Are people who believe Abortion should be legal but rare objectively anti-Choice?

[el_bryanto]

29 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Definitely
	0 (0%)
	Probably
	1 (3%)
	Maybe
	0 (0%)
	Probably not
	2 (7%)
	Definitely not
	23 (79%)
	I wish you would choose not to post such bullshit polls!
	2 (7%)
	I like to vote!
	1 (3%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[pscot]

1. No more than people who think guns should be regulated

are anti-gun.

[el_bryanto]

2. That Comparison doesn't work - because it is a rhetorical issue

A better comparison might be someone who says "I think guns should be regulated but available, but really, people should stop wanting personal firearms."

Bryant

[pscot]

4. Agree

The analogy is not exact.

[Mass]

3. Depends on the meaning of rare. If rare means that you improve general conditions (access to birth

control, economic condition, ...) so that fewer women are compelled to an abortion by the circumstances, no. This is on the contrary a very pro-choice position.

But if rare means that you limit right to abortion by arbitrary limits, the answer is different.

[bettyellen]

11. I think the word "rare" is problematic as it ignores how desperately more clinics are needed...

and less regulation (such as insisting women get counseling days before) in many states.
Those are the main issues we are fighting right now, and more clinics would mean more services to prevent pregnancy. Using rare betrays an emotional feeling or judgement that works against advocacy for more and better services, and serves no purpose except to express the personal feelings on the matter.

[Ms. Toad]

63. Believing that abortion should be rare

has nothing to do with imposing artificial barriers which make those rare abortions accessible. It has to do with providing resources and education so that couples who do not want to be parents do not accidentally become pregnant because they didn't have the means to prevent it, providing the support necessary so that women who might choose to carry their child and give that child up for adoption (or raise the child) don't decide to abort out of fear of social consequences, lack of resources for medical care during pregnancy, lack of resources to provide for that child once s/he is born, etc.

Just because the right wing has claimed a word doesn't mean we should cede its use to them. Not so long ago, the right wing claimed the word "marriage" and far too many people on our side were insisting we should just find a different word, and some places did. Friends in New Jersey who were only permitted a "civil union" - but were told it was the same thing are, at this moment while they are trying to salvage their right to file federal tax returns as a couple - finding out how costly the decision to cede the word "marriage" to mixed gender couples was.

[PeaceNikki]

77. It's not about 'ceding' the damn word. It's about not using a measure of frequency in policy or

legislative discussions. The frequency with which its used is a medical matter, not a legal one.

[Wounded Bear]

5. I'm pretty sure the majority of folks who are pro-choice...

also support strong women's healthcare in general and comprehensive contraceptive care and real education.

I know I do.

[el_bryanto]

6. There have been recent posts that suggest that focusing on those issues is a form of "slut shaming"

As if it is the person's fault that they need an abortion.

Bryant

[Jackpine Radical]

7. That's what I would mean by the concept of "legal but rare."

Contraception is a far better choice.

Reduction of the incidence of rape and other forms of sexual abuse is also important.

[leftstreet]

8. No one cares what people 'believe' women should do

FFS. 40 years after a legal ruling, and people are still clamoring to get their 'personal beliefs' about a woman's healthcare choices on record

[el_bryanto]

13. Well - i don't know about that

There is a 199 post thread entitled The "abortion should be rare" argument is thinly veiled paternalism. going on right now, and there was a 236 post thread entitled Does "abortion on demand and without apology" describe your approach to the issue? recently. Seems like this is a topic of discussion right now.

Bryant

[leftstreet]

14. Exactly

It's no one's business...but everyone's still making it their business

[el_bryanto]

16. So even discussing Abortion is making it my business?

[leftstreet]

21. Not if you're pondering getting one n/t

[el_bryanto]

24. I'm not really eligible I suppose - so I should preferably keep my opinions to myself on this issue.

[HappyMe]

23. Well then I suppose requests

for people to write their own or other state's representatives to uphold the right should no longer be welcome. Don't those requests make it everyone's business?

I think it is everyone's business to work to keep Roe v. Wade.

[leftstreet]

25. You miss the point

No state should be attempting to roll back abortion LAWS. But thanks to 40 years !! of national conversation on everyone's 'beliefs' about women's choices, here we are

But yes, of course, to your point

[HappyMe]

26. I don't think it would have been

possible to expect to have 40 years of silence on this. You cannot pick and choose which issues people should shut up about.

No matter how crappy it is, there will always be people against abortion. If everybody shuts up, then nobody can speak up for it.

