I am outing myself as no longer being "Pro-Choice"

[ck4829]

I used to be Pro-Choice, but recently my lover changed the way I saw things, but I am not Pro-Life in the way that Tom DeLay and Jerry Falwell are "Pro-Life".

Until recently, I had been the same as the average Liberal or Progressive. The reason I had supported abortion was mainly for empowerment of women and for economic equality. Interestingly enough, I changed for the same reasons.

My lover, she is a Muslim. She is also Liberal when it comes to the issues. My favorite thing about her politically is that she supports GLBT rights and has even said it was sad that the state we live in does not allow for gays to get married. The only exception to her Liberal views are that on abortion.

I thought about this for a long time. I temporarily became "Pro-Life", and then I realized that I would and could NEVER fit in with the "Pro-Life" crowd. I am a Socialist, and the average Pro-Lifer's "concern" about life from conception to birth disgusted me, and I even find it evil when it comes to their lack of concern after the baby is born.

So, I am creating a new force in the abortion debate. I call it "Real Pro-Life".

If Real Pro-Life had it's way, would abortion be banned?

Not at all.

Instead of focusing on banning abortion, Real Pro-Life seeks to find the reasons when it comes to abortion. If abortion was made unnecessary, it would not be needed, and thus they would drastically decrease.

I am actually writing a manifesto which puts these beliefs in greater detail.

"Instead of seeking an Authoritarian and Counter-Productive ban, we seek to attack the root cause of abortion, the reason(s) why women want and need to have an abortion in the first place, and thus remove the economic and social strain when it comes to having a baby."
- The Real Pro-Life Manifesto

Real Pro-Life also seeks to take "Pro-Life" to a whole new level, by expanding social programs and health care to those who can not afford them, along with other things as well, for Life does not end at birth.

My beliefs have changed a little bit, but I think that "Real Pro-Life" is a new way to "help those who can not help themselves", and I know that is a belief that we all share on DU.

[No New War]

1. I can definitely agree with that Idealology

With the right kinds of education and social support, abortions would be a rare occurrence.

[chookie]

2. You're not alone

My principle in this matter is very similar to what you have outlined in your brief post.

My hope is to address the personal and social problems which would lead a woman to make such a drastic choice.

Glad to have met you.

[Lars39]

6. Birth control does fail, and not every woman wants to give birth,

or views abortion as a 'drastic' choice.

[riona]

70. Yes

And we should have a safe, legal abortion available if desired. I hope women remember the days before legal abortions when "unwed mothers" were outcasts - yes even in America with all the do gooder prolifers. Meanwhile the father could go on with his life as if nothing ever happened.

[chookie]

212. True, but...

...in the case of birth control failing, my priority would be to strive to develop more effective and available birth control, and educate people to use it dilligently -- as a goal to work towards.

I know some women don't regard abortion as a drastic choice. A lot of people seem to take it very casually -- and I take exception to that.

Neither the OP or myself are suggesting that women become slaves to uncontrolled reproduction, or have their lives put in jeopardy in a pregnancy, or bear the child of an incestuous relationship or a rape. I think rational people agree that health and other exceptions must be made.

The OP and I simply do not share the enthusiasm for abortion as it seems the more ideologically pure insist we all should share. We're not advocating criminalizing abortion -- we're simply hoping that America can work on providing ever better social and health support, access to reliable birth control and education to women that will reduce the number of abortions for reasons of birth control, at least for those women who do regard it as a difficult choice.

[TomInTib]

3. What are you trying to say?

"we seek to attack the root cause of abortion, the reason(s) why women want and need to have an abortion in the first place, and thus remove the economic and social strain when it comes to having a baby."

Just what do you propose?

[ck4829]

11. I don't believe that abortion is used as "birth control"

Real Pro-Life doesn't want to ban abortion, but rather to change the reasons.

Social Strain - Estrangement from family

Economic Strain - Becoming pregnant when a person is not financially ready

These are two examples of strain.

If we can eliminate the strain, then we might be able to reduce abortion, that is my take on it.

[Breeze54]

29. yeah....okay....sure....

please GIVE ME A HUGE BREAK!!!!

Call it what you want! You are anti-choice and stop the BS!

"Real Pro-Life doesn't want to ban abortion, but rather to change the reasons."

Whatever.... what do women do in the meantime??
Any idea's??

SHIT HAPPPENS!!!

"Life is what is happening, while your deciding what to do with your life"...or something like that!

Fuck people who think they can tell women what they can and can't fucking do!!

Now they also want to tell them the reasons!!!!!

GHEESH!!!!!!!!!!

:grr: :grr:

[PaDem]

82. Reduce the strain and we reduce abortions............

eliminating the strain all together will never happen obviously. Our party should be all about working towards reducing abortion without infringing on any of the rights women have today.

[Erika]

14. Most of Europe pays new mothers to stay home

and gives them universal health care.

They value both lives. We do not.

[Nobody]

89. Here are some more reasons why a woman would abort

and there's no way I can list them all. How many of them can you eliminate?

Rape. This includes by family members. Not after the fact, before the fact, before man attacks woman. By the way, a woman practicing abstinence has just had abstinence fail in the most traumatic way a method of birth control can fail.

Ectopic pregnancies.

Things going horribly wrong during the third trimester, such as fetus dying. By the way, the "pro-lofe" element do NOT want a woman with a dead fetus aborting. You see, they don't have access to her ultrasound so they don't KNOW FOR SURE the fetus is dead.

Physical problems that result in the baby's life expectancy to be measured in days, not years. Every woman and family's mileage varies widely on this one. Many women and families would insist on having the child. In no way does this require them to do things they way I would. I haven't been deified yet. But some women and families do make the decision to abort for this reason.

Birth control failure and a previous decision never to have children. Pregnancy does not change the personality of most women. I do know a few who detested children until they became pregnant, not they go around telling every woman who dislikes children that they should have one anyway, they'll feel different when its their own. GaaaaK! I say GaaaaK! because women who dislike children should never become mothers.

This is a far from complete list. Anyone else probably knows someone who has a reason they could add on to this list.

The point is, there are reasons behind abortion that go beyond what is possible to fix.
As long as you have no plans to make abortion harder to get, and no plans to second-guess a decision women have already given quite a lot of thought about before the decision became applicable, and no plans to interfere with a woman's autonomy, or to make her live the way you want her to, then I'm with you on alleviating economic conditions. I was for that before, and I'm still for that. For me, economic issues stand on their own. We should ALL make living wages, get plenty of time off to live our lives, be able to set aside enough to retire on. Health care should be a right, not a privilege for the weathy few. Adults and children.

[Neoma]

178. Hmm...isn't that called a miscarriage?

Things going horribly wrong during the third trimester, such as fetus dying. By the way, the "pro-lofe" element do NOT want a woman with a dead fetus aborting. You see, they don't have access to her ultrasound so they don't KNOW FOR SURE the fetus is dead.

[chookie]

210. Not even Rick Santorum...

...expects a woman to carry an ectopic pregnancy to term (even if it were possible). Come on.

I doubt seriously that this is the sort of the the OP was suggesting.

[Erika]

4. Yep

Democrats are pro life by trying to educate and eliminate abortion. Republicans think all can be solved by passing another big brother law.

[readmoreoften]

5. Except for rape, incest, life of the mother.

Etc. It's not always an economic reason. But good luck, I wish you the best.

[ck4829]

13. And those have always been valid reasons for abortion IMHO

[Lars39]

21. There aren't any *invalid* reasons for an abortion.

It is a woman's choice.

[readmoreoften]

60. I agree.

If a girl wants an abortion because she thinks she can't raise a child at the age of 15 without a partner, I'll trust her judgement.

[SidDithers]

86. Exactly...

if we put a value judgement on the reason a woman chooses to have an abortion, it's only a short step to having someone else decide if her reason for wanting an abortion is valid.

It is a womans choice. Solely a woman's choice.

Sid

[Terran]

99. What about sex selection abortions?

You consider that a valid reason to abort a fetus, because you don't want a girl (or boy)?

[Nobody]

128. That's a good way to shoot yourself in the foot

Imagine there's no women (or men). Bad idea. Can you say extinction?

But not my business. How would we enforce this? How would we prove that an abortion is not for sex selection and still maintain privacy rights?

That being said, I think it is a bad reason. But again, no one should have to justify to my satisfaction that they are aborting for a reason I approve of.

[Maru Kitteh]

134. It's not my job to decide whether sex selection

constitutes a "valid" reason for abortion. It's not your job either. It may be our job as a society to say fetuses should not be aborted after week x, but as soon as we start tacking on value judgments about "valid reasons" we cannot pretend that women are equal creatures capable of determining their own fate with autonomous power over their own bodily functions.

[pnwmom]

139. Okay. . . just for the sake of argument . . . what if someone -- say

someone with a serious personality disorder -- was going to have an abortion mainly out of spite? Would that be a valid reason?

[Lars39]

141. It is still the woman's choice.

[pnwmom]

142. I agree, on technical, legal grounds. But is it still a valid

moral choice?

[Lars39]

145. Not for me to judge,nor for me to know about.

[pnwmom]

150. I'm not asking that. For the individual involved, could having an

abortion out of spite be a valid moral choice?

I don't see how it could.

[Lars39]

153. She has her morals, you have yours.

They do not have to be the same.
You don't have the right to decide if someone else is making a "valid moral choice" about something that is essentially none of your business.

[pnwmom]

154. I'm not saying that I have that right, or that the law should be

changed.

But unless you're a complete moral relativist, it should be possible to answer the question. I think for a moral person, a line would have to be drawn here.

[Lars39]

156. Ah. So by declining to judge this woman I am immoral?

Slick. The thing with morals, is everybody thinks theirs is better than the next person's.

[pnwmom]

157. This woman doesn't exist. The question is a hypothetical,

ethical question. Where does one draw the line? Would this be an example of such a situation, or not?

Pretend you are a philosopher, teaching a class on ethics. You're not judging anybody in particular, you're talking about ethics.

Or pretend you are a woman, contemplating such a decision.

Are there, in your opinion, any ethical lines to be drawn at all when making a decision about abortion?

[Lars39]

158. I believe that every situation is unique to the woman involved,

and that the ethical approach is to let her handle it without intrusion.

[pnwmom]

160. But if you were a woman, would you have any ethical

boundaries yourself?

[riderinthestorm]

164. That questions presupposes so many "ifs" it's impossible to answer

The guy has already stated that he prefers the legal standard regardless of your "moral" equivocations. Privacy is primary. Why do you insist on trying to prevaricate?

(alliteration is cool).

Frankly, I'm in this camp myself. Privacy is primary (no joking now).

[Lars39]

165. Of course I might, but do I have to share them? No.

That's the wonderful thing about privacy.

[pnwmom]

175. Of course you don't need to share them. But the point is that

even for you, if you were a woman, there might be such a thing as an invalid reason for you to have an abortion.

That's all I've been saying.

[riderinthestorm]

176. And I'm (we're?) saying is that any reason is private

And none of your business.

And that's the way the law is written and that's the way I (we) believe it should remain written.

This decision is between a woman and her doctor. Not between you and your morals.

[pnwmom]

182. If you read above, you'll see I said repeatedly that I am

against legal restrictions and for the right of women to make the choice for themselves.

[Lars39]

177. It is still a decision best left to the individual to make in privacy.

I am a female, btw.

[riderinthestorm]

179. .

:hug:

[Lars39]

180. Why, thank you, riderinthestorm.

Backatcha.:hug:

[pnwmom]

184. I agree, and never said otherwise.

I was just interested in a more personal discussion, but never mind.

