to babies that were judged by government to be non-viable.

If the similarity of those practices to your beliefs make you feel uncomfortable, you have a personal problem.

[notadmblnd]

58. I didn't suggest anything be denied. Like I said previously,

if that child is wanted then by all means. I think you're missing the point about pro choice. It is just that: AN INDIVIDUALS RIGHT TO CHOSE, AND NOT HAVE IT DICTATED TO THEM BY SOME RELIGIOUS ZEALOT IOW, keep your religious beliefs out of my womb.

[jody]

59. You gloss over the issue that people who are anti-abortion could be forced by government policy to

help pay for abortions. That's just one factor in the abortion equation.

In either case, I know your opinion "I would no more put a baby on life support".

[notadmblnd]

62. That hasn't even part of this discussion

you go from saying I think premature infants should not be given treatment and being in league with the Nazi eugenic movement to advocating government assistance in paying for abortions. It's an entirely different argument and merits its own thread. It's incredible the leaps you make. I truly am astounded by your lack of comprehension.

I think you're just throwing shit at me in the hopes that some will stick. Dear person, I'm not the one with the problem.

[jody]

65. The OP said "We're losing ground on the abortion issue" clearly meaning we Democrats. I don't object

to your opinion and I hope you don't object to my opinion. You don't know, we may even agree because I support the Democratic Party platform.

However, the OP was about "We're losing ground on the abortion issue" and the question is what should the Democratic Party position be on abortion.

What ever our Party's policy is will be stated in our 2008 platform as it was stated in our 2004 platform:

We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

[notadmblnd]

73. this conversation with you degraded early on when you questioned abortion 1 second before birth.

I replied and it went downhill from there with you suggesting I did not believe in treatment for premature infants, supporting the eugenics movement, advocating for government paid abortions, and then by telling me that I had a problem. Those comments were personal and now you're coming back and telling me that this is about "the party stance" and we shouldn't be discussing our personal beliefs?

Look, I do believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country and that an individual should be able to exercise that option if they so CHOOSE! I responded to the OP that we haven't lost anything. I understand that there are those out there that would take our right to choose away. I also suggested that the solution to abortion should be to imprison any man that impregnates a woman without being married to that woman? Then I could live with abortion being illegal./

Could you dear person, live with that?

[jody]

77. I expect if we discussed this topic over coffee or cocktails you would find I agree with you. The

problem I see is how the Democratic Party with its pro-choice plank on abortion in our 2004 platform can convince those who are devoutly anti-abortion to accept a pro-choice compromise.

:pals:

[notadmblnd]

82. those that are devoutly anti abortion, don't have to have one

it's their choice. And IMO is a wedge issue used to do exactly what you attempted to do with it, which was to start a flame fest and divide the individuals that post on this board. As I see it, the democrats have to say nothing more than, "the president has no individual power to make abortion legal or illegal so it's not an issue that should be a determining factor in the race." Even if McCain were elected (which I don't think is going to happen); with a major Dem majority in congress, I would hope that no SC nominee that is against an individuals right to choose, would even be considered a seat.

I believe that Democrats are going to win by a sweeping majority. After eight years of living the economic hell most of have been through, only fools and idiots (their very base, at the most 30%) will vote for McCain.

[jody]

83. Have a peaceful evening. n/t

[notadmblnd]

86. LOl, I didn't think I'd get a reply from you in reagrds to my proposed solution

you have a good evening too.

[kiranon]

101. You gloss over the issue that pro lifers could force all women to bear children

Following the pro life argument to its logical conclusion would mean that women could be forced to have children in whatever number the state needed. Women would become no more than child bearing machines at least until replaced by a real machine. Then they would be forced to "donate" their eggs. Will be have someone checking each woman to make sure she ovulates? And, follow her each month to make sure she eats properly, never overeats, drinks or smokes or drives a car too fast? Pro life means slavery for a woman.

[AngryAmish]

40. Does O2 count as life support?

cause if it does then lots and lots of babies have life support.

[notadmblnd]

45. see post 43

[jody]

46. Good point. Where would one draw the line? n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

38. I personally agree with Notadmbld on this. At least

as I understand what they've said below.