[leftstreet]

30. The politicians made sure of that

I understand what you're saying

And yes it's entirely possible 'there will always be people against abortion.' That they have been able to influence legislation is what's horrifying.

Will we one day find ourselves polling each other on whether or not people of color should be allowed to vote?

[HappyMe]

33. It is sad that they have been able to influence legislation.

But to be fair, there are people that find it sad that we are able to influence legislators to pass gay marriage.

As bad as things may sound, one bunch of people shouldn't have complete say in everything - no matter how correct or boneheaded there viewpoint is.

We just have to keep up the fight.

[HappyMe]

9. No. I think that the rare

means that there is good, affordable gynecological care and that birth control is accessible and affordable also. In my opinion it has nothing to do with limiting access to abortion.

[el_bryanto]

10. You understand that's not what it means for everybody right? nt

[HappyMe]

12. Yes.

But I can only speak for myself.

[LittleBlue]

15. I would guess most pro choice people believe this

If they were really anti-choice, abortion would be illegal in every state.

[el_bryanto]

17. But what do they mean by rare?

Do they mean we should have more controception and rape prevention? Or do they believe something more paternalistic/moralistic?

Bryant

[LittleBlue]

20. They see abortion as a bad thing

Something unfortunate.

You can still think abortion is a tragic outcome (and therefore hope it is rare) but be pro-choice.

[cthulu2016]

18. Not objectively. But they provide most of the cover for anti-choicers.

[el_bryanto]

22. How can they not be objectively anti choice and yet provide most of the cover

for anti choicers? Is it just ignorance on their part - they don't realize that by believing Abortion should be rare they are providing said cover?

Or is it paternalism/moralism as another poster has suggested?

Bryant

[cthulu2016]

32. Because Orwell used 'objectively' in a tricky way

I think that Orwell's famous statement that "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist." I think that is what made "objectively pro" this and "objectively anti" that a thing.

That use of "objectively" is ambiguous at best. Was he saying that pacifists have the active objective of fascist triumph, the unwitting objective of fascist triumph... that examined objectively the pacifist would appear to be pro-fascist...

Since we seldom, if ever, in normal conversation use "objectively" to mean "having the effect of without intending to" I did not read the OP that way.

Do the "rarists" seek to advance anti-choice goals? I have no idea.

Do they achieve that effect in practice? Yes.

Is "objectively" the word to describe the way in which they advance anti-choice goals?

Dunno.

[el_bryanto]

34. That's a fair point - I did use the Orwell Language (filtered through my memories of the Bush Years)

on purpose, but i can see what you mean about it being taken two ways.

Is that their object? No.

But I take it more as step outside of their intentions and desires - what is the objective effect of their actions - and in that sense it might be seen as Anti-Choice. I don't necessarily agree with that interpretation but it's there.

Bryant

[cthulu2016]

35. I agree with you

And I think that's probably how Orwell meant it

But in 2013 American English, I would say "effectively" to convey what you and I agree Orwell priobably meant in the 1930s. Hence my confusion.

As in, "Not voting for Kerry is effectively casting a vote for Bush"

[MadrasT]

19. Maybe. Not enough information.

Depends why they think it should be "rare", and if they advocate doing more to limit access to it.

I'd like to see it be "rare" because my gosh, who should have to go through any kind of medical procedure if it can be avoided? So I would advocate increasing access to contraception and such so unwanted pregnancies would happen less frequently.

But I have no problem with anyone wanting an abortion for any reason if they become pregnant. It is not an issue of morality for me. I don't think an abortion is a tragedy. (However, if a woman who chooses to have one feels it is a tragic but necessary choice, I can empathize with her feeling that way and would never say she shouldn't feel that way about her own pregnancy/decision.)

[librechik]

27. cntraception and education come first, duh

gawd, if men only knew how upsetting and fucking painful abortion is, they wouldn't have the delusion that we want to have one every day, like a nice douche. Fuck those idiots. I'm too old for that bullshit.

Give us universal free and EASILY AVAILABLE contraception and the problem will be so much smaller.

I think Hannity should be forced to have an abortion and then water boarded, in that order.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. Clearly they feel the right to keep count and set limits. Other people's bodies are for them to

monitor. Twisted thinking. And what do you define 'rare' as meaning? Should there be a cap and after that forced births? It is vague language and vague words usually hide specific and pernicious intent.

[el_bryanto]

31. So this goes beyond mere ignorance in your opinion - people who use this language

are hiding pernicious intent - i.e. a return to legal sanctions on Abortion?