[riderinthestorm]

188. You can proffer personal discussions but they aren't relevant

I won't bite and from what I can tell, most progressive Dems won't bite. This is a privacy issue and once you begin to make exceptions for whatever reason, you go down a slippery slope.

It's a woman's choice. Period. It's a privacy issue. It's one that's between her doctor and each woman. I refuse to speculate or interfere or moralize.

[Lars39]

189. Goodnight!

:hi: I'm up past my bedtime.:boring:

[riderinthestorm]

161. I love you!!! Want to have my baby??!!!

LOL!!!

(disclaimer: total snark)

[Neoma]

167. I believe that the decision is between her and her doctor alone.

The only line i'm against is forcing a woman to abort or keep the baby.

[TomInTib]

26. All human life is sacred from the time of thei first kiss...

except for rape and incest. This is totally bogus reasoning. Either life is sacred or it is not. Motivation and situation - rape and incest - as mitigating factors mean that life is not truly sacred from conception. And the ones who hold that it does - they don't seem too willing to take on the offspring of their personal philosophy once they are born.

Plan B needs to be over the counter, sex-ed that happened in my day needs to happen today, and everyone needs the resources to prevent unplanned pregnancy. And - if like me - you find yourself pregnant at any age (in my case 42 years) then you need another measure.

Ms. Tomintib

[Dunvegan]

7. Oddly enough, the abortion rate under the Clinton Administration...

...was lower than under the Bush Administration.

Removing or demonizing earlier intervention options, from condoms and birth control pills to RU are not helping reduce the abortion rate.

Demonizing sex doesn't help much either.

Good luck. I'll be looking forward to reading your manifesto. Seeking your own truth is an honorable journey.

Assalamu alaikum.

[Erika]

12. It wasn't oddly enough

Clinton funded easy access to family planning.

[0007]

103. He wasn't closing Plan Parenthood programs and making

some feel like they're going to hell for believing in choice.

[Roland99]

127. A booming economy didn't hurt either

when people feel confident in their fiscal lives, they're better able to care for children.

[Extend a Hand]

8. When you say you are not pro-choice do you mean

that you would prevent a woman who felt that an abortion was her best option from having an abortion?

[leftstreet]

9. Is this satire?

:shrug:

[northofdenali]

59. I don't think so, leftstreet, and you know I loveya - but

I think this is a genuine attempt by someone conflicted by abortion to attempt and help prevent as much reason and need for it as possible.

Many are unconflicted by the abortion question. Many, like me, who have had to literally contemplate it, are a little more conflicted.

Let's prevent the need for them. Period.

Let's educate from grade or middle-school on. Let's keep it grade level, but educate. Let's tell kids about condoms, birth control pills, the Patch, the "morning after pill".

Let's make sure our kids know that WE know sex is not an awful, sinful, nasty thing to do.

'Cuz it's really kinda fun.

Messy, though.

Give them access to 'tween, teen, and college-age information. As you see fit, as a parent.

I will never forget the first time my daughter asked about sex. My ex told her he couldn't see her having any until 100. She said, "Daddy, not till I'm 100?" He said, "No, sweetheart, not till I am."

He promptly made sure her "sex ed" class at school was addressing the right issues.

[Maraya1969]

64. Sex-ed lowers the rates of abortion as does easy access and open

mindedness to wards contraception. Maybe if generic contraception was pushed, (the same thing without the label) more women would buy the sponges and creams etc. I do remember buying those things and thinking they were kind of expensive. If I were very poor and had a lot of sex I can see how I would be in much greater danger of an unwanted pregnancy.

And those condoms seem kind of steep when you consider that they are given away at clinics, gay meetings and anti-STD programs.

I believe they should be handed out without question at all high schools.

Once again the pharmaceutical industry is making a killing, (not sure about the pun) in the contraception market. They should take some responsibility in lowering their prices for the people who cannot afford it.

Make contraception easier and more affordable and the abortion rate will decline. Of course you have to teach the kids that sex is not evil also.

[pnwmom]

191. Watching a few of my friends go through this, I think

"conflicted" is a very good word for my feelings . Not about the legalities -- those I think need to stay where they are -- but about the decision itself and the impact on women's lives.

It would be nice if it were all as cut and dry as some people seem to think.

[leftstreet]

206. I know, I know

:hi:

But FFS many people are "conflicted" about eating meat, yet it doesn't end up as a cornerstone of a political party platform.

I just wish the Dems would stop talking about it and let parents, schools (and churches if one is so inclined) take a position on how best to educate youngsters on birth control.

[Trajan]

10. While I admire your goals and your manner ....

and I certainly appreciate ANYONE who would try to improve the lot of us all ...

I am still PRO-Choice, because personal freedom is too important, even in the face of a 'perfect' environment .....

This liberal atheist will maintain his reverence for freedom ....

[sandnsea]

15. Uhm, hate to tell ya, but that's pro-choice

Many pro-choice people wouldn't personally have an abortion. They just don't believe women and doctors should become criminals when faced with difficult life circumstances, be it financial, emotional or medical. Safe, legal and rare. Focusing on ways to reduce abortion and expand social programs and health care to moms. That's been the Democratic position forever.

[Erika]

19. Yes - Vs the GOP big brother mandating women's functions

and restricting her choices.

[ck4829]

24. There is a 'hidden agenda' behind what I am doing

My beliefs are sincere, but I came up with the concept of Real Pro-Life for another reason.

We need to also create schisms in the strongest faction of the Republican Party, the 'christian' Right.

After I realized that I could not be "Pro-Life", I came up with this because I knew this could win over moderates over there, Catholics for the most part.

It's all part of a series of events I have planned this summer.

[leftstreet]

28. You do realize that Bush I lost Repub women to Perot because of abortion

In 1992 Ross (“Yes, it’s a woman’s choice!") Perot grabbed Republican voters who were pro-choice.

They learned their lesson and by 1994 Newt's Contract On America didn't say a single word about abortion.

It's a mistake to assume "moderates" are pro-life. The truth is "moderates" don't think abortion has anything to do with the price of gas.

[ck4829]

31. Moderate Conservative Christians that is

I'm still working on it, but I have a whole slew of things planned.

[leftstreet]

38. Being a "moderate" voter has nothing to do with religion

In spite of what the party operatives try to tell us.

:banghead:

[northofdenali]

61. There is no such thing as a "moderate" Conservative Christian.

Been there, done that. Tried, so very hard, for so many years, to find even one in any church I spoke in.

If they call themselves a "Conservative" Christian, they are fundamental. And there is no changing their minds about anything except maybe what kind of potato salad to serve.

They are rigid, cold, and vicious people.

[omega minimo]

40. Sounds like you want to join Repugs

[bliss_eternal]

45. There already are

pro-choice Catholics and republicans. There are Catholics and Christians on this board that are pro-choice. It's difficult to appeal to the far right, or the religious right--because they are working from a place of fear and dare I say, a need to control.

I'm not trying to discourage you. Ultimately you have to do what you feel inspired to do. Good luck with it. :hi:

If you value life, you already are "pro-life." Don't allow the labels and semantics others have created to coerce and manipulate tell you who you are or are not. ;)

[sandnsea]

54. We call it "Valuing Families"

With educational opportunities, contraceptive education, reproductive health care, housing, food, child care, pre-natal. Where do the people who you would seek to reach think all of that came from??We don't need to pretend that we've changed our position on abortion or come up with something new, we just need to remind the "pro-life" people that it's Democratic programs that give them the ability to tell women there are options besides abortion in the first place.

[pnwmom]

202. That's all very true.

[pnwmom]

201. I think you're on the right track. There are quite a number

of liberal Catholics who resent the increasing alliance of the hierarchy with the Republican party.

[JerseygirlCT]

71. I really wonder why it's so damned hard to see the "choice"

in "pro-choice"?

Have the nuts really succeeded to the extent that people can no longer read?

Choice is just that. It has never been "pro-abortion".

I'm whole-heartedly in favor of supporting life throughout life. I completely support better education, better access to health care, better contraception... let's make abortions less needed, for sure.

But never less accessible should the only person qualified decide she needs one.

[pnwmom]

192. In another thread I had some pro-choice people criticize me

for being anti-choice for stating that exact position.

[sandnsea]

199. But that is the Dem position

Some of us prefer a simpler reproductive privacy myob approach. I personally don't buy into the necessity of "rare", abortion is no different than when a blatocyst passes in a menstrual cycle to me. So yeah, some people don't like that position. But it is the Democratic party position, and pregnancy prevention and help for moms came from the Democratic Party too.

[pnwmom]

200. As I recall,

someone said there was no "center" position on abortion.

I said a woman in the center might not want to have an abortion herself, but still believe that women should have the legal right to make that decision for themselves. I was told that this was being judgmental.

[sandnsea]

204. As I recall

You said a little more than that. I can't find the thread, but if memory serves, you said something a bit more than just that every woman should decide for themselves. I just remember reading one of your posts on abortion and being quite surprised because you're usually pretty even keeled. I also don't know what you're talking about with the "center" position on abortion. Most Democrats consider safe, legal and rare the center position, some consider it the general position of all pro-choice people. Some understand that position, but like I said, have a more liberal view.

[pnwmom]

207. I can't find it either,

but I suspect it was in the course of talking about Hillary Clinton, because I usually react when someone says she is a DINO and a traitor to the cause. And I don't remember getting involved in any thread specifically about abortion, but I could be wrong.

I wasn't the one who first used the word "center" so I'm not sure how to define it, except somewhere in the broad middle between no-abortions-no-matter-what and it's-no-more-important-than-getting-a-period. (I know, I'm exaggerating that position, but I've heard something like that here.)

I used to think that I was just plain pro-choice, but after some time on DU listening to the "real progressives" it appears that anyone who thinks fewer-is-better or would rather not make that choice herself is more in the middle.

[Sugarcoated]

16. I am pro-life for myself

Pro-choice for everyone else.

[progressivebydesign]

22. Now THAT is an ideaology I can agree with, Sugarcoated.

That is what John Kerry was trying to express during the debates. His own faith makes him pro-life, but he will not take the choice away from anyone else, or tell them how to live their lives. Very reasonable.

[genieroze]

39. ditto

[progressivebydesign]

17. Interesting post. Lots to think about.

I am always amazed, though, how people change their core beliefs because of whomever they're dating or have as "lovers" as you put it. I usually chide women for doing that, usually taking on the political views of their husbands. Interesting twist. Whatever works for you.. but I'd probably respect it more if it had come from within, rather than who you're dating.

[noamnety]

25. I can understand it

A shift in values sometimes comes from a desire to please, and that can be a bad/self-destructive thing.

But also it can come from feeling secure and close enough to another person just to honestly listen to their viewpoint. Whether that person is a lover or just a friend, the result can be the same - exchanging ideas with an open mind and respect for the other person can shift your perspective on issues.

[Maine-ah]

85. Taking on your spouse's /lover's political views

does not mean they don't have a mind of their own. It's taken me years to turn my husband around politically speaking. :D His family though? Shit, I don't think I have the energy for them.

The OP probably has had some rather in-depth converstation with his SO, maybe even opened his mind up to other ideas to what he has always thought. It doesn't always have to do with pleasing someone.It's called having an open mind. I think he has some great ideas. Abortion should be rare, but legal for anyone who wants one regardless of the reason (which is nobody's business). I do think for the most part it's because of financial reasons, and age. I had one when I was 21. No money no health insurance and I wasn't ready. Now, I'm 32 (and all I want to do, is boogalooo, HEY! :crazy: )sorry...sidetracked there..... but I am ready mentally (lol!) for a child (I'm due in November), even if I'm a bit crazy....though I still have no money and no health insurance....