I DO think this is important to the discussion, because some of the biggest arguments against abortions, are centered around the concept of ending the life of an otherwise 'viable' person.- I have 2 friends- (both women) who object to 'abortion on demand' because they claim this would be akin to murder- citing "partial-birth abortion" that is (they argue) legal up until the moment of birth.-

My own personal opinion is that if a woman desired an abortion in the 9th month- (extremely rare- from what I know of) and was denied one, then any and all responsibility for the resulting child should be put on the government- It isn't fair to the woman or the child otherwise.- And if the govt. has such an interest in the welfare of the child, then it can demonstrate that by assuming the financial responsibility.-
(not sure I'd get much agreement with anyone).


It's a really difficult and sad conversation. But an important one.

Hope I haven't offended anyone.

peace~

[jody]

42. notadmblnd seemed to imply in #31 that we should not put babies on life-support. Do you agree" n/t

[notadmblnd]

47. i implied no such thing. you implied it

see post 43.

[jody]

52. I stand corrected, you did not imply it, you flat out stated it, "without assistance. I would no

more put a baby on life support than I would my aged mother."

[YankmeCrankme]

50. Why do you say "we" should not... when they clearly said "I".

I believe they were stating a personal decision.

[jody]

56. The OP was about policies for government, not about personal opinions, ergo "We" not "I". n/t

[notadmblnd]

60. Thank you, you understood

My choice. And that is exactly the right we should all have. Like I said this other poster is just trying to bait me and turn this into a flamefest. They've not attempted to argue or convince me that my belief is wrong based on any sort of reasoning.

[Bluerthanblue]

66. I was going to question you, but

when I read your reply again, I saw that you were pretty clearly talking about what you- personally (your aged mother) would do- not what you believe should be the 'legal' standing.-

If your aged mother didn't have any kind of end of life directive- I'm afraid that today, you might not have that choice, or it might be a lot more of an ordeal- I've had an advance directive for years- but even healthy very young people should put their wishes in writing.(sorry- personal pet cause)


This is a difficult subject to address, which makes it all the more important to really actually talk about- Especially with the Supreme Court decisions that have been coming down.


peace~

[Bluerthanblue]

61. I'm not sure she did- but yes, once a 'baby' is born, we should

do whatever we would do to any vulnerable person, who needed medical help. That would include oxygen- IMO
While I fully understand that an infant cannot make his or her wishes known, and cannot survive without assistance- the need to be fed, diapered, nurtured- to hold the lack of need for that as a ...requirement for life giving care would be a frighteningly slippery slope IMO. My children were pretty reliant on other human beings for survival up till at least the age of 4-5 when they were capable of making a pb&j sandwich and getting a glass of water- on occasion, but still not 'able' to 'be on their own'- My youngest recently turned 15, and while he is very independent, he'd have a difficult time surviving completely on his own.
Carry this to the other extreme, there are many people who need assistance in their daily living- if they should become ill or injured, should care be with-held from them because they couldn't 'care for themself' without assistance??

No easy answers in my opinion. And no answer that will satisfy everyone I'm afraid.

I wouldn't want to force my own belief on other people- and expect to not have any accountability... :shrug:

Not a very good answer I fear.


peace~

[notadmblnd]

64. should care be with-held from them because they couldn't 'care for themself' without assistance??

if that was their wish, I abide by it.

[Bluerthanblue]

70. I completely agree-

and it's so important to let those wishes be known. Especially for those who will be struggling with the 'decision'.

Death is hard enough on those who live on as it is. They don't need to second guess or question themselves about what 'you' would want.


peace~

[jody]

68. I agree "I wouldn't want to force my own belief on other people" but government does that when it

uses taxes from people who oppose abortions to pay for abortions on others just as it uses taxes from pacifists to pay for wars that kill others.

I don't see how compromises can be reached on issues that have moral roots when positions are divisive and polarizing.

I'm surprise that our government composed of a multicultural We the People functions at all. :shrug:

[Bluerthanblue]

78. the govt. also uses my tax money to pay for

Dick Cheney's gold plated health care, while I cannot get any health insurance at all- and can't afford the services I need, but that is life.

I'm OUTRAGED by the fact that my tax dollars go to support all kinds of wonderful "public lands"- yet those among us who have no shelter are harassed and arrested for being guilty of not having the resources to have a legal place to lay down at night, or a friend to shelter them. -

Our taxes are spent on all kinds of things that many of us might choose not to support or maintain, - but if we were going to use that as a reason to avoid funding them, our country would fall flat fast- we can't cherry-pick- and it's probably a good thing we can't.

