Just the Facts Ma’am - CommonDreams.org

My college-aged daughter Lily, home for the summer, ran into the kitchen early Friday morning with The New York Times in her hand in disbelief.

“Mom, have you seen this? It’s just wrong.”

She opened the paper and pointed to an op-ed titled “Why Pro-Choice Is a Bad Choice for Democrats” by Melinda Henneberger.

Lily couldn’t be more right. And Henneberger couldn’t be more wrong.

The “opinion” piece attempted to justify Ms. Henneberger’s own conclusion about the issue of women’s rights by anecdotal conversations she has held across America — eerily similar to Justice Kennedy’s opinion in the recent Supreme Court decision, in which he opined that, despite the fact that there is no reliable data, women might later come to regret an abortion — implying, therefore, it shouldn’t be fully their decision.

What have we come to?

The majority of this country has supported and continues to support women making their own decisions about pregnancy — even when those decisions are complicated or difficult. In fact, Americans believe that even if they might make a different decision about abortion, they recognize that every woman’s case is different, and they aren’t prepared to make such an important personal decision for another person. You only have to cast your mind back to the Terry Schiavo case, with some members of the United States Senate interfering in a family’s very personal, private decision to see what it may look like as politicians increasingly intervene in matters that need to be made by women and their families and doctors.

In her piece, Henneberger totally misses the point about what the American people want to see done in the area of women’s health. A March 2007 survey of 1,870 voters conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates demonstrated unequivocally that voters — and especially Democratic voters, whom Ms. Henneberger claims to speak for — strongly support the ability of women and families to make personal, private decisions about their health care, including abortion. In fact, 81 percent of voters believe that a woman should be able to make her own decisions about pregnancy and parenting, rather than the government. Among Democrats, support skyrockets to 94 percent.

What the American voters want is for our government to address the pressing public health issues they are concerned about, such as reducing rates of unintended and teen pregnancy in America. Eight out of nine voters believe that government should do everything it can to help women, men and teens prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce the need for abortion — through commonsense measures like comprehensive sex education and access to contraception.

While Ms. Henneberger attempts to turn an anecdotal survey into a portrait of America, a better model is to look at what happens when voters actually make choices on this issue. One only has to look at the 2006 election results to see how decisively the American people supported mainstream candidates who supported women’s rights. Across the heartland, in Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, governors were elected and reelected when they stood strongly in favor of women’s reproductive rights and embraced sound prevention policies like comprehensive sex education and affordable birth control for women. And in the conservative state of South Dakota, voters decisively voted down a proposed abortion ban by twelve points.

Planned Parenthood works every day to support women’s ability to make their own decisions about whether and when to become a parent. Ninety-seven percent of what we do is to provide basic health care and family planning, plus education, to nearly five million women, men and teens every year. The folks that come to us for health care are Democrats and Republicans, in red states and in blue. They don’t come to us to make a political statement — they come because like every other person in America, they are looking for affordable health care and information to help plan their families.

So — if Ms. Henneberger is so concerned about abortion, I urge her to join with Planned Parenthood. We do more to prevent unintended pregnancies, and the need for abortion, than any organization in America. It’s easy to opine on the subject of women’s reproductive health care — let’s do something to make a difference.

Cecile Richards is president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, PPFA’s political arm.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

32 Comments so far

StrangeAnimals June 26th, 2007 1:09 pm

Let me first say that I am vehemently pro-choice.

But I do believe that it is important that those who are pro-choice come to understand and acknowledge the pro-life position. When one starts from the belief system, whether grounded in religious beliefs or simply felt deeply in the moral core, that life begins at conception, of course abortion is considered equal to taking a life.

But when those pro-choice reduce the pro-life sentiments in favor of banning abortions exclusively to the patriarchal aspirations of Old Testamentarian and overwhelmingly male politicians, they fail, and fail miserably, to understand the deeply held beliefs of tens of millions of compassionate and well-meaning Americans.

Abortion is such a complicated issue precisely because there is genuine morality on each side. No matter how perplexingly inconsistent it seems to abortion rights advocates that the caring shown by abortion foes for a fetus does not generalize with similar intensity to a caring for others in our society who are in need of help, it is important to acknowledge that abortion foes are nevertheless displaying heartfelt caring.

Most right-to-lifers are motivated by a genuine desire to defend the defenseless. Those pro-choice, including most Democratic politicians, must begin to show some respect for, even while disagreeing with, the position of those who believe that there are no circumstances, save the health of the mother, under which an abortion should ever be available.

Nobody wants an abortion. Women choose an abortion for a variety of reasons, none of them easy. Most often it is not for convenience, but for poverty. Two-thirds of women who have abortions claim their primary reason is that they cannot afford a child. Abortion represents a sad, even tragic choice for too many women, many of whom society has failed to protect from poverty, rape, incest, or inadequate access to health care and contraception.