[JDPriestly]

18. Most people including most liberals (and me) agree with you.

Women should not feel they HAVE to have abortions for economic reasons. Some women really do have to have abortions for medical reasons -- such as when neither the mother nor the child can survive the pregnancy. (It actually does happen, trust me.) And then there are rape and incest -- situations in which a woman has to decide whether her revulsion against her unborn child or her fear of serious genetic disorders are too great to overcome -- and will harm the child. The problem is that in our society women are compelled to choose abortion by economic necessity. First, there are women who are too young to care for their child. Then, there are women who already have more children than they can provide for. These women need far more support from society as a whole. Abortion is not a form of birth control. The problem is that the Christian right is hypocritical on the issue. On the one hand they want to punish women who have abortions. On the other, they want to make poor women and their children suffer in poverty if they don't abort. There is a better way, and you have described it very well.

[genieroze]

42. Heck the Christian Rich is trying to ban birth control.

[SidDithers]

100. Abortion is a form of birth control...

if that's the reason why a woman would have one. Neither you nor I are in any position to place a value judgement on why a woman would choose to have an abortion. Abortion rights are about the woman, not someone else, having the right to make medical decisions about her own body

Sid

[uppityperson]

20. You sound pro-choice to me, humanist too.

pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. It means as you wrote and as my elderly mother once said, "I would never have one and hope none of you girls ever has to have one, but I am going to keep fighting for the right to do so if it is necessary."

[kikiek]

88. Sounds like a wise woman who remembers what it was like when

they weren't legal. Vivid memories of the bloody bodies of women who died doing whatever it took to end unwanted pregnancies has stuck in many minds. We shouldn't forget those women and their desperate actions. The rich will go wherever and have their procedures. The poor will once again die in the back alley bloody and abandoned. I agree with your elderly mother. It is about choice and ultimately nothing else.

[TomInTib]

23. I think that you should talk to Planned Parenthood...

They embrace women in all stages of the reproductive cycle and hold them accountable every step of the way. There is no better model. This is Ms. TomInTib talking, and I have been through all of it at the ripe old age of 42 years, and so feel a certain perspective. They are ultimately supportive of women and hold their hands through every step of the reproductive process without judgement. This is as real and true as you will ever get. Just talk to them. No politics, no agenda, just real women supporting real women in their lives. If I ever have a pile of money, I am sending a large portion of it their way....

[MADem]

27. My attitude towards the issue is that it is a PRIVATE decision

And none of my business. It's not ME making the choice, it's the person concerned.

Thus, I am all for allowing people to make choices that affect them personally, without me putting my two cents in when the decision doesn't have a direct impact on me or my life. I do support quality reproductive education in schools, early and often, as well as Life Skills classes, as opposed to the fundie "Just Don't Do It!" nonsense.

Of course, nowadays, in America, the sense of privacy is shifting, and that's a bit worrisome in terms of this issue, too.

[liberalpress]

78. Good point...

In fact a know a fire-breathing, Bush-loving, God-Bless-America-or-Else type who has his own views about abortion -- yet he can't understand how or why it ever became a plitical issue. While he as admantly pro-life, he says it has no more business kn politics than the color of socks he wears

[bliss_eternal]

30. Whatever your ideology

I respectfully take issue with the term pro-life. I am pro-life, which is why I am also pro-choice, pro-peace, anti-war and anti-death penalty. The term pro-life is misleading and paints our side in a erroneous light, which I don't like to see.

There are members on this board, that may not believe that abortion would be the right choice for them, but they believe women should be allowed to make that "choice" for themselves. They don't like or agree with abortion, but they do support choice.

It is possible for one to be pro-choice and pro-life, but the anti-choice movement likes to paint us as evil people, plotting and scheming to trick unsuspecting pregnant women into having abortions. :eyes: In this way, the term anti-life only serves them and their need to also speak to the motivation of "choice" which frankly, they are not in any position to do.

I'd also like to ask (respectfully) If you are going to discuss women's choice, please do so in terms of choice not life.

Thanks.:hi:

bliss_e.

[northofdenali]

32. Planned Parenthood just took my pregnant stepdaughter

and showed her how to have a healthy baby. They are providing all her medical services - free - throughout her pregnancy.

None of the RW "right-to-life" organizations in the area would do that. They just wanted her to HAVE the baby. Not HOW. Not "where can I get medical care"? Not "what can we (she and boyfriend) do" to be sure baby will be okay? Nothing! Just be sure to HAVE THE BABY.

They (RW fundies) do NOT care about a healthy child. They only care that you give birth. And that can't be realistic, can't be healthy, can't be good for the child, until the MOTHER and child are cared for. That's what PP is doing.

They have also arranged for her to have a free delivery - doctor or midwife - and childcare.

Now, tell ME who are pro-life!!

I was terrified when I became pregnant with my daughter in 1981. I went to PP. I had a very healthy pregnancy, a very healthy kid, and she's now 26 and a grad student. There are so many of us out there who would never have an abortion if the monetary and emotional needs were being met just during pregnancy. Afterward is even harder.

Comprehensive sex education, availability of birth control and information about STD's , HIV and AIDS, options after a rape (date or otherwise), availability of parental information, it's all INFO. And it pisses me off to this day that my stepdaughter has ONE source to go to in order to exercise her options. And it pisses me off that one of those asshole RW "abstinence" organizations delayed her until it was too late.

Abstinence education only, in the areas/states where it's given, is a joke. There are more pregnancies, more STD's, more HIV and more abortions than in areas/states where a comprehensive sexual education course is taught.

Sorry, sweetie - I think your idea is dynamite. It just touched some nerves. My stepdaughter should have had a choice.

So if the "anti-choice" folks want to prevent abortion, tney need to provide support ALL THE WAY. Not just until the baby is "viable" and she can no longer make a choice. Like PP does.

:rantoff:

[regnaD kciN]

41. You left out one point...

They (RW fundies) do NOT care about a healthy child. They only care that you give birth. And that can't be realistic, can't be healthy, can't be good for the child, until the MOTHER and child are cared for.

...they only want unmarried women to give birth -- and then pillory them as "sinners" and "harlots" who are responsible for "the moral decline of America."

:grr:

[northofdenali]

47. regena, you are exactly right -

these "girls" (mostly women) are vilified as being "bad", no matter the church (except for a very few), JUST FOR BEING PREGNANT.

Where is the vilification for the man that participated? Unless she went to a sperm bank and insisted (unlikely), where are the men responsible?

Oh, I see. He has millions of those little swimmers. She only has a few each month.

So it's her fault.

Where is Christ's teaching in that?

[Nobody]

79. They have to blame somebody

or they can only blame themselves.

[bliss_eternal]

43. Excellent post!

:applause:

The losers that harrass women at PP clinics fail to realize not everyone there is even contemplating an abortion. Prior to marriage or a job with medical insurance, planned parenthood provided all of my reproductive health care--paps, exams, etc.

The RW painting "choice" as anti-life is dishonest, erroneous and flat out wrong.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for this wonderful rant! :yourock:

[northofdenali]

50. Here, it's a matter of courage. She had to hide in my Jeep

in the back seat, because she was upset and didn't want to see it.

I'm over 50 - they KNEW I wasn't there for a "procedure".

So we went in and were treated like queens and Kristy walked out with support for both her AND her sweetie (who IS a sweetie) and their child.

Their (the RW fundy) "choice" means one thing - the preacher (man, of course) decides.

I've not known many men like that in my life, fortunately. My man is completely supportive of whatever his daughter thinks is right - FOR HER. We've asked them to think. There are options elsewhere. They will chose to have the child - they are very much in love but caught in a money/medical squeeze - but they will chose for the child. Ask me in 2 months. I'll be a grandma.

PP is one of the best organizations in the world, offering the entire spectrum of woman's health. And no, I don't contribute a lot or work on their board. But I think every girl from the age of 13 up should know about them.

[omega minimo]

48. It's (intended) misleading 2 call womens health clinics "abortion clinics"

for the reasons you have given (hi northof denali :hi: ) Abortion is not ALL they do..............................

"Comprehensive sex education, availability of birth control and information about STD's , HIV and AIDS, options after a rape (date or otherwise), availability of parental information, it's all INFO. And it pisses me off to this day that my stepdaughter has ONE source to go to in order to exercise her options."

Too bad respect for women still isn't trendy.

[northofdenali]

57. Hey, omega - and they DO mislead.

:hi::loveya::hi:

"Pregnancy services"??? You get a pregnancy test and advice about adoption. From their adoption service.

"Health services"??? You get zip. They instruct you (and I have the paper proof) to go to the local Native American/Alaskan Eskimo Clinic. That's it. My stepdaughter is neither. She asked about other services. None that are free or nearly so. None.

Pregnancy and Birth Education??? Tee Hee. Stay barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. When you "whelp" you'll know what to do. Then give us the kid.

They are pure charlatans. I asked 2 women who "counseled" my Kristy what they had told her. "We told her to have the child". Well, fuckin' obvious, right? I asked what qualifications they had as "counselors". They were "senior members of the church".


Until we start fighting (again) for women's rights, and girl's rights (my daughter knew hers at the age of 11) and children's rights, we will NOT have a civilized world.

[omega minimo]

109. It's crucial and central to all other issues

although the mass mind doesn't see that now. The sooner the better, since the destruction of our home world is at stake...............

"Until we start fighting (again) for women's rights, and girl's rights (my daughter knew hers at the age of 11) and children's rights, we will NOT have a civilized world."

:grouphug: Blessings on your step-daughter and the little one. She (they) are lucky to have you there for them. :hi:

[Clark2008]

81. Yep - going to one today

For a checkup. And I'll have to deal with the fundies who are always there on Saturdays, but I needed to schedule an appointment when I wouldn't need to miss work (had already missed more than I care to miss for other reasons and didn't want to miss more. My boss isn't a tyrant, mind you - *I* didn't want to miss work, so I went to a clinic where I could make a Saturday appointment).

[Neoma]

186. I'm going to make a point to call them woman's health clinics.

Thanks for that point. :hi:

[omega minimo]

194. Yes-and that's the added shame of protester/harrasser/attackers at clinics

The harrassers are attacking facilities that women go to for all sorts of health care.

Cheers then, Neoma-- good ta meetcha :toast:

[omega minimo]

33. That's called Pro-Choice

We've seen this here before. Folks wanna go in some Biiiiiiiiiiiiiigg circles to come around to the same point, which you are welcome to do. It sounds like you're inspired.

Here's the thing-- if you write your manifesto and subtract the part where it's any of your (or your girlfriend's) business what someone else does with their body/health/family/privacy, you'll realize you are still "Pro-Choice."

[ck4829]

35. Read post #24

[bliss_eternal]

49. Yep.

:hi:

[omega minimo]

52. We can all stop now-- you've summed it up in a nutshell

".........working from a place of fear and dare I say, a need to control."

There it is. Copy and paste, apply to all the issues (and assholes) that face us.................... the perfect answer to every post from now on.


Tired of the spinelessness!

"....working from a place of fear and dare I say, a need to control."

Perpetrators innocent until proven malignant!

"....working from a place of fear and dare I say, a need to control."

God hates atheists (agnostics are undecided)

"....working from a place of fear and dare I say, a need to control."

"Will Pitt is leaving!!

"....working from a place of fear and dare I say, a need to control."

Is this the Lounge?

"....working from a place of fear and dare I say, a need to control."

Arlen Specter pretends to be outraged at Repukes before he caves

"....working from a place of fear and dare I say, a need to control."

ITMFA

"....working from a place of fear and dare I say, a need to control."

:evilgrin:

[bliss_eternal]

55. ....