Bryant

[sibelian]

40. No, I don't think that's the issue.

There's no necessity to assume that the individuals proposing women should really be able to focus on more effective methods of reproductive control than abortion have anything more in mind than just that. Abortion is an invasive procedure and preferably to be avoided. Proposing that abortion be commonplace isn't sensible - any kind of common sense approach to birth control on behalf of both involved sexual partners is certainly to be preferred to hospital appointments. That position equates to my saying "abortion should be rare" - it has nothing to do with me wanting control over women or their bodies, it's me pointing out that the best form of control that women can have over their bodies is birth control rather than abortion, as it circumvents the influence of agencies external to the sexual relationship. I don't care how many abortions women have if they don't care, but, generally speaking, they do. Abortion isn't a simple process whereby you walk in and "dump the thing". Women know that there are consequences for their decisions, particularly emotional consequences. Treating abortion as a drop in clinic for removing some kind of "human wart" treats women as emotionless reproduction machines. It's actually pretty horrible.

[MADem]

29. We'll assume you aren't suggesting oversight/rationing.

So long as that "tone" isn't overlayed on the comment, the answer is clearly no.

It's nobody's business but the person undergoing the procedure. But it IS a medical procedure--medical procedures carry risk. What's wrong with not wanting people (in a general and non-specific sort of way) to expose themselves to risk if it can be avoided? If it can't be avoided, for whatever reason--and it's not our business what the reason is-- well, so be it.

The choice to undergo the procedure ultimately belongs with the patient, and no one else.

[Lex]

36. 2 separate issues. I don't know why they get conflated.

Be for choice or not.

[el_bryanto]

37. They get conflated because some people who choose to have an abortion are punished

by society - most people - treated as if they should be ashamed of their choice.

Which is a real problem - I can see that.

Bryant

[Lex]

43. No woman is chomping at the bit to have

as many abortions as she can, so the "rare" part is just pure BS.

[Vashta Nerada]

38. To me, rare means abortion should only be performed

If the mother's life is in danger or that it should only be used as a last resort.

I don't agree with their point that abortions should be rare. They should be allowed whenever a woman wants one.

[pipi_k]

39. Gonna try to explain

to those who answered "yes" to this poll.


I think abortion should be rare(ly used) due to women (and men) having affordable (or free) contraception.

And it's the same, IMO, as stating that I would hope that surgery for sun-induced skin cancers would be rare because people are using proper protection. Does wanting to see less skin cancer surgery mean I'm anti-sun?

No.

It means I would like to see people doing what they can to protect their skin. Sometimes it won't work. But good God, people...at least TRY!

And that is how I see the need for abortion. It should be legal and accessible. But anyone using it as casual birth control (instead of actual birth control) is only helping to feed the Conservative monster.

[Revanchist]

88. Affordable (and available) contraception

Sex-education in schools that teach more than sex is icky so don't do it till you're married, and a sharp decline in rape and incest. Once that happens than yes, abortions will probably become rare.

[bobclark86]

41. I look at actual abortion like the Emergency Room.

There are far better, less stressful and cheaper ways of doing the job many times time -- condoms, "the pill," the "other" pill, the "other-other" pill, vasectomies -- but it's there if it's needed. Much like several ER visits for $10,000 each being canceled out by $25 visit to my GP, $25 to visit my man-parts doctor for a quick snip can help prevent several $500 trips to Planned Parenthood, and all of the emotional and physical stress associated with making that kind of choice.

I'm not a "fan" of abortion (is anyone running around shouting "Abort ALL the BABIES!" these days? Didn't think so...) because something went horribly wrong before it got to that point, no matter what the scenario. I just feel bad for whoever got into that, especially when it is something they have little control over, like rape or incest, or if it is a medical emergency.

But I don't have a uterus, so the only roles I really have are wrappin' my tool and voting for people who care that women have the aforementioned uteruses (uteri?).

But yeah, to those who voted definitely, probably and maybe, I must be pro-life. Good thing you don't need my vote for pro-choice candidates...

[dionysus]

42. what does one's personal opinion matter if they think it should be legal?

legal by definition is pro choice.

[el_bryanto]

44. The argument is, as I understand it, that if you are in favor of keeping abortion legal

but are uncomfortable about it on moral or paternalistic grounds you are giving rhetorical cover to people who want to make it illegal, and you are helping to create a culture in which a Woman who has an abortion should be ashamed of herself.