Part of living in a society is the obligation to share in the funding of programs and services that many people don't approve of, never benefit from, or even realize exist. That is life in community.

Somehow we have to find a livable compromise- and keep working to maintain it.

IMO-

peace~

[jody]

80. Agree but if there are divisive, polarizing issues as I believe and if people like Rove use

them to get evil people like Bush/Cheney elected, then the Democratic Party must find compromise positions on enough of those issues to win and keep the White House and a veto-proof majority in congress.

[Guaranteed]

19. Thanks for a great thread, folks.

I was even asking for it a bit, but you guys responded with an open mind and I thought we ended up with a good discussion.

[gulliver]

21. Get specific/tangible and win. Stay abstract and lose.

The pictures of aborted babies are tangible. They can't be fought with "Keep your laws off of my body."

To fight anti-abortion laws, ask that the opposition spell out exactly what laws they are talking about instituting. Specify the exact language of what it is they want to do: arrest and jail women and doctors engaging in certain practices. Then raise specific example narratives of tragedy, injustice, waste, jammed court systems, incompetence, fraud.

Example Law: The state of XYZ proposes a law banning all abortions. Patients attempting to obtain or willingly undergoing an abortion will be subject to criminal prosecution and jail. Patients attempting to flee the state in order to obtain an abortion will be subject to the same. Doctors performing abortions will be subject to prosecution and jail.

Example Tragedy 1: Under the above law, a thirteen-year-old girl who becomes pregnant considers her options. She can have the baby or break the law and try to get an abortion. She has not told anyone. She is making the decision on her own. She hears that there is a guy who "knows exactly what to do" and is willing to do the job for $500. She has to get the money somehow. She has to decide how to do that. Then she goes to the "guy" for the abortion. Her parents get a late night phone call from the hospital. Dead daughter. They didn't know she was pregnant.

The principles have to be based on examples.

[Hidden Stillness]

90. This is Pretty Much My Approach, Too

I think this post comes closest to what I have tried to do, the few times I have been able to have a discussion with anti-abortion people on this issue, when it managed not to become a hysterical accusation-fest on their side. Don't let them fly off into their fantasy-world "protecing babies," or "selfish women getting abortions like they were buying a new hat," "immoral Democrat Party," etc. There is nowhere for that to go but further and further from actual reality, and more stressfully emotional.

Being sprecific, and with real world examples, as you mentioned, is the best way, I think, to get a sympathetic response for a presentation of the woman's (or, God help us, girl's), terrible problem, and to slow the thinking down, to calm it down, enough to really consider things that after all happen in the real world. I do not allow people to say--if at all possible--stupid stereotypes about "women getting multiple abortions as birth control," "they regret it after," when there are no real studies showing any such thing, etc., but instead try to stay on examples that everyone agrees could and do happen. Girls raped by their mother's boyfriend and the mother is in denial--what do they do; they have no one to turn to? Women who do not want children--ask yourself, do you really want that child forced into that situation, where they will probably spend a lifetime being abused, as has happened? And if you say, "They should put them up for adoption," you cannot make the rules for these things, and generally, they do not do that, but keep and then abuse them. Face things as they really happen.

Countries where women have rights, have available abortion. Countries where women are oppressed, do not--that is the pattern; not "privacy" or anything else. This point should be stressed too, because many women you think are "conservative" will also wake up when you describe to them what women live like and suffer. Everybody knows it at some level. Also, I never relate it to religion, and I am a deeply religious person. I have always related it only to feminism and women's rights, and that is where it belongs. Again, I agree with your approach--I also try not to get into a fight or slogan match, but keep explaining examples, and the way some people in the world do get themselves into a situation you wish they hadn't, it was "stupid," etc., fine--but here they are, and what do you do to help--or further hurt--them? It would be nice if everyone's behavior was just perfect all the time, and we never caused ourselves any of our own problems--but we all do, and now what? Do you help? Will you think?

[blogslut]

22. Because preganancy and childbirth are potentially fatal

How's that?

[ColbertWatcher]

23. It's about a woman's right to see a doctor.

And a doctor's right to their job.

[knitter4democracy]

24. Because abortion was allowed in Jesus's day.

In Leviticus, if a man beats a pregnant woman and makes her lose the baby (abortion), he's to pay a fine. If he beats her and kills both her and the baby, he's to be stoned to death for murder. In their own KJV, it's pretty darn clear, and it's probably why Jesus was never recorded as preaching against it.