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ck4829]

34. Going to bed, I'll answer more questions tomorrow

[ck4829]

37. 1 more thing

There is another reason why I have come up with this.

Read Post #24, I think this may be a way to hit the 'christian' Right with wedge issues.

[valerief]

36. I'm pro-atheism. People can still worship a god but I want to reduce

the triggers/reasons/motives for them to do so. Is that analogous to what you're saying?

[NI4NI]

44. These postings

have made this positively, one of the most enlightening threads that I've ever read here on DU, and I thank each one of you for that.
NI4NI

[TheWraith]

46. Sounds good.

I must say, I'm also pleased with the overall tenor of this thread. When I read the original post, I expected three quarters of the responses to be from DU's screamer contingent--the people who hate reasoned debate as much as the right does, and immediately go nuclear whenever somebody disagrees in the slightest with their personal ideology of how a given subject should be treated and spoken about. Instead, we have--with a few exceptions--a well spoken, reasonable thread, and even the people who are linguistically nitpicking are usually doing so in a polite way. Congratulations DU.

[Breeze54]

51. Who appointed you the DU Critic??

:shrug:

Is there a certain, approved way to have an opinion here??

wow.......

[TheWraith]

209. Quite the opposite, if you stopped to think.

My point, which you don't seem to have read, was that the crowd who usually loves to shout down any opposition was absent, which is good. More diversity of opinion and people being able to express minority opinions/viewpoints without being attacked by screamers is good.

[omega minimo]

146. Actually what you're noticing is the absence of the

bigot/bully tag teams and what a difference it makes when the troublemakers don't hijack a thread :hi:

[Bluebear]

53. It's all so clear!

[neebob]

152. Okay, LOL.

That was my first ever. I like you, Bluebear. Don't ever get a new girlfriend and write a manifesto.

[nolabels]

56. Kind of like them big block communist asian countries are pro-worker?

Most bull-crap promises that sound good on paper usually never really work out in real life. Also last time I noticed this social movement that was supposed to be spearheaded by the government has turned into big brother in a few short years, or have you not noticed?

I am a little "d" type of person who believes in government service if a good majority requests and needs it. 99.999% of the federal laws enacted presently benefit a very small minority at the expense of the majority. In the present situation, throwing the bathwater out with the baby makes good sense and chocolate covered dog-shit will still taste like dog-shit at any rate.

[Lexingtonian]

58. Have fun with that....

I believe the abortion banning thang is fading away on its own, really.

There was a long long period of stalemate- 46% to uphold Roe, 44% to overturn it, the rest leaning to uphold- for nearly 30 years.

Things changed last summer with O'Connor's letter of resignation in early July. The leaners went over to support to uphold Roe, which went to 56% by mid-August. The stated desire for an overturn of Roe dropped to 35%. The undecided 9% are all former supporters of an overturn, of course.

In national politics that kind of a shift means that the debate is over. In a way it is. The Christian Right has given up on Blue States, as far as I can tell.

Things changed a little bit with the Alito nomination/confirmation. The split is still 56-35, and that's pretty much a 5-3-1 split on the Court just as we know it to be (Roberts is not a guaranteed vote for overturn imho; he's fuzzy). But pollings during and after the Alito hearings said there's further "structure" or softness, i.e. subtle breakdown, of the overturn side. Of those 35%, a 24% bloc wants a complete overturn. The other 11% wants some small amount of legalization.

The wedge issues between these 11% and the 24% are present in the form of the South Dakota abortion banning law. That's going to heat up during the summer- the Christian Right truly can't afford the disasterous defeat the referendum could give them. But the price for fending off defeat could be a wedging of their hardliners and soft Believers...

[neoblues]

62. There's no inconsistency...

Pro-Choice is all in favor of making all possible efforts to help women avoid the situation in which they would have to face making such a painful choice. Likewise, they are also in support of efforts to increase the available choices for pregnant women, such as providing mothers with such support that they could viably choose to keep their babies rather than have to worry they won't be able to support their young ones (food, clothing, medical care, etc). So, the Pro-Choice are indeed "pro-life after birth" as well. The need for a Pro-Choice movement arises from the fact that Conservatives/Pro-Birth-Ignore-Afterwards people have used their powers in the past to make the very "Choice" of terminating a pregnancy illegal. So, their most pointed efforts have to address this basic element first--to ensure that it remains legal, otherwise women would face forced birth or go to jail (for "murder").

Is it murder? Is terminating a lump of cells smaller than a sesame seed somehow cruel? When is a developing zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus a "person". For the "Religious", when does the developing mass become infused with a "soul"? That's a meaningless question for non-believers who don't believe there is such a construct as a soul. Whatever the case, then when does it accrue rights? Can these questions be answered or are they just emotional reactions or based on one's own interpretation of non-existent religious texts (they didn't know anything about such early developments and so didn't actually address them). Is it right to make laws to punish mothers who don't want the pregnancy? Pretty much everyone agrees, of course, that once a fetus has reached the point of viability, where it can live without the mother, it's certainly qualifiable as a baby (and even for some undefined period just prior to that point).

We all understand that the "choice" should be one to be avoided as much as possible; both wanted and planned children are most desirable for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that a terrible, painful and stressful decision whether to abort wasn't required. Decisions to end a pregnancy early can result in long term emotional pain. Limits on when a pregnancy can be terminated are necessary (and already exist). Adding improved support for pregnant women, including pre-natal care, is welcome and needed. Improving economic conditions, social acceptance and adding post-natal support options (especially for single mothers) to allow women to continue their pregnancies are welcome and needed. Still, in the end, we must be against criminalizing women should they choose (with perhaps some limitation on later term choices; exceptions must still exist) to end their pregnancies. It is their own body, and a person should indeed have very great control over that.

Of course, this is just my opinion (everybody has one).

[REP]

69. A Few Facts For You...

Decisions to end a pregnancy early can result in long term emotional pain. Limits on when a pregnancy can be terminated are necessary (and already exist).

Actually, abortion doesn't cause "long-term emotional pain" in women who were emotionally stable before their abortion. Denying abortion on the other hand, does cause emotional harm.

Abortion doesn't affect well-being, study says

New York Times (as printed in the San Jose Mercury 2/12/97)

Abortion does not trigger lasting emotional trauma in young women who
are psychologically healthy before they become pregnant, an eight-year
study of nearly 5,300 women has shown. Women who are in poor shape
emotionally after an abortion are likely to have been feeling bad about
their lives before terminating their pregnancies, the researchers said.

The findings, the researchers say, challenge the validity of laws
that have been proposed in many states, and passed in several, mandating
that women seeking abortions be informed of mental health risks.

The researchers, Dr. Nancy Felipe Russo, a psychologist at Arizona
State University in Tempe, and Dr. Amy Dabul Marin, a psychologist at
Phoenix College, examined the effects of race and religion on the
well-being of 773 women who reported on sealed questionnaires that
they had undergone abortions, and they compared the results with the
emotional status of women who did not report abortions.

The women, initially 14 to 24 years old, completed questionnaires and
were interviewed each year for eight years, starting in 1979. In 1980
and in 1987, the interview also included a standardized test that
measures overall well-being, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

"Given the persistent assertion that abortion is associated with
negative outcomes, the lack of any results in the context of such a
large sample is noteworthy," the researchers wrote. The study took
into account many factors that can influence a woman's emotional
well-being, including education, employment, income, the presence of
a spouse and the number of children.

Higher self-esteem was associated with being employed, having a
higher income, having more years of education and bearing fewer children,
but having had an abortion "did not make a difference," the researchers
reported. And the women's religious affiliations and degree of involvement
with religion did not have an independent effect on their long-term
reaction to abortion. Rather, the women's psychological well-being before
having abortions accounted for their mental state in the years after the
abortion, the researchers said..

In considering the influence of race, the researchers again found
that the women's level of self-esteem before having abortions was the
strongest predictor of their well-being after an abortion.

"Although highly religious Catholic women were slightly more likely
to exhibit post-abortion psychological distress than other women, this
fact is explained by lower pre-existing self-esteem," the researchers
wrote in the current issue of Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

Overall, Catholic women who attended church one or more times a week,
even those who had not had abortions, had generally lower self-esteem
than other women, although within the normal range, so it was hardly
surprising that they also had lower self-esteem after abortions, the
researchers said in interviews.

Gail Quinn, executive director of anti-abortion activities for the
United States Catholic Conference, said the findings belied the
experience of post-abortion counselors. She said, "While many women
express `relief' following an abortion, the relief is transitory."
In the long term, the experience prompts "hurting people to seek the
help of post-abortion healing services," she said.

The president of the National Right to Life Committee, Dr. Wanda
Franz, who earned her doctorate in developmental psychology, challenged
the researchers' conclusions. She said their assessment of self-esteem
"does not measure if a woman is mentally healthy," adding, "This requires
a specialist who performs certain tests, not a self-assessment of how
the woman feels about herself."

The Relationship of Abortion to Well-being: Do Race and Religion Make a Difference?
Nancy Felipe Russo and Amy J. Dabul
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 1997, Vol. 28, No , 23-31

Relationships of abortion and childbearing to well-being were examined for 1,189 Black and 3,147 White women. Education, income, and having a work role were positively and independently related to well-being for all women. Abortion did not have an independent relationship to well-being, regardless of race or religion, when well-being before becoming pregnant was controlled. These findings suggest professional psychologists should explore the origins of women's mental health problems in experiences predating their experience of abortion, and they can assist psychologists in working to ensure that mandated scripts from 'informed consent' legislation do not misrepresent scientific findings.


RUSSO, NANCY FELIPE
ZIERK, K.
Abortion, Childbearing, and Women's Well-Being
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice 23 (1992): 269-280. Also, http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_research5.asp
Cohort(s): NLSY79
ID Number: 4029
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)

This study is based on a secondary analysis of NLSY interview data from 5,295 women who were interviewed annually from 1979 to 1987. Among this group 773 women were identified in 1987 as having at least one abortion, with 233 of them reporting repeat abortions. Well-being was assessed in 1980 and 1987 by the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The researchers used analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple regression to examine the combined and separate contributions of preabortion self-esteem, contextual variables (education, employment, income, and marital status), childbearing (being a parent, numbers of wanted and unwanted children) and abortion (having one abortion, having repeat abortions, number of abortions, time since last abortion) to women's post abortion self-esteem




Most Women Do Not Feel Distress, Regret After Undergoing Abortion, Study Says



   The majority of women who choose to have legal abortions do not experience regret or long-term negative emotional effects from their decision to undergo the procedure, according to a study published in the June issue of the journal Social Science & Medicine, NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest reports. Dr. A. Kero and colleagues in the Department of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology at University Hospital in Umea, Sweden, interviewed 58 women at periods of four months and 12 months after the women's abortions. The women also answered a questionnaire prior to their abortions that asked about their living conditions, decision-making processes and general attitudes toward the pregnancy and the abortion. According to the study, most women "did not experience any emotional distress post-abortion"; however, 12 of the women said they experienced severe distress immediately after the procedure. Almost all of the women said they felt little distress at the one-year follow-up interview. The women who said they experienced no post-abortion distress had indicated prior to the procedure that they opted not to give birth because they "prioritized work, studies, and/or existing children," according to the study. According to the researchers, "almost all" of the women said the abortion was a "relief or a form of taking responsibility," and more than half of the women said they experienced positive emotional experiences after the abortion such as "mental growth and maturity of the abortion process" (NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest, 7/12).