Bryant

[dionysus]

45. i see. i think there are good reasons for having abortions, and bad ones. each case is unique. but

whatever the reason, I feel it's nobodies business; it's the woman's choice. I can expound upon that if you want.

[el_bryanto]

47. What are bad reasons to have an abortion? I guess that would be my one question nt

[dionysus]

48. this story is an outlier, i would assume, but there was the case of this girl in college that

disturbed us all greatly. i'll use fake names here. jane was a pathological liar who somehow ingratiated herself with my group of friends. she was only a junior in high school but had created this elaborate false identity as a photo major from the community college nearby.

simply put, her goal was to sleep her way through the whole group; she got pretty far, until her true life story was revealed. she basically lied about every aspect of her life and fooled us all completely. no one had a clue it was all a big lie, because she lied about shit you'd never expect someone to lie about.

anyhow, she took up with our buddy joe, after purposefully waiting to dump our other friend, fred, who she had dated for a year, on his 21st birthday. she'd planned it for a long time, too, waiting for his birthday for the greatest emotional impact.

she lied to joe about being on birth control, and lo and behold, becomes pregnant. she never tells the guy, no matter how much we pressured her to, and threatened to tell him if she wouldn't. this went on for months. he later found out long after the fact, and was not pleased about being kept in the dark.

she stated all along that she didn't want a kid and was going to have an abortion, which none of us had any sort of problem with. what disturbed us all, however, is that she proceeded to wait 4 months to do so, going so far as to name the fetus, acting like it was all some big joke. it's almost like she wanted the pregnancy experience but didn't want a kid, no one could figure it out. it was bizarre.

after her best friend got back from taking her to the clinic, she revealed to us that this was the third time jane had done this; lied to someone about being on birth control, gotten pregnant, and waited for several months before terminating the pregnancy. naming the fetus and everything. it creeped us all out. it's not that anyone had a problem with the abortion itself, just that the circumstances around the whole thing were fucked up, and that it was the third time this had happened. she had serious mental health issues. it's not like getting pregnant by accident and having an abortion, or having some sort of health complication. she seemed to be doing it on purpose as some act of... something no one could understand.

a few years later she morphed from a Phish loving hippie into a hard RW gun nut republican, and no one even wanted her around after that. we never knew when or what she was carrying, and was clearly unstable. she had a .357 and ammo rolling around in the trunk of her car and shit. her best friend deeply regretting vouching for her in the background check.

later she moved to DC to go to school for politics at that school where the RWers go to, forgot the name, hoping to work in the bush administration. she wanted to specialize in outsourcing jobs to china.

sadly, she died alone of an oxycontin overdose not too long after graduation. we don't know if it was intentional or not.

I guess I would say, in my opinion, getting pregnant on purpose, knowing you don't want a child and aborting the way she did (multiple times) is unethical to say the least, or a "bad" reason. It's not like they were accidental pregnancies or her health was at risk.

even so, it was still her choice 100% of what to do with her body. I also think cases like hers are very extremely rare, like one out of thousands rare. she clearly had serious (untreated) mental health issues that probably drove the whole thing.

we all found it quite disturbing. not the abortions themselves, just the way it all went down. it was sad.

[el_bryanto]

49. That is a disturbing story, and I don't doubt that it happened and happens

I guess the counterpoint would be that by talking about this person creates two classes of people - people who merit an abortion and people who maybe don't? I know that's not what you are saying - you are clear on that. But someone who opposes abortion could use the same story to prove that we should have more restrictions of abortion; making sure woman like this don't get it. Or at least are forced to confront what they have done.

Bryant

[dionysus]

50. oh, anti choicers would have a field day with that. but i don't think the sort of thing i witnessed

happens that much, thankfully. still, choice is choice, you either have it or you don't, and i'm glad we do.

[Blue_In_AK]

46. Rare would include other forms of birth control being readily available

and encouraged, none of that abstinence only stuff being taught in schools, etc. In most cases, having an abortion is a somewhat unpleasant event. If the necessity can be avoided in the first place, all the better ... but when all else fails, a woman should have no impediments to terminating an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy.

[Demobrat]

51. I think most people mean it in the sense

That it would be nice if fewer abortions were necessary due to availability of birth control and sex education. They just fail to realize that this would simply make it easier to blame and shame the women who did need abortions.

[Agnosticsherbet]

52. Legal but rare means that education and contraceptives are easily avaiable to all women

so that unplanned pregnancies happen because of a failure of contraceptive, other rare accident, or brutal rape.