Abortion is, as has been said, “a right that ends in sadness”. It is a right only of last resort, to be exercised with solemn understanding of its tragic consequences.

Abortion is also a moral choice, one so solemn and serious that to appear celebratory about having the right to make that choice rightfully offends and enrages. Those who are fighting to preserve the legal right conferred by Roe v. Wade should at least acknowledge that the legal right represents a moral choice, and that those who take the moral choice seriously are not the enemies of those who prize the legal right.

plysj June 26th, 2007 1:16 pm

I agree with Henneberger. Most of the people who I know vote Republican do it for one sole reason, abortion. I am willing to compromise on this to get more socially and environmentally progressive officials in Congress and President. Personally, I find it to be an awful option, but it should be available, safe, legal and rare. Both sides exaggerate and paint a drastic picture that is full of soundbites and lacks substance. The war, destruction of the environment, and the erosion of our safety net, are far more serious issues and need to be addressed. Abortion is a smoke screen used by both sides to pander to their base. And the Dems do not have the balls to say, hey, we think abortion IS wrong. If they actually did say that, they would get the single issue voters back from the Republicans. I mean look at culture of life Bush. He destroys life by the thousands, but the magic word he says is that he is pro-life and he gets the votes. I suppose the above just shows the twittiness of the US population, but to win the masses, the Dems need to shift their position. On a global scale with the major problems we are having, abortion is a minor issue and is not worth the grandstanding, which for the past 8 years has insured a Republican victory (although I believe that both elections were stolen).

Rick Wagner June 26th, 2007 1:41 pm

“Pro-life” is actually anti-choice. Do they really think that women who make a painful choice do it easily?

Those who think abortion is always wrong in any circumstance should never have one, but they shouldn’t take away others’ right to choose.

conscience June 26th, 2007 3:04 pm

Henneberger wrote a fantasy piece and the NY Times published it –

To ignore “patriarchal aspirations” still reflected in major organized patriarchal religions would be to ignore much of the reality of life today and the past where the lives of females were held as less valuable than males.

Abortion is not that complicated an issue.
Fanatical fetus worship is what has to be recorded when we see the lack of concern by these same “pro-life” thinkers to the loss of 800,000 innocent lives in Iraq–!!!

And, as well, in the case of “partial truth abortion” where the lives of females who wanted these children may be harmed or lost now in procedures which will be less safe for them.

The “anti-choice” argument has been acknowledged, has been debated and found to be wanting in compassion for pregnant females with lives and responsibilies and concerns as Mothers, Daughters, Aunts, Sisters . . . already established lives which the “pro-life” community continues to address in “having a bad hair day” terms.

Nor do I see any signs that “right-to-lifers are motivated by a genuine desire to defend the defenseless” — !!!!
What this poster seems to be suggesting is that we pretend that the values and reasoning of the “pro-life” debaters are rational. They are not!

As another, wiser poster points out we have increasing poverty, increasing lack of health care, contraception and education — and, I would add, as the right wing rises we have increasing sexual abuse of females domestically and internationally.

Demanding that females who make the choice for abortion see it as a “moral” choice is also lacking in rationality. It’s a childish concept which leads me to think that what the “pro-lifers” are really asking for is to have abortion recognized as a “sin.”

Anyone who is voting Republican in order to try to control someone else’s personal decisions about childbearing has invited fascism to cross our threshold — while giving support to a war-mongering administration which has led America to decay, disruption, torture of prisoners, bankrupting of our Treasury, lies and secrecy in Orwellian terms, economic chaos and inequality.

This is one of the most violent administrations ever to direct our government and to vote for such violence is to be out of touch with reality.

How delusional can you be to believe that this is a “pro-life” president–???
I’ve never seen such disdain for human life — !!!!

What we see from the right — which includes the “pro-life” community — is that when the shoe is on the other foot, they make the same decisions that rational people make.
They need, however, to overcome their paranoia and preoccupation with trying to enforce childbearing on other females.

CV June 26th, 2007 3:56 pm

Rick Wagner, your point of terminology is a good one, allow me to expand.
These two phrases, “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Abortion” are misleading. No one (or danm few) is PRO abortion, It’s a last resort in a tough situation, so Pro-Choice is closer.
Pro-Life, most often turns out to actualy be Anti-Abortion, ’cause the same people that call themselves Pro-Life are often quite OK with Capital Punishment, Military engagement and free access to firearms.
There is so much baggage attached to these labels it behooves US to avoid them and find better ways to get the point across.
(I’m not so sure about Pro-Choice, either as some years ago, my girlfreind and I were part of the Clinic Defenses in LA when Operation Rescue was besieging and bombing them. Since I’m male and will never have to face that decision firsthand, I took the issue from the Choice end. I had a T-shirt with a ban sign over a motorcycle helmet that said “My Head, My Choice”. It didn’t go over too well, so I question the commitment to Choice per se)

conscience June 26th, 2007 4:03 pm

Just want to add that anyone who suggests that we should humor the “pro-lifers” by pretending that their debate is based on “morality” would have no more of an argument if they were asking us to humor those who find homosexuality immoral.