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=24751

The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion--denied and completed

PK Dagg
Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont., Canada.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review the available literature on the psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion, addressing both the issue of the effects of the abortion on the woman involved and the effects on the woman and on the child born when abortion is denied. METHOD: Papers reviewed were initially selected by using a Medline search. This procedure resulted in 225 papers being reviewed, which were further selected by limiting the papers to those reporting original research. Finally, studies were assessed as to whether or not they used control groups or objective, validated symptom measures. RESULTS: Adverse sequelae occur in a minority of women, and when such symptoms occur, they usually seem to be the continuation of symptoms that appeared before the abortion and are on the wane immediately after the abortion. Many women denied abortion show ongoing resentment that may last for years, while children born when the abortion is denied have numerous, broadly based difficulties in social, interpersonal, and occupational functions that last at least into early adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: With increasing pressure on access to abortion services in North America, nonpsychiatrist physicians and mental health professionals need to keep in mind the effects of both performing and denying therapeutic abortion. Increased research into these areas, focusing in particular on why some women are adversely affected by the procedure and clarifying the relationship issues involved, continues to be important.
Am J Psychiatry 1991; 148:578-585
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/148/5/578


Psychological sequelae of medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation.

Ashok PW, Hamoda H, Flett GM, Kidd A, Fitzmaurice A, Templeton A.

From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.

Background. Although not much research comparing the emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion is available, few studies have compared psychological sequelae following both methods of abortion early in the first trimester of pregnancy. The aim of this review was to assess the psychological sequelae and emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation. Methods. Partially randomized patient preference trial in a Scottish Teaching Hospital was conducted. The hospital anxiety and depression scales were used to assess emotional distress. Anxiety levels were also assessed using visual analog scales while semantic differential rating scales were used to measure self-esteem. A total of 368 women were randomized, while 77 entered the preference cohort. Results. There were no significant differences in hospital anxiety and depression scales scores for anxiety or depression between the groups. Visual analog scales showed higher anxiety levels in women randomized to surgery prior to abortion (P < 0.0001), while women randomized to surgical treatment were less anxious after abortion (P < 0.0001). Semantic differential rating scores showed a fall in self-esteem in the randomized medical group compared to those undergoing surgery (P = 0.02). Conclusions. Medical abortion at 10-13 weeks is effective and does not increase psychological morbidity compared to surgical vacuum aspiration and hence should be made available to all women undergoing abortion at these gestations.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005 Aug;84(8):761-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16026402&dopt=Citation


Post abortion syndrome: myth or reality?

Koop CE.

What are the health effects upon a woman who has had an abortion? In his letter to President Reagan, dated January 9, 1989, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop wrote that in order to find an answer to this question the Public Health Service would need from 10 to 100 million dollars for a comprehensive study.

PIP: At a 1987 briefing for Right to Life leaders, the author--US Surgeon General C Everett Koop--was requested to prepare a comprehensive report on the health effects (mental and physical) of induced abortion. To prepare for this task, the author met with 27 groups with philosophical, social, medical, or other professional interests in the abortion issue; interviewed women who had undergone this procedure; and conducted a review of the more than 250 studies in the literature pertaining to the psychological impact of abortion. Every effort was made to eliminate the bias that surrounds this controversial issue. It was not possible, however, to reach any conclusions about the health effects of abortion. In general, the studies on the psychological sequelae of abortion indicate a low incidence of adverse mental health effects. On the other hand, the evidence tends to consist of case studies and the few nonanecdotal reports that exist contain serious methodological flaws. In terms of the physical effects, abortion has been associated with subsequent infertility, a damaged cervix, miscarriage, premature birth, and low birthweight. Again, there are methodological problems. 1st, these events are difficult to quantify since most abortions are performed in free-standing clinics where longterm outcome is not recorded. 2nd, it is impossible to casually link these adverse outcomes to the abortion per se. Resolution of this question requires a prospective study of a cohort of women of childbearing age in reference to the variable outcomes of mating--failure to conceive, miscarriage, abortion, and delivery. Ideally, such a study would be conducted over a 5-year period and would cost approximately US$100 million
Health Matrix. 1989 Summer;7(2):42-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10294679&query_hl=2

Psychological sequelae of induced abortion.

Romans-Clarkson SE.

Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago Medical School, Dunedin, New Zealand.

This article reviews the scientific literature on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion. The methodology and results of studies carried out over the last twenty-two years are examined critically. The unanimous consensus is that abortion does not cause deleterious psychological effects. Women most likely to show subsequent problems are those who were pressured into the operation against their own wishes, either by relatives or because their pregnancy had medical or foetal contraindications. Legislation which restricts abortion causes problems for women with unwanted pregnancies and their doctors. It is also unjust, as it adversely most affects lower socio-economic class women.

PIP: A review of empirical studies on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion published since 1965 revealed no evidence of adverse effects. On the other hand, this review identified widespread methodological problems--improper sampling, lack of data on women's previous psychiatric history, a scarcity of prospective study designs, a lack of specified follow-up times or evaluation procedures, and a failure to distinguish between legal, illegal, and spontaneous abortions--that need to be addressed by psychiatric epidemiologists. Despite these methodological weaknesses, all 34 studies found significant improvement rather than deterioration in mental status after induced abortion. There was also a high degree of congruity in terms of predictors of adverse reactions after abortion--ambivalence about the procedure, a history of psychosocial instability, poor or absent family ties, psychiatric illness at the time of the pregnancy termination, and negative attitudes toward abortion in the broader society. As expected, criminal abortion is more likely than legal abortion to be associated with guilt, and women who have been denied therapeutic abortions report significantly greater psychosocial difficulties than those who have been granted abortion on the grounds of their precarious mental health. Overall, the research clearly attests that abortion carried out at a woman's request has no deleterious psychiatric consequences. Problems arise only when the woman undergoes pregnancy termination as a result of pressure from others. Legislation that undermines the ability of the pregnant woman to assess herself the impact of an unwanted pregnancy on her future impedes mental health and should be opposed by the psychiatric profession.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1989 Dec;23(4):555-65
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2692552&query_hl=2

Psychological and social aspects of induced abortion.

Handy JA.

The literature concerning psychosocial aspects of induced abortion is reviewed. Key areas discussed are: the legal context of abortion in Britain, psychological characteristics of abortion-seekers, pre- and post-abortion contraceptive use, pre- and post-abortion counselling, the actual abortion and the effects of termination versus refused abortion. Women seeking termination are found to demonstrate more psychological disturbance than other women, however this is probably temporary and related to the short-term stresses of abortion. Inadequate contraception is frequent prior to abortion but improves afterwards. Few women find the decision to terminate easy and most welcome opportunities for non-judgemental counselling. Although some women experience adverse psychological sequelae after abortion the great majority do not. In contrast, refused abortion often results in psychological distress for the mother and an impoverished environment for the ensuing offspring.
Br J Clin Psychol. 1982 Feb;21 (Pt 1):29-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7126943&query_hl=2

[neoblues]

80. A few Key Words for you

"can result in"... so stated based only on personal (anecdotal) evidence from knowing several women who've had abortions; it was hard on them and continued to bother them for decades. Now then, I'm very pleased to hear that studies have shown this either isn't very severe or occurs in the minority of cases. One other small thing to note is that there's no real need to use a locomotive to squash a small bug; that is, even just several of your references would have made your point, but, that is your perogative.

[REP]

205. Anecdote Is Not The Plural of Data

Since you were ignorant of the data, I merely provided it for you. Now you know. And you're welcome! Oh, and if you read the studies, women who were troubled *before* becoming pregnant were the ones who were troubled after having an abortion.

[tkmorris]

63. K&R'ed

I like your perspective on this, and I suspect it's one a lot of us share.

I don't like abortions. I don't like them one little bit. Nonetheless keeping it legal matters a great deal to me. Thus by default I am "Pro-choice".

However, like you, I believe the biggest problems are the ones that make anyone ever consider an abortion as an option. Many women lead lives of quiet desperation, to borrow from Thoreau, and in many cases no matter how unpalatable an abortion is to them it nonetheless seems a more viable option than adding a baby to the social equation they are already unable to handle. We CAN decrease the abortion rates dramatically simply by addressing the issues many women face when dealing with an unintended pregnancy.

Please post your Manifesto when you get it hammered out. I'd like to read it.

[aasleka]

65. Looking out my belly button window

I could not make this complex and difficult decision for you. This is a choice that is between you and your lover.
If you choose not to include your lover in the choice that is your perogative, I wouldn't handle it that way but again, I am not in anyones shoes but my own.
I don't think anyone is out there cheering the loss of a pregnancy.

[REP]

66. What Will You Do With Women Like Me?

You cannot remove the "obstacles" to me becoming a mother without first giving me a lobotomy - and there's no guarantee that'd work. I simply do not want to be a mother, ever, period end of discussion. It's not because of money, job, my partner - it's because I do not want to be a mother. If I become pregnant, I will abort, Period, end of discussion.

Birth control fails. Every single method, even used perfectly every time, fails. Tubal ligations, which I've had, fail. Endometerial ablations, which I've also had, fail (mine just two months ago). The Pill fails. Every method has a failure rate. A woman using contraceptive is saying "No" to pregnancy - even when it fails.

Think I'm a weirdo? An aberration? Think again. 20%+ of US women choose to remain childfree (this does not include the infertile). That's a whole lot of women you'll have to lobotomize and re-educate. I do not share your belief, but I will refrain from telling you exactly where you can cram it.

[Scout]

67. and me....

I simply do not want to be a mother, ever, period end of discussion. It's not because of money, job, my partner - it's because I do not want to be a mother.

I'm married, have a home, a job, a life that I like just fine thanks. Childfree is what my husband and I have both chosen (we had already made the choice for ourselves before we ever met).

I've been lucky and my birth control has not failed over the years, and now I've had a tubal (still a 1 in 300 chance of pregnancy). We are in our forties, and there is no way in hell we would want a child now. And no way in hell do I want to be pregnant.

[Arkansas Granny]

74. What you say about women choosing to remain childless is

absolutely true. However, the women I know who have had abortions did not make that choice for that reason, but for financial reasons and lack of a stable, nurturing relationship with either partner or family. Most of them already had children or had children after their abortions when their circumstances changed.

Abortion is a highly charged emotional issue for many of us. I've never had an abortion and can't imagine the circumstances that would have led me to make that decision. However, I firmly believe that all women deserve the choice of planning when or whether to have children and that means leaving all options open to her attain that goal.

Trying to reduce the abortion rate doesn't necessarily equate to anti-choice.

[REP]

203. First, It's ChildFREE

I and women like me are not "less" anything because we are nulliparous. People who want children but cannot are "childless." People who don't have and never wanted children are "childfree."

Second, just because a woman has child(ren) doesn't mean she wants more. Even if she has money and a partner, her family may be complete with the children she already has. I don't understand how anybody can not understand that.

Reproductive choices are best left to the individual. Noi matter how well meaning, any other plan will always fail individuals.

[WinkyDink]

95. ITA.

[sandnsea]

104. And that's the "horror"

Women rejecting motherhood!?! The horror of it, it's an abomination, blasphemy. Why, if women reject motherhood, it'll be like they're the same as men and everything. Oxygen.. where's the oxygen.. men can't... breathe...

:rofl:

[El Fuego]

119. And if they're having sex out of wedlock, they must be PUNISHED

by being forced to bear children. That'll teach 'em for being shameless hussies!

[w4rma]

68. I agree, exactly. (nt)

[Maddy McCall]

72. You are PRO-CHOICE, but you just found out why.

Nothing new in your OP. You just received an education about the complexities of what being pro-choice is all about.

Sounds like, before, you really had no idea.

[knitter4democracy]

73. That sounds like something I could agree with.

That's what infuriates me about pro-lifers--they should also be against the death penalty and for national health care, living wages, and wage parity.