[Yupster]

102. ??? I don't get this

If you go by this passage, it seems like the message is that people should be punished for killing fetuses.

Is this the point you want to make?

Not that Christians are going to pay much attention to Mosaic Law from Leviticus anyway. Most would consider it cancelled by Christ's new covenant.

[knitter4democracy]

104. In other words, it's not murder.

It's treated the same as theft, really, which is based on the idea that the baby is the father's property, something our laws don't support. It's also interesting there's nothing in there about if the mother goes out and gets an abortion herself.

As for not following Mosaic law, well, thet pick and choose on that one. They know the law and just ignore the parts they don't want to follow.

The reality is, pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder--but their own Holy Book says it's not. In order to make their Biblical case, they have to distort a whole lot of verses.

[Maureen1322]

25. Privacy Rights

[LostInAnomie]

27. It's not that we suck. It's that most people either don't remember...

... or weren't born in a time when abortion could be made completely illegal.

It's hard for people to conceptualize a time when they don't have the choice. They haven't been face to face with people that have thrown themselves down stairs, poisoned themselves, had people kick them in the stomach repeatedly, used coat-hangers on themselves, etc. Without this being "real" to them they can only come to terms with it in the abstract. Abortion is "real" to them.

Sadly, the battle for over abortion is a battle for hegemony.

[alfredo]

33. It's not about abortion, it's about the right of privacy, the right to live

our lives without government interference. Republicans do not believe Americans have a right to privacy. Roe Vs Wade affirms an implied right to privacy in the Bill of Rights and that is what has their tightie whities in a knot.

4th- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

9th - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

"If I want to have children, I can. If I don't, it's nobody's business but my own. "

[Cleita]

35. Not many are bringing up abortion this election cycle.

Why are you? Let sleeping dogs lie please.

[jody]

37. The probability is quite high the abortion issue will emerge in the final days of the campaign. IMO

it's better to begin discussing divisive, polarizing issues now rather than wait until the last week of October.

[Cleita]

44. So that gives you time to get your ammo ready and keep your powder dry.

Don't bring it up until the time comes, you will be weary of posting before it truly matters. I have all my bookmarks and information ready for when that time comes. Wedge issues like this dominate and take over for real issues that we should be discussing.

[Guaranteed]

48. I actually posted this in response to another abortion thread.

To be honest, I'd rather not talk about it either.

[Cleita]

54. I've seen in the past how counter productive these threads are during

election season, I hope the mods don't let them get out of hand. I frankly don't think we should be addressing the issue until the McCain campaign and MSM media bring it up, then we should go in and take no prisoners.

[jody]

63. "take no prisoners"? Apparently you have facts and logic that will convince the Pope & 1.1 billion

adherents as well as other religious groups that pro-choice on abortion is acceptable.

Obviously you want to keep your knowledge secret until the last minute so I look forward to that defense of abortion making world-wide headlines.

[Cleita]

67. There's a school of thought, which I agree with, that

abortion will never become illegal in this country because those entities you mentioned need it every election to get their guy in power. I mean we have had eight years of Bush overthrowing our Constitutional government, yet no one has done anything meaningful to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Yes, I know some religious places in the deep south have banned birth control and abortion, but yet the majority of the women in the United States can still get a safe therapuetic abortion. I think this is a noise that the RW likes to bring out to distract from the real issues facing Americans today and we shouldn't rise to the bait. I have the same opinion about the gun issue.

[jody]

72. I understand. IMO the right has been very clever and effective in using divisive, polarizing issues

such as right to keep and bear arms, abortion, creationism as science, GLBT rights, etc. against Democratic candidates in swing states.

Hopefully, the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia . . ." followed by Obama's statement "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms . . ." will defuse that issue during the GE and we can talk to voters about important issues such as jobs, health, education, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[jody]

57. Perhaps but IMO it's better to get divisive, polarizing issues before the voters before the last

few weeks of a presidential campaign.

[AllentownJake]

39. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare

This is a public health issue. If abortion is repealed the rich/upper middle class will still get them and the poor will be forced into back alleys and coat hangers. I don't view this as a right to choose issue as much of a class issue. Abortion will always be safe option for those who have the money. Its the poor that will suffer.

If you want less abortions abandon the absitnece only education jesus freaks and teach and distribute birth control. I know you don't like it because you are afraid of it and think its ugly but people are going to have sex espicially pastors with their parishoners.