[redgreenandblue]

53. No. There are two types of pro-choice people:

There is the type of pro-choice person who thinks that an abortion is always a tragedy because it means destroying a human life (or a potential human life, or who at least thinks that a fetus has some form of intrinstic value) but who thinks that it should still be legal because restricting abortions would be much worse in terms of the human suffering it generates.

Then there is the type of pro-choice person who thinks a fetus has no intrinsic value whatsoever under any conditions (early term, late term, no difference) and thus considers it totally irrelevant whether zero, one, or a million abortions happen every day. This person considers an abortion to be no different from getting a hair-cut.

Both type of people are pro-choice.

[el_bryanto]

55. But does the former create cover for those who think that Abortion should be illegal?

I mean if you think that an Abortion is a tragedy, doesn't that lend credence to those who say that Abortion is a preventable tragedy?

Bryant

[redgreenandblue]

58. I am almost certain that this is a logical fallacy.

I am trying to think of the name of it

Probably this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

Whether or not it strengthens the position of anti-choicers is inconsequential as to the question of whether a fetus has intrinsic value.

[fried eggs]

81. You left off at least one type

Pro-Choicers who don't think of elective abortions (up to 3rd trimester) as taking a life, but at the same, think women should have access to birth control and education to avoid unwanted pregnancies and expensive surgery on a major organ (that's where the rare part comes in).

It wasn't until I read this thread that I realized that some people had the wrong impression of what some people mean by "rare." It doesn't mean making it hard to get an abortion. It means improving access birth control for women who don't want to get pregnant, or offering more financial and counseling resources for those who choose to go through with accidental pregnancies.

[winter is coming]

54. You're conflating people who say "rare" because they want to restrict abortion with people

who say "rare" because they believe education and contraception should be widely/easily available. Those are two utterly different mindsets.

[PeaceNikki]

57. The problem is that words mean things. And using language like "rare" is dangerous.

Especially dangerous when used as s 'tagline' because it lacks context. "Rare" is subjective. And numbers are meaningless w/o context.

The oversimplified use implies that abortion is bad and shouldn't happen. It stigmatizes it and places judgement upon those who have and perform abortions.

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

[winter is coming]

66. Whoosh. Of course the word "rare" is subjective. That's why it can't and shouldn't

be exclusively branded as pro-choice or anti-choice. I find that it only take a few sentences, often far less, to discern what sort of "rare" person I'm talking to. I'm not going to cede "ambiguous" words to the other side.

[PeaceNikki]

67. whoosh? whatever, you are ceding a fucking word. the "rare" verbiage was pulled from platform for a

reason. it's antiquated and fucking asinine.

I guess the rest of what I said "whooshed" right past you,.

Cede, don't cede - I don't give a flying fuck what you do. I, however, will call it out when I hear it.

[winter is coming]

68. What's asinine is attempting to label pro-choice people anti-choice because they haven't

been consulting the Handbook of Approved Terminology.

[PeaceNikki]

69. uh. I haven't.

Let's see, I've said:

" No, but they give strength to anti-choicers."

and:


" I don't know if I'd frame it that way.

I had a real heart-to-heart with a female legislator here in WI who wants to enter the governor's race against Walker. She used that "Safe, legal, rare" verbiage and I gave her my heartfelt reasoning for why I thought it was dangerous.

It remains to be seen as to whether she'll keep using it."

[PeaceNikki]

56. No, but they give strength to anti-choicers.

[el_bryanto]

59. So they are effectively anti-choice?

Even if they vote the right way.

Bryant

[PeaceNikki]

60. I don't know if I'd frame it that way.

I had a real heart-to-heart with a female legislator here in WI who wants to enter the governor's race against Walker. She used that "Safe, legal, rare" verbiage and I gave her my heartfelt reasoning for why I thought it was dangerous.

It remains to be seen as to whether she'll keep using it.

[el_bryanto]

61. What's the distinction then?

People use that language for two reasons it seems -

1 - they feel there is something wrong with abortion or with some abortions, but they feel like it should be a personal choice of the woman.

2 - they feel like there needs to be a focus on providing birth control and education - and that if people have adequate access to birth control and know how to use it that abortion will be more rare.

Presumably anybody who falls into category one is in a sense anti choice - or at least they have an opinion on whether or not woman should choose to have an abortion, while two is a bit more of a grey area (it has been described as essentially "slut shaming," blaming women for getting pregnant).

Bryant

[PeaceNikki]

62. Well, you're free to frame it that way and I totally get your reasoning.

And I agree that they use it for those reasons and that one is clear and the other gray.