[ananda]

75. As long as we keep the option for abortion..

.. safe and legal, without proscription or limits, I'm also pro-life.

My problem is that the rightwing is dinking at abortion rights,
limiting access in really sinister ways that seem to sound good
to centrists who want to just feel good about it all.

No, the option of abortion does not feel good, but it certainly
must be an option if this society is to support women and
their ownership of their own bodies, including the right not
to be slaves.

Sue

[EvilAL]

76. WELL

Maybe the next coming of Jesus was gonna be an incestous/rape birth, can't take that chance anything is possible.

[Maru Kitteh]

140. So it's your belief that God is feeble and ingnorant?

I have to tell you, I have more faith in God than that.

Also, I really think you need to look up the terms immaculate conception, and point to where it indicates in the Bible that the second coming will involve any conception at all?

[Warren DeMontague]

187. Jesus could be coming back as an old-growth forest or a polar ice cap

In which case I guess we're in trouble, there, Jethro.

You know, anything is possible.

[Clark2008]

77. It's a great sentiment, but abortion will never be completely

unncessary.

[Dawgs]

83. Good for you...

I don't agree with everything you say; I don't like your term real pro-life at all. You need a new one.

But, you are right that Democrats lose heavily on this issue. There are many, many people that won't ever listen to the Democrat party until they understand that Democrats aren't FOR abortion.

I wish all Democrats realized this.
;-)

[blondeatlast]

84. Here's a time-honored group that agrees with you in many ways.

Since you say you want to organize some events, you may want to contact them--they are the real deal:

Catholics for a Free Choice
http://www.cath4choice.org/

[SidDithers]

87. You can call it whatever you want...

but unless it includes the ability for a woman to make her own medical decisions, to be free to terminate any unwanted pregnancy for any reason, then it's anti-choice.

Sid

[kikiek]

90. I would bet the vast majority of those who are against women's choice are

even more so against social welfare. If they have the choice it won't be either one, and their disdain for welfare is even greater than for abortion.

[Pavulon]

91. Toughest Issue around

I am inclined to make birth control available to any person of any age who wants it. Make counseling available to people who need it.

Education would not only help our society, it would reduce the number of abortions and unhealthy babies.

In the end, however, I support a womans right to an abortion.
It is her body so she should have ultimate control of it.

[cmkramer]

92. That's close to the DLC position

They're pro-choice but believe that instead of focusing obsessively on abortion, we should also look into the reasons for unwanted pregnancies and also do the things you are advocating.

It's something people on both sides of the issue can agree on too.

[BurtWorm]

93. In my opinion the phrase "pro-life" is empty.

Is anyone pro-death? "Pro-life" is a phrase for propaganda purposes only.

Of course this makes the phrase "pro-choice" equally open to that charge.

A new, more honest language is needed. Reproductive rights works for me.

[WinkyDink]

94. Pro-choice is 100% incompatible with any fudging, and so is Anti-Choice.

[ScreamingMeemie]

96. I am completely against abortion...

...for myself.

[mmonk]

97. One of the reasons and results of putting radicals on the bench

that are undermining the constitution and established law has been the abortion issue. Outlawing abortion will drive it to amateurs and organized crime and put people in custody that shouldn't really be there. That's why I can't go with the pro-life movement. I'm losing constitutional rights and my disabled son is losing basic rights with the "pro-life" judges that are making it to the bench.

[Jason9612]

98. Actually, I am against abortion...

But it has nothing to do with being against women or anything like that.

The main reason I'm against abortion, which has NOTHING to do with the bible, is because I think that it's EXTREMELY unfair to that unborn fetus that's being thrown away.

I think that people should take responsibility for their actions in all honesty. However, in cases of rape or molestation, then abortion is completly understandable.

[kikiek]

101. Then don't have one (if you could). That is why it is called choice. Don't

decide for me though. And where do you draw the line for making people responsible for their "choices"? Very selective reasoning. The person who smoked doesn't get treatmefor their COPD or cancer when it develops? The same with the ones who drink alcohol? How about the person who was driving a little too fast and lost control of their car? No insurance coverage for you!

[sandnsea]

105. Blastocysts pass in menstrual cycles EVERY DAY

It's pefectly natural. What about all of those "unborn fetuses"??? If "God" meant for every blastocyst to be holy, would "He" have created such a precarious method of contraception??

What you object to is women chooing to reject motherhood because otherwise you're saying every single woman is a participant in the deaths, yes multiple, of their "unborn fetuses". That makes no sense.

[mac56]

115. Do you feel the same way about masturbation?

Think of the potential unborn fetuses!

:sarcasm:

[WinkyDink]

122. But whether mistake, rape, or molestation, the FETUS remains

"innocent", if that's one's normal view of the fetus.

I.e., ANY "acceptable" reason for abortion offered as a "hedge" results in exactly the same thing as a no-reason-needed abortion---if you're the fetus.

[Warren DeMontague]

170. You DO understand that your sperm is alive, too? n/t

[Scout1071]

102. They aren't "pro-life", they are "pro-birth."

They really don't give a shit about the babies after they are born.

[valerief]

110. No, they're really Pro-Pre-Birth. Pro-Zygote, Pro-Embryo, Pro-Fetus.

But Pro-Life? That's Apres-Pre-Birth, so the timing is off.

I want to know who's Anti-Pre-Conception. You know, people who are against people who hoard their eggs and sperm and don't make babies even though they could. That would include all the clergy and most people most of the time.

[nicknameless]

136. They're anti-women's rights.

It's all about oppression. I don't believe that they care any more about dividing cells than they care about born females.

[valerief]

143. Oh, I know. I just like to nail down their twisted logic.

[chookie]

211. Agreed

Although I personally view abortion as undesirable (sorry, y'all!), I do part company with the hypocrisy of the "Pro-Life" ideology which, as you suggest, regard the fetus as a kind of abstraction -- something to beat people over the head with -- when they do not care if pregnant women have access to proper nutrition and health care, nor do they care about the baby after it is born.

[dalaigh lllama]

106. Your basic premise is spot on

I've always thought the pro-choice stance could use a little re-framing. After all, once a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy, none of the choices are good. I have known women who have aborted, given their babies up for adoption, and kept the babies as they went forward into a life of more poverty. Each of them has regrets -- the woman who had the abortion is now fiercely anti-abortion; the woman who gave her baby up is pro-choice; the woman who kept her baby might have the least self-imposed guilt, but I have seen her struggle financially and socially for years, which seems to me too high a price to pay. I've always thought the best approach would be preventing the unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

Yes, I'm a firm believer in effective contraception and sex education to reduce the odds of any woman having to face these choices. I guess I'd call this stance Pro Woman.

Edited to add:
I am also a FIRM believer of keeping abortion legal; I just think anything that can be done to help women not have to face such choices should get more emphasis.

[Karenina]

133. !!!Pro WOMAN!!!

Now THAT sounds like a workable meme to me!!!

PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!!PRO WOMAN!!! Yup! I like it.

[hyphenate]

107. It sounds like you have found something

that works well for you--good luck with your lover and I hope that she inspires you to greater heights!

In my own mind, I will always use the term of "pro-choice" simply because that makes it an individual decision. I agree that we really need to have more education on the subject available to most, but with the narrow-minded mentality that keeps all things sexual kept in the closet, it is unlikely that real reforms in the area of personal sexuality will come anytime soon. As a result, those women who might need to make choices the most are actually the last ones to get that ability.

It is also a matter of religious background--many who are Catholics, for example, will never have an abortion, even if it is the product of a rape. In fact, some of these women are more inclined to be less able to deal with the burden of pregnancy, and have limited options available to them as a result of their beliefs.

Education might be the way to go, but we're often talking about women who don't even have a basic education in general. And some might very well be borderline mentally handicapped to the point where comprehension suffers as a result.

I've always said that the choice is that of the one who is bearing the fetus. Many of us might never have an abortion, and that's great! But there are some for whom the choice is tougher, and who have come to the abortion decision as a result of eliminating all the other choices. It's impossible for most of us to put ourselves into someone else's shoes and walk that mile of understanding, and we all must decide what suits our life best.

[Asgaya Dihi]

108. I admire the guts

It's not easy to take a unpopular position in a debate like this, too often you end up getting it from both sides. There's an awful lot of people out there who are more in the middle but most of what we hear makes sound like it's all religious nut jobs on one side and all people who hate babies on the other. It isn't helpful to the debate and we could use more translators of sorts between them. Attacking the causes and trying to reduce the numbers through helping people instead of restricting them seems a decent enough option.

I won't state an opinion on abortion, mostly because I'm not a woman and don't have to make that choice myself, but also because I really don't have an answer that covers all the concerns, not enough to make me happy with it at least. But, I have known a lot of people over time on both the right and the left and it's not really a clear issue. There are atheists who hesitate, and religious who support abortion, if we'd spend more time asking people about their feelings instead of telling them who they are after just a few words we'd be a hell of a lot better off. They often aren't what we assume, and friendly fire is common.

[omega minimo]

111. Takes true guts to stand up for Women's Rights and support Pro-Choice

rather than playing lots of word games and running in circles wondering if we're using the right "frame" to not alienate Whoever.

THAT takes guts.

Your moderate tone is truly appreciated as is your point.

"There are atheists who hesitate, and religious who support abortion, if we'd spend more time asking people about their feelings instead of telling them who they are after just a few words we'd be a hell of a lot better off. They often aren't what we assume, and friendly fire is common."

This is sage advice in a discussion where we discuss how we FEEL and BELIEVE about reproductive health decisions AS IF THEY ARE OWN DECISIONS AND OUR OWN MORALITY OR BELIEF SYSTEM IS INVOLVED.

However, on this board, 9 times out 10, DUers get hung up on their own POV as if its relevant to the broader social issue-- and FORGET TO DISCUSS the rights of women to privacy, sovereignty of their bodies, reproductive health options and freedom from harrassment for fulfilling those rights.

THAT sort of guts will FULLY SUPPORT women and women's rights, including to make decisions that individuals may or may not make for themselves.

That support includes the social and economic goals that the OP says have swayed him toward more semantic games, in the hopes of enticing thoughtful, moral, misguided Republicans to see the light.

DU loves the diversions and the distractions and the "framing" games and VERY RARELY takes a gutsy, full-on WE SUPPORT WOMEN'S RIGHTS positiion.

When that happens, it is usually promptly shot down.

It takes guts to keep trying to entice thoughtful, moral, misguided DUers to see the light.

:hi:

"...we could use more translators of sorts between them."

The TRANSLATOR tries to draw the distinction between what you believe for your own life and what you support for the rights of others. Pretty simple really. Especially since the privacy issues will someday bite men (more directly) on the ass too-- THEN more folks will get the concept.

"Attacking the causes and trying to reduce the numbers through helping people instead of restricting them seems a decent enough option."

That statement in support of women and women's rights is just lukewarm enough to possibly entice more of the timid, well-meaning people here. :evilgrin:

The Corporate Democrats lead the way in this semantic, mind-game playing and avoidance of EVER uttering the guts term WOMEN'S RIGHTS. But how much ya wanna be the whole bullshit game came from the slimy mind of Rove/Luntz Repugs?

[Asgaya Dihi]

116. Actually

the translator comment was meant more to be in terms of communication outside of the extremes we always hear about rather than between what we want for ourselves and others. To hear the sides talk about each other you'd think they were talking another language sometimes.