[Lex]

41. The choice should be the woman's and NOT the GOVERNMENT'S.

nt

[frogmarch]

69. so-called pro-lifers" don't care about

being reasonable. They believe humans are god's gift to the planet, and that human life at any stage of development is sacred. I doubt that anything will ever convince them otherwise.

[SoCalDem]

71. To me, it's an invasion of privacy issue

The surgical process is a long-recognized procedure, and is not any wacky experimental operation..
A woman should be able to go to her doctor, and ask for this procedure, if she does not want to be pregnant.

It's up to the doctor to "counsel" her about future use of birth control, or to remind her that repeated abortions are not the best way to go, but that should be a conversation between doctor-patient..

The irony is that back in the day when abortion was illegal, a WHOLE LOT of women had "female troubles" and underwent quite a few "D&Cs"... Funny, how once abortion was legal, we hardly EVER hear of anyone getting a D&C...and many women's "female troubles" cleared right up.:eyes:

No woman should HAVE to have anyone know about her abortion, anymore than they would have to know about her hemorrhoids or her bunion or her upset stomach...all things that her doctor may also treat..

The doctors all have new patients fill out a bunch of papers, and those papers also have plenty of space for a particular doctor to notify any potential new patients, that he/she does NOT practice therapeutic abortion..That would allow any woman to be able to choose a doctor who does..

[PeaceNikki]

74. The Case for Repealing Anti-Abortion Laws

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=229x10212

Long, but a great read.

(PDF) http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/repeal.pdf

No country needs to regulate abortion via criminal or civil law. Only when abortion has the same legal status as any other health procedure can it be fully integrated into women’s reproductive healthcare.

by Joyce Arthur

The repeal of abortion laws is supported by evidence from Canada, the only democratic country in the world with no laws restricting abortion since 1988. Abortions have since become earlier and safer, and the number of abortions has become moderate and stable. Current abortion care reflects what most Canadians are comfortable with, and women and doctors act in a timely and responsible manner, with no need for regulation.

Several legal arguments help build the case for abortion law repeal. A constitutional guarantee of women’s equality can be used to overturn abortion laws, and ensure that abortion is funded by the healthcare system as a medically-required service. Freedom of religion, the right to privacy, and the right to self-defense can also be used to strike down laws. All anti-abortion restrictions are unjust, harmful, and useless because they rest on traditional religious and patriarchal foundations. Laws kill and injure women, violate their human rights and dignity, impede access to abortion, and obstruct healthcare professionals.

Solutions for Repealing Anti-abortion Laws
Here’s some suggested solutions to get rid of harmful anti-abortion laws:
�� Guarantee women’s equality in countries’ constitutions.
�� Collect evidence of laws’ harms, find plaintiffs, and challenge laws in court.
�� Lobby government against abortion restrictions (meet with legislators, submit briefs).
�� Educate media, government, health professionals, and public about the harm and futility of abortion restrictions.
�� Challenge the religious basis of anti-abortion laws, and keep church and state separate.
�� Change the rhetoric: Abortion is not a “necessary evil.” Abortion is a moral and positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, and protects families.
�� Empower women in society by changing public policies.
�� Change patriarchal attitudes about women and motherhood through advocacy and education.
�� Prioritize childcare and child-rearing as a universal concern, not a “woman’s issue.”

Some of these proposed solutions are obviously very difficult and would take many years. But one has to start somewhere.

To conclude, no country needs any laws against abortion whatsoever. We can trust women to exercise their sensible moral judgment; we can trust doctors to exercise their professional medical judgment, and that’s all we need to regulate the process.

[Enrique]

75. McCain campaign is trying to make him look pro-choice

his surrogate Carly Fiorina very sneakily advanced that lie recently.

I think this suggests the issue is swinging in our direction.

[mdmc]

76. The reason is privacy.

Women are allowed to discuss medical matters with their doctors in private. They are allowed to receive medical treatment in private.

The only way to rob women of this right is to protect the unborn (the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness trumps the right of privacy).

The reasoning behind Roe v. Wade (legal abortion) is the same reasoning that allows the use of condoms by single people (Griswald v CT 1965). It is all based on privacy.

As the democrats chip away at privacy rights, they chip away at reproductive rights.