I will tell you - as my anecdote above and many discussions on it here demonstrate - when I see or hear it, I will ALWAYS discuss it with people who use it and say that are pro-choice.

[el_bryanto]

65. Just so I'm not deceiving anybody - I do fit into category 1

I am genuinely interested in the reasoning here, though.

Bryant

[Marrah_G]

64. To me "rare" mean trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place

through access to healthcare, contraceptives and education.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

70. similar to those who believe in "secular gay marriage" but also believe being gay is immoral

so, are they anti-gay marriage, no. do they contribute to a climate of homophobia? yes

i hope that clarifies the issue people have with the "abortion should be legal but rare" comment.

although, my personal belief is that you don't want clarification you just want to have people confirm your stance.

[Nye Bevan]

76. I read this a few times and still don't get it.

Are there really people who believe that being gay is immoral but are in favor of gay marriage?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

78. yes, i have met a few people. usually extremely religious but with a strong belief that govt should

be secular.

most have been non-christians

[xmas74]

94. I know a local Pentecostal who believes the same.

He stated that he doesn't like it but that the government should be secular. He believes that gay marriage should be treated as a civil right and just plain called marriage, but that it doesn't mean that ceremonies need to be performed in his church. He's an associate pastor of the church.

I haven't met many like that but there are a few.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

95. well thanks for confirming that i wasn't the only person who knew these people

[xmas74]

96. And the same to you.

It shocked me the first time I heard it say it. We ran into each other in public one day and started talking. During our conversation we saw two young men holding hands. He said something to me about how he felt it was "disgusting" but that they had every right, including getting married, because he felt that the government shouldn't impose the views of one religion over another. He then started talking about how it was a civil rights issue in his mind.

I didn't agree with him on the disgusting part but I was pretty interested in hearing about how he could take his personal feelings out of the equation when it came down to what was the right thing. Since then I've heard three others say the same thing, all from his church.

[dawg]

71. Abortion is a medical procedure that solves a problem.

Fewer unwanted pregnancies means fewer abortions, and that would be an unmitigated good.

I'm a little shocked that "safe, legal and rare" would even be considered controversial on a liberal board.

Is there really anyone out there who wants widespread unwanted pregnancies just so there can be more abortions? That's insane.

I think some people may feel that "safe, legal and rare" makes some sort of moral judgement against people who have sought abortions. But it doesn't. If anything, it makes a moral judgement against those who preach about abortion but vote to withhold any of the help that might prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

[PeaceNikki]

72. It stigmatizes women's health care choices. It implies that it's a decision that should NOT be made.

And that is bullshit. Abortion is a moral & positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, & protects families. We don't owe anybody an explanation when we need abortions any more than we do when we need breast exams or pap smears, and their frequency is a medical matter, not a legal one.

I see Democrats reference party icons like Kennedy, Clinton and the party itself using this phrase. Thankfully the Democratic Party dropped that seriously antiquated language in 2008: http://thecoathangerproject.blogspot.com/2008/08/reclaiming-morality-of-abortion-and.html

And here is a good piece summarizing my feelings on this matter: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/04/26/safe-legal-rare-another-perspective

A common narrative in the political and cultural discussions of reproductive health focuses on reducing the number of abortions taking place every year. It’s supposed to be one thing that those who support abortion rights and those who oppose abortion can agree on, the so-called common ground. The assumption is that we can all agree that abortion itself is a bad thing, perhaps necessary, but definitely not a good thing. Even President Clinton declared (and many others have embraced) that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. According to the Guttmacher Institute, almost half of all pregnancies among American women in 2005 were unplanned or unintended. And of those, four in 10 ended in abortion. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#1) In other words, between one-fifth and one-quarter of all pregnancies ended in abortion. Without any other information, those statistics can sound scary and paint a picture of women as irresponsible or poor decision-makers. Therefore reducing the number of abortions is a goal that reproductive health, rights and justice activists should work toward, right?

Wrong. Those numbers mean nothing without context. If the 1.21 million abortions that took place in 2005 (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#1) represent the number of women who needed abortions (and in my opinion, if a woman decides she needs an abortion, then she does), as well as the many women who chose to terminate pregnancies that they very much wanted but could not afford to carry to term, then that number is too high. The work of reducing the number of abortions, therefore, would entail creating an authentically family-friendly society, where women would have the support they need to raise their families, whatever forms they took. That could include eliminating the family caps in TANF, encouraging unionization of low-wage workers, reforming immigration policies and making vocational and higher education more accessible.