The rest I won't take issue with, my attitudes on this stuff is largely driven by my own experiences fighting against the drug war and prison growth so others will look at things in their own way. In mine, I deal with those who are doing harm all the time and most think they are doing the right thing, they just want to protect their kids and never really saw the other side of the issue. There's not a lot of us out there telling them about it :( Given the progress I've made with some people in that issue it makes me wonder if it's an approach that could be tried elsewhere. Lots of well intentioned people out there working at cross purposes and assuming things about both issues and their opponents, it can't help.

[omega minimo]

117. "The true meaning of life......."

"The true meaning of life is to plant trees under whose shade you do not expect to sit." --Nelson Henderson

"......the translator comment was meant more to be in terms of communication outside of the extremes we always here about rather than between what we want for ourselves and others. "

HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOO! :hi: PLEASE CONSIDER that THAT IS that IS the pivot point of the EXTREMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

"The TRANSLATOR tries to draw the distinction between what you believe for your own life and what you support for the rights of others. Pretty simple really."

If enough people Get That, they can have their moral/personal discussions about what THEY would do regarding reproductive choice in THEIR life (maybe spend less time here on that) and have social/political discussions about what THEY do to support the privacy and health rights of other Americans.

See? :think:

(why is this so HARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd) :cry: :wtf:

As for the rest of my post, you say "The rest I won't take issue with, my attitudes on this stuff is largely driven by my own experiences....."

That's the point I guess. You read it as something to "take issues with" or ignore--

and its a common inability of folks to take an objective social point of view when "my attitudes on this stuff is largely driven by my own experiences."

And that's the even bigger disconnect right there. For some people and *SOME* men, the objective social point of view is unfamiliar enough and the "attitudes largely driven by their own experiences" prevent them from relating to women's issues as if they were their own.

[Asgaya Dihi]

120. Not really

I know you don't mean to, but what you're doing is more what I was talking about. Rather than taking what I said at face value you tell me what I mean by it, I read it as issues to ignore. Really? I said that?

The world is full of issues, there's the war, abortion, free speech and press, and so on. Who covers all of them all the time? We've made a choice to ignore the rest as unworthy somehow? Don't ascribe meaning that wasn't stated, that's why we can't get past the start of these types of debates.

The fight I'm in DOES cover women, and men, and children, and this nation and the rest of them. It's a matter of the most good to the most people, where we can best devote our time. The drug industry was at 400 billion dollar a year in the 1990's, it's likely grown by now and that was about 8% of all international trade. We're facing weapons bought with it in one nation after another around the world and the ones that don't come after us do rebel against their own and support crime and disruption. Our death rates for hard drugs have climbed by several times rather than dropping, and lifetime use is up rather than down. We've increased the size of our prisons and jails by over 6 times in size and created criminals out of kids who made a poor choice on the wrong corner. We've made our prisons into nightmares that look an awful lot like what happened with the abuse in Iraq in some cases, and it doesn't even make the news most of the time.

Don't make quick assumptions about people. It's a matter of the most good for the largest numbers, stopping the largest amount of damage possible. We can't do it all every day, so we hit the spots that'll do the most good.

[omega minimo]

123. Try again

#117. 
"The true meaning of life is to plant trees under whose shade you do not expect to sit." --Nelson Henderson

"......the translator comment was meant more to be in terms of communication outside of the extremes we always here about rather than between what we want for ourselves and others. "

HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOO! PLEASE CONSIDER that THAT IS that IS the pivot point of the EXTREMES!!!? "The TRANSLATOR tries to draw the distinction between what you believe for your own life and what you support for the rights of others. Pretty simple really."

:hi: (I said PLEASE CONSIDER-- I DID NOT TELL YOU WHAT YOU MEAN ABOUT ANYTHING-- SEEMS THEY ARE YOUR "QUCK ASSUMPTIONS" HERE)

If enough people Get That, they can have their moral/personal discussions about what THEY would do regarding reproductive choice in THEIR life (maybe spend less time here on that) and have social/political discussions about what THEY do to support the privacy and health rights of other Americans. See?

:hi: (I SAID "IF" "SEE?" I KNOW YOU DON'T MEAN TO, BUT YOU ARE REINFORCING "IT ALL ABOUT ME" CLICHE IN THESE DISCUSSIONS)

As for the rest of my post, you say "The rest I won't take issue with, my attitudes on this stuff is largely driven by my own experiences....."

"I read it as issues to ignore. Really? I said that?"

:hi: (YES!!!!!! "The rest I won't take issue with" That's what you said.)

"The world is full of issues, there's the war, abortion, free speech and press, and so on. Who covers all of them all the time? We've made a choice to ignore the rest as unworthy somehow? Don't ascribe meaning that wasn't stated, that's why we can't get past the start of these types of debates."

:hi: (I did not ascribe this meaning, I quoted that you "would not take issue with" and you ignored the post, "rather than take it at face value" and respond to it. YOU are "ascribing meaning here through misinterpretation. Another cliche pops up "Pot calls kettle black.")

That's the point I guess. You read it as something to "take issues with" or ignore--

:hi: (That is true-- except there is a typo in the quote OF YOU! which may have caused your misinterpretation) You dismissed the bulk of the post with "the rest I won't take issue with" -- the only "meaning I ascribed" was the inference that if you addressed it At All it would be to Take Issue With It!

and its a common inability of folks to take an objective social point of view when "my attitudes on this stuff is largely driven by my own experiences." And that's the even bigger disconnect right there. For some people and *SOME* men, the objective social point of view is unfamiliar enough and the "attitudes largely driven by their own experiences" prevent them from relating to women's issues as if they were their own.

:hi: That last bit is clearly in general terms, about "folks" and "some people" and "*SOME* men" --not ALL ABOUT YOU.

Another one of these discussions that turns out being pointless, even with someone presenting a moderate approach such as yourself ( :hi: THAT'S a COMPLIMENT)

Thank you.

As for my post, there is a true dilemma :dilemma: /discrepancy/interesting-point there that will remain uncommented-- this exchange is yet another example of how people put their egos before the issues. That "objective social point of view" is the moderate point that we must find to achieve the goals in the thread-- or even to have a worthwhile discussion about it.

Thanks again. And good luck with you work :thumbsup:

[Asgaya Dihi]

124. Well, we won't agree but at least it's polite ;)

I read what you said fine, thanks for repeating it though ;)

I suppose ego is all a matter of perspective. For me it drives me nuts to see pot activists talking about rights, but when we mention that it's how we deal with the other drugs that cause more damage they don't want anything to do with the subject. They don't care about rights, they just want to get high. The average cop is easier to talk about legalization and regulation with than it is with some pot activists. Same with a lot of others, our corner of the world is more important than most, at least to us.

Seems to me I stated a fairly simple thing to start this, it takes guts to stand in the middle and we could do with more asking people who they are rather than with telling them. Somehow that turned into several posts with you, over I'm not sure exactly what. That I don't put the same priority on this issue as you do? That I don't see it from your perspective? I'm not sure myself. I do appreciate that you've been polite and such, but what seems like a simple thing turns into a pain in the ass more often than not.

I don't see ego in what I've argued here, though I guess I'm as prone to it as anyone and might not see what you do. Seems to me I've been more on the defensive, mostly for stating a view. Could have asked me about things rather than assuming. Take issue with, as in debate or discuss, clarify, or any damned thing else you'd like. Why does it have to mean confrontation? Hell, it meant nothing but it isn't worth the debate, which I don't seem to have avoided anyway. Oh well.

The world is full of issues, I looked for the one that caused the most damage. If you can explain how anything else causes more I'd shift in a heartbeat. This one single choice, let's have a drug war, has killed people in gang wars, driven newly single mothers into poverty with no way to raise or feed their kids, has financed death squads and revolution as well as many of the suicide bombers that we face. It has decimated large chunks of our inner cities and the black population in particular with one young black man in eight between the ages of 25-29 being behind bars as we speak. Now. Then we put roadblocks in front of them with loss of benefits, loss of education, and a criminal record and wonder why so many go back behind bars again. All for one single choice, one that we can change today if we wanted to in favor of regulation, let's have a drug war.

I don't have time for ego, if you can show me where it is I'll kill it in a heartbeat. Personally, I think a lot of others could tie their issues into mine and do a lot more good in the end. Many are related, but they are fighting the symptoms rather than the cause.

Been nice talking with you, thanks for the polite discussion.

[omega minimo]

126. Simple

"....the distinction between what you believe for your own life and what you support for the rights of others. Pretty simple really."

"If enough people Get That, they can have their moral/personal discussions about what THEY would do regarding reproductive choice in THEIR life (maybe spend less time here on that) and have social/political discussions about what THEY do to support the privacy and health rights of other Americans."




And because NOT enough people Get That, and because you misinterpreted everything I said and now say you "read it fine" after (over)detailed clarification and somehow are still confused ("several posts with you, over I'm not sure exactly what") I give up. :hi: Politely. And after all that (over) clarification about what you misinterpreted, you say "I read it fine" and "Could have asked me about things rather than assuming." THAT"S ego.

"Seems to me I stated a fairly simple thing to start this, it takes guts to stand in the middle and we could do with more asking people who they are rather than with telling them."

You did. And I responded to that with a suggestion for where that point of understanding might come. Somehow that evaded you-- it's like it's not even there. (I see now the comment about "real guts" may have seemed challenging. That's OK-- all my ideas are :evilgrin: )

"I don't see ego in what I've argued here, though I guess I'm as prone to it as anyone and might not see what you do. Seems to me I've been more on the defensive, mostly for stating a view. Could have asked me about things rather than assuming. Take issue with, as in debate or discuss, clarify, or any damned thing else you'd like. Why does it have to mean confrontation? Hell, it meant nothing but it isn't worth the debate, which I don't seem to have avoided anyway. Oh well."

"Defensive"? :rofl: There's another DU Classic Cliche. I thought I was picking up on what you said and continuing a discussion. "On the defensive, mostly for stating a view." Not Really.

"Take issue with, as in debate or discuss, clarify, or any damned thing else you'd like. Why does it have to mean confrontation?"

That was my question. "Take issue" with as in "I won't take issue with" -- "I'll ignore what you said." You chose not to "debate or discuss, clarify, or any damned thing else you'd like." Nuthin. "I won't take issue with it" NUFF SAID! :rofl:


I gotta ego now
:yoiks:

[Asgaya Dihi]

129. Not bad ;)

Good comeback, but still a silly debate ;)

There's a difference between it not being your issue and it not being an issue, not having time to take on everything isn't the same as ignoring them. Yes, I understood you, I just didn't agree with the way you want to characterize things. But it wasn't worth the debate, and it still isn't. If your topic is abortion, does that mean that you don't care about black people because you aren't fighting the prison system? Or that you don't care about wars and famine because you aren't fighting those?

Come on, we should know better. There's enough people out there who really do want to fight about the issues without us picking at each other.

[omega minimo]

131. Yes that is a silly debate

expecially since it is not what I said and is based entirely on your misintrepretation. The details are spelled out beyond redundancy if you want to reread. No, you did not understand me. If you were belligerent, I might think you were "missing the point on purpose"-- another cliche in these things.

Or maybe you are:
"Come on, we should know better. There's enough people out there who really do want to fight about the issues without us picking at each other."

I fell for it.



The point is simple, but not easy. The ideas are challenging, as are the issues.

Words are hard.

[Asgaya Dihi]

132. Interesting take on it

So let's get this right. I spent years researching the drug war, the prison system, months amounting to nearly a year on this board trying to get people active on the issue, made friends with the guys at LEAP, all so I could get you to fall for something.

Makes sense to me :eyes:

Why don't we just settle for we got off on the wrong foot or something? You stated things in a way that I didn't much agree with, and you took exception to something I said. If neither of us see much there that's really worth the debate, then wtf are we still doing this for? You accuse me of ego, it's all my fault based on my interpretation, but you couldn't have said anything in a better way? All the little emoticons weren't just a bit sarcastic and condescending?