[u4ic]

79. I think many on the Xtian right

see a pregnancy and the resulting child as "punishment" for her having had sex. Her meaning a single woman - I don't think they believe a woman who is married would want to terminate a pregnancy (which we know is not true).

An abortion means escaping that 'punishment'. 'Justice' was not served.

This does not hold true for all who oppose abortion, but for many fundies.


I really don't know how one can win the reason vs faith arguement when it's clear reason doesn't amount to much for some people (or they make their own brand of reason, ie...i.d. intelligent design). Keeping it legal, separating church and state, ensuring SAFE access for women and to hell with the anti-choicers. There will always be opposition to something. (Easier said than done, I know; I'm not in the US)


By the way, a pioneer in the pro-choice movement in Canada was just awarded the Order of Canada. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/07/01/morgentaler-order.html

A recent poll showed two thirds of Canadians supported the honour.

[RB TexLa]

84. I don't. The government has no business that far in our personal lives and bodies

I have my personal views on abortion as far as morality, ethics and sin go, but they are just that, my personal views. They dictate how I live my life not how I impose others to live. I support free speech, everyone has a right to say what they feel, no matter how I or anyone else feels about it. Same with reproduction, it's an individual's body, and neither I or the government has any business dictating anything to anyone about it.

[Political Heretic]

85. Because we prioritize established life above developing life.

[cushla_machree]

87. A Post-roe world, something you can hit the pro-lifers with

I've asked numerous pro-lifers what they expect to happen once abortion becomes illegal. Guess what? Most haven't really gotten that far. Yes, people need to come up with a better argument then 'woman have the right to choose.' But I still think when push comes to shove, most Americans don't want abortion to become illegal. Next time you talk to a pro-lifer, ask them some questions about when abortion is illegal, then what happens?

Will we arrest and jail women and doctors? If Roe vs Wade was overturned, abortion would be left up to the states. Abortion rights activists predict that abortion would remain legal on the East and West coasts and in a few states in between - among them Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada and New Mexico. Abortion would be banned in predictable places -states across the Midwest and South would ban abortion. Think of the legal nightmare this would create. People would be crossing state lines, certain states would probably try to make it a crime to bring a pregnant person across state lines with the intent to 'commit' abortion. Remember when Ireland tried to stop that pregnant minor from traveling to england for an abortion?

And who would suffer? Poor women. Because we all know that the people who are making the rules, they could bring their daughters and wives across state lines. They could bring them to Europe to get rid of the problem. The rest of us would resort to unsafe abortions and pills. If the end result is overturning Roe v wade, how does that stand up with our principles of equality under law? I don't think it does, and I don't think the pro-life minority will ever gain ground because of this. They have a pretty good deal as it is..waiting periods, mandatory ultrasounds, informed consent laws, options counseling, "sidewalk counseling", harassing abortion providers, partial birth abortion ban, etc. etc.

Why am I pro-choice? Because those who wish to deny you your reproductive choices, many of them would make the choice that they so wish to deny you. But you know, their situation is, somehow different.

My number two reason, medical decisions are private. You don't know a womans health history or her background. You don't KNOW her. And no woman should EVER have to get approval from a doctor or a politician to be able to make her own decisions about something so private. And this is what is at stake. Imagine if having another child could seriously damage your health, now imagine you have to go before a court and argue this case to have an abortion. Does the judge decide for you? A jury of your 'peers'? Maybe your abortion would get denied because you're deemed a slut by the court. Welcome to the world post-roe, equality for all.

[noel711]

88. Another possible talking point..

It's about human rights...

The constitution wasn't designed to give rights...
but to prevent the denial of rights...

Conservatives and libertarian are always so 'pro-rights'
so a woman's right to choose is guaranteed, or should be.

Anytime the law denies a human right that prevents freedom and liberty,
that law is against the constitution.

Our current reproductive rights laws are in place to guaratee
'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' Our current laws that
guarantee reproductive choice are not a mandate that women must use
birth control, or that they must have abortions without willing choice.
But women have the freedom to choose the path of reproductive freedom.
The pursuit of these choices for a woman's self-determination is built
into the constituiton. The denial of these rights is the denial of
basic human rights.

Our current laws cannnot mandate the subservience of women to a state they cannot
willingly pursue: i.e. motherhood.

And without the support of the state in pursuit of the rights
of freedom, it then puts into place a state of slavery for the
women who are denied their rights, and madated to be mothers
for children they do not desire.