On the other hand, if those 1.21 million abortions represent only the women who could access abortion financially, geographically or otherwise, then that number is too low. Yes, too low. If that’s the case, then what is an appropriate response? How do we best support women and their reproductive health? Do we dare admit that increasing the number of abortions might be not only good for women’s health, but also moral and just?

What if we stopped focusing on the number of abortions and instead focused on the women themselves? Much of the work of the reproductive health, rights and justice movements would remain the same. We would still advocate for legislation that helps our families. We would still fight to protect abortion providers and their staffs from verbal harassment and physical violence. What would change, however, is the stigma and shame. By focusing on supporting women’s agency and self-determination, rather than judging the outcomes of that agency, we send a powerful message. We say that we trust women. We say we will not use them and their experiences as pawns in a political game. We say we care about women and want them to have access to all the information, services and resources necessary to make the best decisions they can for themselves and their families. That is at the core of reproductive justice. Not reducing the number of abortions. Safe – yes. Legal– absolutely. Rare – not the point.

[dawg]

79. I don't think it stigmatizes anything, although some may choose to defensively take it that way.

When a politician uses the "safe, legal and rare" language, he or she is putting the focus on unwanted pregnancies and the conditions that lead to them. That, IMHO, is exactly what needs to be done.

I want there to be just as many abortions in this country as there are women who feel that they need one. Not one less.

But I wish we could start working harder to reduce the number of people who find themselves in the position of needing abortions. Our country is one of the least supportive of women and children of all the OECD developed nations. Furthermore, the obstacles to obtaining good and effective birth control are unforgivable for a first world nation. We need to be working on these things, and the "safe, legal and rare" language is useful in explaining the need to work on these things to moderates and fence-sitters.

[PeaceNikki]

80. it is not a matter of being defensive.

I'm not in a position to be able to copy and paste. But this piece summarizes how I feel about the matter.

http://thecoathangerproject.blogspot.com/2008/08/reclaiming-morality-of-abortion-and.html?m=1

[dawg]

83. The more I read, the more I realize this is a really interesting and nuanced issue.

Here is the before and after language of the Democratic Party platform:

New plank:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

Previous plank:

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

I do prefer the new language. It is far more specific about the sort of polices that would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. It essentially expresses my opinion on this issue without using the words "safe, legal, and rare" which seem to be awkwardly grafted onto the end of the original plank like a cheap slogan.

Some might be concerned by the omission of the word "proudly" in the new plank. I will admit that find that omission somewhat troubling and ..... weasel-ish.

But on the balance, I do like the abortion plank the way it is currently worded.

I was once a "middle-of-the-road" guy on the abortion issue. President Clinton's focus on "safe, legal and rare" was effective at nudging me further into the Pro-Choice camp. I think it is important, in dealing with this issue, that we continue to remind moderates that our primary focus on this issue isn't to promote abortion, it's to empower women and their families to make the choices that *they* want to make.

[PeaceNikki]

84. thanks. yes, I think the phrase was effective at the time. but we're evolving

And we need to update our language with the times.

Admittedly, it's my "pet" issue and I am proudly PRO-abortion.

I do appreciate good discussion.

[fried eggs]

85. I think most of us want the same thing. It's just semantics

It turns out, everybody has not been on the same page about what "rare" means.

To me it's not about judgment at all, it's about acknowledging that abortion is a surgical procedure. Complications are rare, but they do happen sometimes.

Risks of surgical abortion include:

Damage to the womb or cervix
Uterine perforation (accidentally putting a hole in the uterus with one of the instruments used)
Excessive bleeding
Infection of the uterus or fallopian tubes
Scarring of the inside of the uterus
Reaction to the medicines or anesthesia, such as problems breathing
Not removing all of the tissue, with the need for another procedure

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002912.htm

My interpretation of the word "rare" was that women would have access to all the education, birth control, and gynecological resources needed to avoid unwanted pregnancies and uterine surgery. A lot of women get abortions because the timing or finances aren't right, but they still want to have kids later on when the time is right. A botched procedure could make it impossible to have kids later on.

[PeaceNikki]

86. abortion is faaaar safer than carrying to term and delivery

[PeaceNikki]

87. so here's a thought: stop using the word open to interpretation

Like the party platform has done

[War Horse]

73. I was really surprised the first time I read that

"abortion should be legal, safe and rare" could somehow be construed as anti choice. After reading some posts on it here I totally get how it could, though.