Let's just call it and move on. We rubbed each other the wrong way, but we're both trying to do good work. Just on different issues.

[omega minimo]

144. "All the little emoticons weren't just a bit sarcastic and condescending?"

THAT's a NEW one! :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl:

[Asgaya Dihi]

149. Took you a while ;)

You should know what I mean, and I'd think you did before you posted. If I had come off at you with "HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOO!" that wouldn't have seemed a bit much to you?

(why is this so HARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd) :cry: :wtf:

That was your line too, same post. The next wasn't much different. I could have asked you in my last post if ego wasn't a point for you to consider instead of just pointing out that it's not likely I shaped my last years just to zing you, and I could have got sarcastic with you in return a lot earlier. If I seemed annoyed, I was. Just because you don't work on the same issues I do that doesn't mean you don't care about injustice in the system, or that you don't care about black people, or whatever. It just means your time is full with other causes.

It seems pretty disingenuous for you to try to pin the same thing on others when you know it doesn't suit you. So I wasn't what you assumed at first, or we just got off on the wrong foot, or whatever. If I was looking for a fight you'd have had one a lot sooner, but don't expect someone to keep backing up just because they'd prefer to avoid one. If I made any mistake here, so did you. Now let's act like adults and move on.

[omega minimo]

159. You read with an open mind or a closed mind-- your choice

With an open mind, it's easier to not take things personally that aren't.

Sense of humor helps too.

And welcome to DU.

[Asgaya Dihi]

163. I do try to, and I asked where I was wrong

You didn't offer a better option to deal with more damage than what I'm doing now, and I don't know where the ego angle came from other than I thought what I was already doing mattered.

I'm not a kid, I'm in my 40's with a grown son of my own and this isn't exactly the first time this stuff has come up. I really didn't need any lessons, if you've had that trouble with others in the past I'm sorry but I don't see why I needed the lecture over it. Are we sure I'm the one that needed an open mind?

Sorry if things got out of hand after that, and thanks for the welcome. I'm really not here to pick at anyone else's causes, wouldn't be helpful to my own cause to make enemies. Don't need picked at myself either though ;)

[Cleita]

112. So you are still pro-choice..

That's what pro-choice is about, being able to choose if you want to complete or end a pregnancy. Also, it means that contraception information and contraceptives be available so that abortion is in reality rare.

[Orsino]

113. I see no point in bickering...

...over the restrictions we might put into place, someday, when comprehensive sex ed is taught and contraceptives are widely available and all god's chillun got shoes.

For now, I don't support forcing anyone to become a parent, and am not interested in hearing out anyone who wants to chip away at that liberty.

[Festivito]

114. "Pro-life" has been pro-criminalization of abortions. The question is...

do you want it criminalized.

Otherwise, you want it safe, legal and rare. Rare to the point of nonexistent, unnecessary, even indicative of building a wall of separation between pregnancy and wanting or needing an abortion.

Let us live as free people, building our associated free responsibilities, not by law, but by freedom.

[AuntPatsy]

118. Its all smoke and mirrors you know, Choice is a womens' period

[Seabiscuit]

121. I haven't the foggiest idea where you think you stand.

If you support the right to abortion, as you say you do, you are, by definition, "pro-choice". That position certainly encourages people to attempt to avoid the need for abortion. And no one is "pro abortion".

How, in your mind, would you think abortion would be "made unnecessary"?

[Th1onein]

125. I have been pro-life for many years.

I agree with you. Pro-life means pro-life in all areas. Pro-life should mean that you are also against the death penalty and against any and all wars. I also think, though, that if you are going to be truly pro-life, you ought to do things to make abortion less prevalent--such as educating people who are most likely to need to resort to abortion, about birth control methods. And, when a child is conceived in circumstances that are not optional for it's birth, pro-life means providing those optional circumstances, such as housing, food, medical, and educational opportunities for the parent. You can't be pro-life and be against those services meant to assist poor people in times of need. The life of a child is important both before it comes out of the womb and after. If you expect a woman not to resort to abortion, you need to also support her after her child is born.

[Greyhound]

130. It was not clear to me where you stand on forcing women to

bear an unwanted pregnancy. Can a woman get an abortion if it is what she wants?

[Karenina]

135. It's always so edifying somehow

when men write MANIFESTOS about how "society" should handle women's bodies... NOT.

[nicknameless]

137. The issue of reproductive choice is a woman’s personal decision –-

and absolutely NONE of your effing business.

What obnoxious arrogance to presume to use women’s health and lives as a political pawn.

[riderinthestorm]

138. The issue of reproductive choice is MY personal decision

and absolutely none of anyone else's effing business.

What obnoxious arrogance to presume to use my health and life as a political pawn.

A manifesto???!!! Wow!

Frankly, I don't care who we piss off with this position - it's the right one. Just as being against slavery was the right position, and being for civil rights was the right position.... History will bear this out and anyone who is trying to compromise core privacy values is going down the wrong path.

[LittleClarkie]

147. I'm sort of pro-life pro-choice

Given the choice, I wouldn't pick abortion (I don't think, never been tested)

But I'm not going to tell another woman what to do or think.

It's a valid position I think, because what does pro-choice mean if you can't choose to be pro-life.

Nobody is cheering "Yea abortion." The freepers make it sound like we celebrate each one or something. But I think many would agree with Bill Clinton "safe, legal, and rare". Ironically the prolife prez has upped the hopelessness factor, resulting in more abortions. Under Clinton, people had more hope for the future, and so fewer abortions ensued.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

148. I can feel your passion about this

My comment is that we spend too much time and energy debating the terms: pro-life, pro-choice, pro-death, anti-life. We seem to find the need to neatly categorize this most conflicting of all situations. Biologically we are here to reproduce. Biologically we are not successful unless we do. (don't flame me, I'm talking biology) Therefore, when we are faced with a pregnancy that is dangerous, inconvenient, unwanted, despised, etc., we tend to react like the animals we are...with our emotions.

I applaud your attempts to make life for children better. No abortion is a joyful thing. Relief, gratitude, but not joy. And for as many folks as there are in this world, there are that many feelings about the procedure, and for a variety of reasons... not all altruistic. But then again, when you are faced with a problem pregnancy, altruism is at the bottom of the list. That said, abortion has, sadly, also become a weapon that a divided populace holds in each other's faces. It's a loaded weapon and it has implications not just for the individual woman who chooses to have or not have an abortion, but also for our society, for our species.

When I encounter someone who is adamant, violently adamant, about either side, it is a clue to me that the person has real trouble with understanding the plural nature of life, of seeing in grays, of acknowledging the yin and the yang. Tere is no right answer to this complex situation and one size will never fit all.

[Patsy Stone]

151. You are free to believe what you choose

However, your spiritual beliefs (or mine) should not ever be allowed to influence the law of the land.

[susanna]

198. Absolutely true.

Well said.

[catzies]

155. Would you vote to overturn Roe & make them illegal, yes or no?

I await your answer.

[Warren DeMontague]

162. The great thing about not liking abortion is- YOU don't have to have one.

I think I understand what the OP is trying to get at in principle, but this needs to be said:

I don't know what kind of mental illness afflicts much of this planet that so many people think they need to make everyone else's fucking decisions, moral and otherwise, for them. Shit, wanna come over to my house in the morning, tell me what to wear and pick out my breakfast, while you're at it?

What other people do with their own bodies isn't really anybody's business but their own.

(That's why they're in there, and you're in you. If you were meant to be controlling their body, you'd be inside their fucking head, perched on top of their shoulders, underneath their hat, now, wouldn't you?)

That said, I have a several point plan for people (like "real pro-lifers") interested in reducing the numbers of surgical abortions in this country:

Support a SPHC system, a liveable minimum wage, and a REAL social safety net.

Support fact-based sex ed and contraceptive availability in schools. OTC availability for oral contraceptives. Increased funding for new and more effective means of birth control.

Expose the hypocritical agenda of the so-called "pro-life" movement, which has as its various true aims the criminalization of all birth control, gov't/religious control over people's sex lives, and the institution of a theocracy in this country.

[treestar]

166. With birth control, I always wonder why abortion does not

become a moot point. Then I realize they are using it as an issue to whip up emotions. It's a distraction.

The motive for abortion is gone. The stigma of out of wedlock motherhood is gone. It does not "ruin" any woman's life anyway.

[Warren DeMontague]

168. Individual women need to be the ones making that call re: their own bodies

not Bill Frist, George Bush, Pat Robertson or any other big-hair televangelist.

[treestar]

172. Why not make a call to use birth control?

Really, and avoid all this?

Just make it moot.

[Lars39]

174. birth control fails

and medical conditions can crop up that make abortions necessary.

[Warren DeMontague]

185. And then there's the well-known MYOFB syndrome.

Which so many seem incapable of grasping.

[Lars39]

190. Hey!

I'm doing the best I can on 4 hours sleep. :D

[Warren DeMontague]

193. See, you must already HAVE kids.

Anyway, I didn't mean you.

Get some rest, dude! :hippie:

[Lars39]

195. I know.

My snark-o-meter's on the fritz. Can't do a good rant without 8-9 hours sleep. :D

[omega minimo]

196. ETA

:hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

183. Sure, use birth control. Why not?

(Notwithstanding the fact that most major "pro-life" organizations in this country are also across-the-board opposed to legal birth control, as well)

But speaking of control, people should understand that their own control ends where their body does.

I don't know what qualifies any of us to be issuing edicts to other sovereign human beings about what decisions they should make about and with their own bodies.

Get it?

[riderinthestorm]

169. 24 hours later and no sign of the OP

Interesting.

:crazy:

I also went and checked out a few Muslim websites and abortion is a-okay with Allah at the various sites I checked out. I'm not sure how the OP was influenced by his Muslim SO but I'm curious why he's suddenly "pro-life" after this kind of exposure.

[Warren DeMontague]

171. "Post n' run, Post n' run, another DU weekend

Post n' run!"

Hmm. Catchy ditty.

[Mr_Spock]

173. Well, that's nice - we'll add your opinion to the thousands of others here

I'm pro-choice - that means that it's the choice of the person who is pregnant, not me.

Simple. Elegant.

I'm all for making abortions rare, but that's a different issue IMHO.

You're conflation of these two issues is confusing to me.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

181. I believe most people who are pro choice also support the

point of view you describe.

Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.

Don't you love it when insurance covers viagra, but not birth control?

:crazy:

[susanna]

197. I guess I should be colored completely cynical.

and I am.

on edit: deleted some things I shouldn't say

[npincus]

208. there is no single "root cause of abortion"

Your heart is certainly in the right place, but simply by addressing the social ills which motivate some women to seek abortions, this cannot and will not ever adddress a reason many women/ girls find themselves with unwanted pregnancies: passion, heat-of-the-moment decision-making, carelessness, and the old "just this once". I personally know at least 3 women this happened to: women from middle-class to upper middle class backgrounds, educated, intelligent, informed on the subject of safe sex, with access to birth control that they just didn't use "that time". All are people who should have 'known better'. Further, some forms of birth control are not 100% effective. As long as sex and passion exist, pregnancy will occur and unfortunately, pregnancies that are not always wanted. Either you support a woman's legal right to have one, or you don't.

A "manifesto" purporting rid the world of abortion simply by making the world a better place is unrealistic to the max.



Instead of seeking an Authoritarian and Counter-Productive ban, we seek to attack the root cause of abortion, the reason(s) why women want and need to have an abortion in the first place, and thus remove the economic and social strain when it comes to having a baby."
- The Real Pro-Life Manifesto