K/R

It should be a decision between a Physician and the patient.

Would you let a politician make medical decisions for you?

Maybe you should read beyond the subject line.

On edit: I realized maybe you didn't realize that a root canal is a medical/surgical procedure. Lucky you, if that's the case!

Saying abortions are preventable in the context of the 100+ rec thread is victim blaming.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6565158

But I disagree with your belief that acknowledging contraception can help prevent abortions is victim blaming. Being in the position of wanting an abortion doesn't -- in and of itself -- make you a victim.

Why else would you feel the need to give the Republican Rebuttal?

Spare me, pnwmom, I've heard this garbage before.

It's called birth control.

That is not to say that we should blame women for having an unwanted pregnancy (nor should we call them victims). It happens to the best of us. Nature so often finds a way, in spite of our good intentions. And even the most conscientious woman, or couple, can have a failure of birth control.

Totally agree BMUS!

If there were well funded and hugely successful efforts limiting access to root canals, other procedures and preventative care, sweeping legislation being passed to stop them, protesting and bombing clinics and hospitals, killing surgeons, etc, then maybe.

But there aren't. So it fails.

Trying to weasel out of it by comparing abortion to root canals is just a chicken-shit way of saying you wouldn't need abortions if you didn't make mistakes.

I'm not ashamed.

Women are fertile for forty fucking years. Six out of ten women who have abortions are already mother's. Shit happens.

No shame, no regret.

Why is that?

What's wrong with it?

Since I'd rather avoid an abortion, if possible, the word "pro-abortion" doesn't seem to fit my circumstances.

Why is the term "pro-choice" so inadequate to you?

If it was just about what you're comfortable calling yourself there wouldn't be a need to start a thread to call us out.

You could have said your peace on PeaceNikki's thread.

Your op infers you're different than us, how?

I'll have a root canal if I need one, but I'd rather avoid one if I can.

You think we're trying to take choice away?

And FORCE women to have them???

Did you read PeaceNikki's op in GD?

It's about empowering women.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6565158

Abortion isn't a dirty word. It's a medical procedure and if you support choice then you support a woman having an abortion - which means you DO support abortion.

Stop buying into the bullshit that abortion - the word and the procedure - is somehow a negative that taints women.

Trying to drum up business for Planned Parenthood.

Just when you thought you'd seen everything...

for all those Abortion Parties we're throwing.

Free Mixer with every abortion!

lol

I'm lactose intolerant so I'll skip the dip.

Baby finger sandwiches for me!

Play skewer the fetus. You bring that tissue out whole and it's Yahtzee!

Fancy...yet challenging.

But try try again I always say.

I'm not 'buying into' anything. I like to think for myself. And I've HAD abortions!

I just don't think that term conveys my feelings as well as pro-choice.

We get it.

I'd rather avoid. So I can't say I'm "pro" either one. But I want either one to be available to whoever needs it.

So the word pro-choice still seems the best fit to me.

What is the difference between how you feel and how we feel?

I don't think we should be trying to increase the numbers of abortions in this country, and I don't think we should be nudging women in that direction.

In my opinion, being pro-abortion means you are not completely pro-choice.

Thanks to the removing of access to millions of women.


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.

The procedure itself is not a 'bad' thing.

And there should be as many abortions as are needed by women who choose freely.

Wow.

Promoting abortions - pro abortions

Maybe you should find a term that more accurately represents your opinion.

That one fits me fine, maybe you should learn what it means before telling others what to do.

Abortion should be just as acceptable as adoption or raising a child instead of the hushed thing mentioned at the end of the other two. That's what I am fighting for. And that IS completely both pro-choice and pro-abortion even though I am anti-abortion for myself. Get it now?

But the term pro-abortion does not accurately describe that sentiment, in my opinion.

Seriously, that's the first think I thought of when reading the other thread about this.

You think the pendulum can't swing?

I think the author of this op probably did the same.

That is not what "I mean." That is what "the term means."

The Republicans would like to frame it as me running out and grabbing up a dozen women to force them to have abortions... that's false.

You aren't talking about a swinging pendulum. You are defining what the term means.

I am anti-abortion for myself. I am pro-abortion as a viable treatment option for pregnancy without the need to jump through 50 hoops, feel badly about it, or give it a "nice sounding" name.

bit of mental gymnastics.

What the hell are you talking about?

but I just had to start my own thread because ... tooth decay.

and I feel lucky that I never had an unplanned pregnancy. Almost every woman I know had one at some point.