This denial of rights to women, and the madate of their state of
slavery to motherhood is a grievous error that cannot be allowed.

How can any conservative deny the rights guaranteed by our constituion?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

89. Ant-choicers like to focus on the late stages of pregnancy. We should focus on the EARLY stages.

Expose the glorious idiocy that is "life begins at conception."

Explain that a person - a "me" - a sentience - and individual - a SOUL - can only exist if there is material support for it. And that material is a fully-formed brain. And that doesn't happen until, the VERY earliest, the end of the fifth month. (I may be a bit off on that, but this is a scientifically answerable question.)

Now, about late abortions, the definitive answer has been given by DUer defendandprotect:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3606105&mesg_id=3608363

defendandprotect
Sat Jul-12-08 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #75
92. Ah, ha . . . a clue ...

Yes, good of you to admit to your uncertainty in regard to WHEN a potential life becomes "life."

But you've given us a clue to your "emotions" in this regard --- and it seems to be based on the propaganda of "partial truth abortion."

And, VERY GLAD that you have been honest here.

Please try to give some thought to the reality that there is no "partial birth abortion" without a FEMALE being involved --- picture it. No female becomes pregnant in order to abortion a pregnancy in the final stages. It is highly dangerous to her health and well-being.

Only a male would presume that a female wants the fun of being pregnant for 7 months only to "dump a child" at the very last moments---!!! What an insult to females for anyone to believe such a thing!

These late term pregnancies -- despite what the propaganda of the "right to lifers" -- are performed to deal with problem pregnancies. I'd suggest that you try to follow up on the stories of women who have had these pregancies. These are all wanted pregnancies. However, very serious things can and do go wrong. ONLY in a small number of cases. About one in every county of every state every year. Very few considering the huge populations which the patriarchy puts to death every year in numberous ways from wars to execution chambers!

So -- find out more about the reasons for these abortions --- and pay more attention to who really is killing people all over the world . . . it looks like men, to me ... !!!

[BlooInBloo]

92. (shrug) It's hard to explain something to someone who wants to give up their own rights....

Not a lot there to work with.

[alfredo]

93. Republicans don't like that Roe Vs Wade affirmed a right to privacy, that

our private lives are just that, private. They don't care about the unborn, they just want the Supreme court to say that Roe Vs Wade was wrong when it said we have a right to privacy. So when Liberals say they support a woman's right to choose, they are saying that the government has no business peering into the most private parts of our lives.

Abortions dropped when Liberals controlled the White House. Women felt safe to carry a child full term.

[BlooInBloo]

94. Safe, legal, and rare sounds good to me....

And I ain't talkin about beef!

[alfredo]

95. Hit them with the fact that the GOP has not banned abortion, but has

found other ways to chip away our rights to privacy using the Patriot Act and warrant less wiretapping. They realized that R v W was not going to be overturned in the way they envisioned, so they backed off. What good was taking away a vote getter without getting the desired reinterpretation of our constitution.

[annabanana]

96. When I'm arguing with a fundie I usually say I have religious reasons.

"Spirit" and "breath" come from the same word. The "spirit" enters the body with the first breath. Up until that point the body is merely a vessel.

[Yupster]

103. And I guess the fundies

ask you why John The Baptist leaped in Elizabeth's womb when he got close to Jesus, who was in Mary's womb.

I don't think you're going to convince any Sunday school going fundies that abortion is okay according to the bible.

[Evoman]

98. Tell that to my cousin....she once told a pro-life protestor that she supported abortion

because babies tasted better and more tart if you didn't let them get too ripe.

Lol...yeah she is fucking sick.

[Imagevision]

99. "That's not enough" --> that's your opinion...!

[newmajority]

100. The "right to choose" arguments aren't going to work with religious fascists.

Two arguments might work with some of them (the ones who at least possess part of a brain)

1) Prohibition never stops what it was intended to stop, it only creates a new group of "criminals". Making alcohol illegal gave us the mafia. Making other drugs illegal gave us the Bush Crime Family (or at least provided them with millions of tax free dollars that they could divert into other crimes). What criminals will benefit from back alley illegal abortions?

2) If you want to eliminate, or even reduce abortions, you have to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. A woman who wants to have a baby isn't going to abort it. How simple is that? Simple enough for a Repuke to understand? I would hope so.

Of course this will force the reich wingers to look at their FUCKING INSANE outlook on birth control and sex education, but it's obviously a related matter and they need to do it.