Slate Article re: Abortion

I thought this was an interesting column re: the "PRO-CHOICE" movement. I think the gist of the article is that the "PRO-CHOICE" movement is at a crossroads and possibly needs to change their approach to enjoy continued success. Disclaimer: written by William Saletan, a pro-choice conservative male.

http://www.slate.com/id/2137775/

"Friday morning, leaders of pro-choice and feminist groups gathered at the Center for American Progress to debate the movement's future. One of the panelists reported that the latest annual tally of abortions in this country was 1.295 million. The most recent comparative numbers, detailed in an article I brought to the meeting, indicated that our abortion rate exceeds that of every Western European nation. "Raise your hand if you think that number is too high," the conference moderator told the 50 people in the room.

I saw one hand go up. The woman next to me said she saw another. The two hand-raisers used to work for pro-choice groups but no longer do.

This is the predicament facing the abortion rights movement. It's led by three kinds of people: Those who see no problem, those who are afraid to speak up, and those who think it's futile. I'm betting that the denial, fear, and futility will give way. But it'll take time."

and made some good points. Expect outrage at posting, however. He strays far from the party line.


BTW, I've read Saletan from time to time, but I didn't know that he was/is a conservative? How do you know this?

Let me restate what I said about Saletan. In the article he says "I'm not a lefty." I misrepresented that to mean he is a conservative.

Keep unwanted pregnancy rare by getting all birth control over the counter now and keep abortion safe and legal.

Not sure what you want or your point with all these abortion threads. You are all over the place.

I will never compromise a woman's right to choose (or to do what ever she choses with her body) ever. I will fight forever for that too. No more asinine "compromises" on women's rights, NO MORE. It is none of this man's business what she chooses and when she chooses. But I make it my business when anyone tramples those equal rights.

the 'abortion movement'...choosing to frame the debate that way now? you amuse me.

What do you propose? Frankly, why are you even arguing over semantics?

CHANGED! Wow, that's why Dems keep losing elections. Instead of addressing the substance of the issue, we get all wound up about piddly crap.

and "pro-choice"?

one of the reasons we dems keep losing elections is because we allow the pugs to decide the framing of an issue...and if this isn't a blatant example of that, i don't know what is. it's just as bad as labelling us as "the pro-abortionists" or "the anti-lifers".

but then, what did i expect...

But it really is semantics. Look, if you are pro-choice you are implicitly "pro-abortion." I'm not judging whether that's good or bad, but if you are going to argue that point you are bound to lose the bigger arguments.

being pro-choice does not imply being pro-abortion...and i have had only right-wingers claim that it does.

have a really really nice stay. look around, browse, and if you see anything you like, let us know.

are the choice folks who walk around eyes-closed in a stupor wondering why states and courts are placing more and more restrictions on abortion. If you want to win the choice argument then you need to face up to whether it is a fact that "pro-choice" equals "pro-abortion" it is a fact that it is perceived that way.

Oh, and I am crushed that you no longer consider me credible. Let me mark that down in my little notebook -- "lost credibility today with faceless perosn on internet named ret5hd..."

that getting an abortion became easier than teaching sex education. The country with the lowest STD rate, teen pregancy rate, etc. begins teaching sex ed in the 1st grade(geared to a 1st grade comprehension level) and moves up from there. The same kind of denial about the abortion rate exists here about sex education-if we don't talk about it it won't happen. My theory is that if abstinence really worked then there wouldn't be 6 billion people on this planet. My mother works with the AIDS Task Force in Ohio-she's 75- and when they wanted to give talks in the local schools the school board told them they couldn't use the word "condom". when my mother asked "Why not?" she was told that it might give them ideas. Her response was "since Marion county is #1 in the state in the teen pregnancy rate for 14 and under, I'd say they're already having sex" This did not sit well with the conservative idiots of the school board.

people have, that is the separating of the "personal" from the "political". The political "movement" (if that is what you want to call it) is concerned with women's rights and freedoms and equality under the law, period. The "morality" of abortion is a personal issue faced by each particular woman who contemplates the choice. The pro-choice movement is not about abortion, it is about women's rights within our society. Any of us can lament the number of abortions (if any of these numbers are to be believed), but that is a personal lamentation. The morality of any issue is decided by the individual dealing with that issue.

In this article and a few others he argues that "the morality of abortion" ISN'T a personal issue but that depending on the circumstances an abortion is inherently immoral (he doesn't really say what those circumstances might be).

Why aren't the numbers to be believed? I think that a problem with the choice movement is that they are divorced from reality in a lot of respects. Even though most Americans do NOT want to overturn Roe, most people are in favor of more restrictions on abortion and most people want to see fewer abortions. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Personally, I think the choice movement has a tendency to shoot itself in the foot, like Kate Michelman considering running for senate in PA.

The issue of reproductive rights is not about abortion. People who are against an individual's right to reproductive independence want to make this about abortion - and to a large degree have succeeded, but it doesn't make them right.

The numbers batted around by various groups, for various reasons, in this debate have caused me to be very suspicious of any of these numbers.

"Most people are in favor of more restrictions on abortion'. So what? At the beginning of the Civil Rights movement, "most people" were not for full equality for Blacks, either. But it didn't make the movement "wrong".

There are always going to be people who try to stick their noses into other people's private lives, but we do not have to legislate their obnoxious peculiarity...