How many bills have been passed trying to stop root canals in the past decade? How many orthodontists offices have been bombed? Oral surgeons killed? Dental workers lives and families threatened?

"It should be available to anyone who needs it, no matter where they live and what their financial circumstances are -- and with no moral judgement from anyone else. "

between the two? What is wrong with continuing to use the formulation "pro-choice"? Because that's the one that feels right to me.

That's my choice.

What is it about a pro-abortion stance that's not "right" to you?

I think abortions are better off avoided, if possible, just like root canals or similar medical procedures. But that they should be available to every woman who wants one no matter where she lives or what her financial circumstances are.

You started a thread to illustrate the differences between pro-choice and pro-abortion and so far all I've seen is a weasely "Because that's the one that feels right to me." comment.

Why doesn't it feel right?

I started a list today.

Here is what the term 'pro-abortion' implies, and perhaps why some people are uncomfortable with it:

Pro-abortion means you are gung-ho for that procedure. You want to see more of them happening. You are fine with more casual use of birth control so that there can be just a huge number of these wonderful procedures taking place all the time. You want to see young girls make that choice, rather than have a baby. You want to shame women who opt to have babies in face of difficult circumstances. You want to say to them, "Well why didn't you just have an abortion?"

I don't really believe you feel that way. But that is the problem with that term.

Do you really think we're running around DU encouraging women to have abortions?

I said, I don't really believe you feel that way. But that is the problem with that term.

There is a problem with people who don't understand it.

Go to the link and read the article. It's about standing up and saying, "fuck yeah, abortion is a good thing" in the midst of massive restrictions to access and patriarchal legislation which limits health decisions, forces doctors to lie, and takes the choice away from women. It's not a "necessary evil", abortion is a moral choice.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026565158

And it was good, very positive.

Except for the pro-abortion aspects that suggest social pressure toward making the abortion choice. For example, she says, "I’m pro-abortion because well-timed pregnancies give children a healthier start in life."

If you think about that statement, it shows a preference toward abortion, and a rationale to support it. But instead of shaming women for having abortions, she would go down a path that could lead to shaming women for having babies too close together, for not taking advantage of the opportunity to have an abortion.

My stance is that women should have full freedom of choice, without coercion or social pressure, in one direction or the other.

You really do think we're promoting abortion.

And now it's all your fault for being a mean girl.

Or something.

Most of it unsolicited.

If abortion were massively different to other medical procedures, the people trying to ban or restrict it might have a stronger case.

It's precisely because it isn't that they are wrong.

as a root canal, and without any moral judgment.

Did you even read PeaceNikki's op before you started your rebuttal?

And I don't think we should be pressuring each other to choose one or the other.

You think we don't want to avoid abortions?

available, and as free of moral judgment, as getting a root canal.

where you live.

Why is that something you not only can't admit, but feel it necessary to start a competing thread in a sea of other threads about it?

You can say you're pro abortion, it's OK. You should. It's a moral and positive choice made by one in the women by age 45.

No shame, no regret.

any more than I like going through a root canal.

And I know contraception can fail so I consider myself lucky that I never found myself in that situation. Note that I'm not patting myself on the back for that -- just feeling lucky.

With my teeth, on the other hand, I have been less fortunate.

If you're not judging the pro-abortion posters, why start another thread about them?

What about pro-abortion doesn't feel "right"?

You need to explain why you started a new thread but never clarified why we're wrong.

There are no rules like that here.

But I already did explain that I don't consider myself pro-abortion or pro-root canal and you already explained that you're pro-both. So we have different points of view. Deal with it.

What is it about being pro-abortion that doesn't feel right?

sounds like just wanted to troll.

Not sure why she thinks we don't avoid abortions.

But my theory is that some feel they need to cave to the right wing in order to triangulate, 3d chess style. Pro-Abortion is too "in your face" and confrontational and may drive christian conservatives nuts. They don't want to strike the hornet's nest so are playing it safe. But just like many D vs R battles, when we compromise our values, the right wing just slowly eats away at what we value.

I just read above the being pro-abortion means promoting abortion, taking away choice.

I agree with you.

I am male so I do feel out of place a bit and do not want to tread where I am not needed and/or wanted, but when I saw PeaceNikki's first OP on it, I could foresee backlash. I do not like to see people ganged up on and knew some would label her position "extreme" so came into the thread to show support. Hopefully I do not overstep. Please let me know if I ever do.