I dunno, it's like the first time I was told that as a male, I cannot possibly be a feminist. On one level it makes a lot of sense, but on the whole it really seems kind of self defeating to me.

[ananda]

74. It means for me ..

.. a belief in a strong policy for good sex ed,
free available bc, and morning after pills otc.

[Nye Bevan]

75. No, we think abortion should be legal, and accessible when needed,

but we would prefer that sex education and easy access to contraception reduce the need for the procedure.

[nyquil_man]

82. I don't know. I've always thought of "legal but rare" as a PC position,

essentially the equivalent of saying, "Well, of course I think abortion is horrible, but..." In some ways, it plays right into the anti-choice position, in that it acknowledges their central point right off the bat.

I suppose there is room for nuance there. They're pro-choice but prefer giving as many choices as humanly possible.

[Hekate]

89. No. They believe in making contraceptives available & cheap...

They also believe in providing age-appropriate sex-ed starting before puberty and on through high school.

That's my pov as well.

How's that?

[Yo_Mama]

90. Anti-choice means you don't think the person should have the option,

That's all it means.

[Courtesy Flush]

91. Why wouldn't you want it to be rare?

Ideally, you'd have unrestricted access to birth control. That would make abortion rare.

Why would you want a surgical procedure to be more commonplace than prevention?

[krispos42]

92. It would be nice if it was naturally rare

That is, abortion services were widely available at reasonable prices, but not used often due to a lack of demand.

It would mean that a) people were practicing safe-sex on a very large scale, b) people were practicing safe-sex from sexual maturity onwards, c) people were getting in very stable relationships, d) people were economically prosperous, e) the environment was healthy and clean, and not causing severe birth defects.


But the rate of abortions, whether high or low, should never be used to justify restrictions on the right.

[xmas74]

93. I believe it should be legal and on demand but rare all at the same time.

I believe that we should focus on expanded sex education with a strong focus on protection, whether against pregnancy or disease. I also believe that birth control should be low cost or no cost and easy to access for anyone who wants it. Inexpensive protection and the understanding of how to use it properly should actually reduce abortion rates, though few of the prolifers seem to want to understand.

I still believe that abortion should be legal, safe and easy to obtain. If a person wants to use it as their only form of birth control they could, though it shouldn't be viewed as such. (I've heard stories but have yet to actually meet the woman who supposedly does this.) It's far more cost effective for a couple to use birth control than to have an abortion. I'm not just talking about the cost of the procedure itself but the price of possible travel (at this time, it's not that uncommon), time off of work, etc.

Abortion should be safe, legal, rare and available on demand. It should be offered as part of an arsenal for family planning-a very small part.

[Warren DeMontague]

97. Depends on if they're trying to legislate from that belief.

[LostOne4Ever]

98. Nope

It is not advocating taking a choice away so by definition they are not anti-choice. In fact, any position that states women should have a right to an abortion as needed is "objectively" pro-choice.

Nor is saying that you want them to be rare giving anti-abortion idiots cover. Saying that you find the loss of life to be regrettable but necessary and would like to support education/contraception/etc so that there won't be need for so many abortions prevents us from criticizing anti-choice people how?

Because some idiot might get confused between that and the anti-choice's attempts to put up so much red tape to make it effectively illegal? Then the fault lies with the idiot and the anti-choicer. Because someone might see abortion in a somewhat negative light? That changes the fact that the autonomy and self ownership of the woman always takes precedence how? It doesn't.

Saying that is like saying people who think it should be common are objectively anti choice because it is helping the anti-choice side by making the pro-choice side look callous.

I feel that this whole argument is just a argument over PR, image, and tactics. The idea being that making sure that abortion is seen as moral as opposed to amoral or a necessary evil makes it more acceptable to those on the middle and generate less resistance. But similarly people ARE going to judge whether we like that or not. I could argue that saying abortion should not be rare will drive more people away from the pro-choice position.

We all have our reasons for supporting abortion. Some of us its because of experiences, others education, and others philosophy. Some may feel it between that woman and any god(s) she may or may not have. Others might feel the fetus does not matter or have value at all. I myself feel autonomy trumps all (her body she can do with it as she wants). Having a wide array of positions and reasons gives us more ways to appeal to different people in different ways. Demanding only one position and cannibalizing each other for perceived breaks in orthodoxy will only weaken our cause.

NOW THAT is objectively anti choice.

[p class=post-sig style=margin-top:0px;text-align:center;]

[div style='color: #B20000;font-size: 2.000em'] [center] Not all those who wander are LOST!!! [/center]