Your point about the Civil Rights movement is misplaced. As the Civil Rights movement went on more people favored equality. The choice movement is actually falling in numbers. Part of the reason (in my opinion) is the absolutist position that many choice members take.

I saw a post here yesterday where someone made a comment to another poster to the effect of "if you don't support choice fuck off and join the Republicans." That's pretty absolutist, and not how you win elections.

"winning elections" have almost nothing to do with each other. Now if what you want is to gain enough voters to beat the Republicans then you have two options (maybe more, but at least two): 1) you can become more like the Republicans and so maybe siphon off some of their voters or 2) you can work to educate voters and potential voters on the issues that separate you from the Republicans.

If you think that point two, above, is not "do-able", that the idea of allowing women the basic right to self determination is a "lost cause" in this country, then option one would be all that is left. Become more Republican-like and draw voters away from them.

One way that this whole issue is very much like the Civil Rights movement is that when the Democratic Party went against "most people" and supported equality for African Americans, it lost many, many voters. It was where the Dixiecrats came from and where the Republican "Southern Strategy" arose. But the Party took this stand because it was the right thing to do - not the most popular - and I am very proud of the Party for having done so. We should do it again, with women's rights...

I think you can do what's right and win elections in a lot of cases. Examples would be the Dems doing a better job of representing the "little man," which is why I vote Dem--they do a better job of protecting the worker and the poor (although no party does a good job of that anymore). I'd like to see the party get back to talking about those type of things.

Look, I am male, so women belittle my views on abortion and say I have no say, and that may be true, but the fact is we spend so much time fighting about abortion -- which even Dems can't agree on -- and neglect things Dems can agree on, like helping the poor.

very important and that we (at least you and I) can agree upon. The US must stop making aggressive war; we have to re-affirm our constitution and strengthen our adherence to it; we should roll back the tax give-a-ways to the rich; we should have universal, free health care; universal, free education; we should establish a true living wage; we should ensure that everyone who can work has a meaningful job at a living wage; really protect the environment and undo as much of the damage done over the last few years as possible; re-secure and confirm Social Security for all of our elders; stop the erosion of our workers pensions - promises by corporations must be kept as long as the corporations have one, thin dime; start using real common sense in our energy situation and stop working stupid in our industry and transportation. The list could go on and on - and yes all of these things are hugely important, even fundamental. But we cannot proceed in any meaningful way if we don't protect the full equality and basic rights of women. This, at least for me, is a deal breaker...

it's not the reality. The reality is that a majority of the population views abortion as a societal issue as well as, or divorced from, a personal moral issue. Call it the collective subjective if you will. And no matter how often you declare it's a personal issue, the collective has decided it's more than that.
Is the morality of any issue decided by the individual? History and current law indicate differently.

individual. No "thing" or "action" is moral in and of itself, but only "moral" or "immoral" within the mind and conscience of the individual.

Many acts are inherently immoral, by any society's standards. Arguments like yours lead to individuals justifying their harmful acts.

consider an "inherently immoral" act. But rape is an assault, and as such, is an act of violence. It is only "moral" or "immoral" based upon the judgment of the individual. I, personally, think that rape is an abhorrent crime, but the "immorality" of the act is based within the minds and consciousness of the individuals involved.

The simple fact is that you cannot tell me what is moral or immoral any more than I can tell you. We may agree on individual issues as to what is and is not "moral", but that agreement is just circumstantial...

but I would argue that any act that is taken against the will of another person and harms another person is inherently immoral and is viewed that way by most people (except those who are amoral).

is too high. The only way I can see to reduce this number is by preventing unwanted pregnancies, not to ban abortion. The only way I see to reduce unwanted pregnancies is through comprehensive sex education and readily available birth control to any person, regardless of age and marital status, who has decided to be sexually active. I fully advocate making abortion legal, safe and rare.

I thought the interesting point in the article was that pro-choice people are afraind to admit that there are too many abortions because it might seem like they agree to restrictions on abortion. There ARE too many abortions, and the only way to change that is to make sure we are teaching comprehensive sex education and making birth control readily available. They teach that stupid-ass chastity sex-ed in a lot of scholls here in Georgia.

if you are pro-abortion, how can you believe there are too many abortions?

Let me try to parse my way out of this mess I am in. Assuming there are only 2 sides to the debate (and there are obviously a lot of people in the middle) "pro-choice" = "pro-abortion" and "pro-life" = "anti-abortion."

Pro-choice people favor access to abortion (presumably with no restrictions; they don't necessarily favor lots of abortions, they just promote a position that every single woman can have an abortion at any time they want and there is no ceiling on the number of abortions. If half the women in the U.S. choose an abortion then that's ok.

and that's a big IF, it can be maintained. As a method of birth control, it requires more self-control than most people are able to commit to. I have no problem with abstinence being taught in school as a method of birth control, but we need to provide information on other methods of birth control and make it readily available to those who decide not to practice abstinence.

And I know that this thread concerns abortion, but the same facts apply to STD's. Without knowledge of the risks involved with being sexually active and the methods to avoid them, we are doing our children a grave disservice. They will get sex education at school, but we need to insure that they get accurate information and not what is provided by their classmates. Ignorance is dangerous.

but we can't rely on teaching abstinence instead of comprehensive birth control.