And, presumably, there are those who vote Republican because of their homophobia. Not much different from “pro-lifers.”

Nader4prez June 26th, 2007 4:19 pm

The right to life ends at birth.

jedediah zachariah jedediah springfield June 26th, 2007 4:23 pm

if you want some ammo vs. the anti-choice crowd, just point out to the bible thumpers that orthodox judaism, reading the same hebrew scriptures as they, does not conclude that abortion is wrong. and the christian new testament has nothing to say on the matter.

having said that, this fact demonstrates that it’s problematic to base public policy/health issues on somebody’s reading of 2000 plus year old religious texts.

good intentions and “caring” aside, most anti-choicers are proto-fascists. why? b/c their belief is based upon religious authority alone.

epona June 26th, 2007 4:33 pm

Abortion is a horrible choice to make, I know, I made that choice many years ago, and I know I did what was right for me at the time. Here is my suggestion to those who wish to criminalize or make this highly personal and painful choice illegal: fully fund and expand all the necessary social services that these additional children would require, welfare, social services (woefully understaffed and underfunded to protect the huge numbers of children already in the system..abused, neglected, etc.), health care, education. PURSUE ALL THE FATHERS OF THESE CHILDREN RELENTLESSLY FOR CHILD SUPPORT, and force them to continue to pay for half the cost of all the expenses (the true medical, welfare, etc) expenses of raising every child they father, to the age of 18. As many have said, MANY times, if men could get pregnant, abortion would never have been an issue. And don’t forget, women of means, always have had and always will have, access to abortion….they have and will if necessary, go out of country, and quietly take care of business. The hypocrisy of this issue is simply maddening.

Mainstay June 26th, 2007 4:37 pm

The title “Pro Life” is jargon - a title chosen to sound righteous, a title created to sway perception.
As to it’s Christian foundation, Jesus clearly stated that one must remove the log in one’s own eye before working on the sliver in another’s. In simple terms: all the moralizing about someone else having the right to appraise their circumstances and choose whether to bear a child or not, is not some grand benevolence, compassion, charity - or even being one’s Brother’s keeper - it is simple manipulation to one’s own view, and strikes me as officious as that controlling “other” does not bear the actual ongoing ramifications of bringing another person into the world.

Reproductive choice seems to expose our perceptions of who is really “equal”. Men would never agree to having their own body functions regulated by law… and far too many don’t even champion the lives of their own children; of those men who have separated from the mothers, better than 55% have abandoned those children’s well being, by doing whatever was possible to avoid or limit child support.

Those who oppose the right to choose abortion, are not paragons of higher wisdom, they simply demand to legislate human birth. Regardless of circumstance or resources they state that human birth must occur no matter how ill conceived.

To actually be Pro Life would be far more multifaceted and complicated than requiring every pregnancy to come to term (as if THAT were possible or sustainable).
Being Pro life would mean that one would not kill or allow killing in one’s name - period. Pro Lifers would not eat animals or plants, would not use insecticides or antibiotics, and would NEVER sanction war or the bearing of arms. Pro Lifers would not have allowed the killing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur or any other nation to occur, let alone to endure for years on end.
Pro Lifers would demand and legislate that every life was assisted to live sustainably; with enough to eat and drink, shelter from harm, and that all would have equal opportunity to thrive, rather than be segregated by economics, race, creed, nationality, or gender. Pro Lifers would see pollution of any sort as a criminal offense and would prohibit it under any circumstance. Pro life would mean that life - not species, would be the criteria in the taking or utilization of environments.

People who want to legislate the choices of others declare themselves to do so in “sacredness”. They declare that it is more sacred to require that an innocent be born into a world of pain, degeneracy, poverty, and hardship, than that each birth be desired, cherished, and welcomed. Such a mandate negates motherhood as more than incubation, and ignores the physiological affects on the fetus of an unchosen gestation, while it seems to suggest that blood and flesh are more sacred than spirit, that quantity is more sacred than quality, and that conception is more blessed than intention.
As a spiritual being I find such propositions unsupportable.

Marikken June 26th, 2007 4:39 pm

“The right to life ends at birth.” That’s right Nader4prez. The zygote is sacrosanct, but once a fetus is born, it becomes a “dependent” and a drain on society. The government does reassign them value when they hit 18 and the government wants workers and soldiers - FOR FREE!

lunafish June 26th, 2007 5:24 pm

Waaaay back when I was in my teens and Planned Parenthood was a new organization, and just prior to the Roe v Wade decision, I remember seeing a book in the waiting room at a PP clinic. It was entitled, “Our Bodies, Ourselves” written by women for women concerning their reproductive physiology and the social norms and biases we face. I picked it up and browsed a little and finding my way to a page that I have remembered well into my non-childbearing years as there was a quote to live by for all humans who take issue with this topic. Goes like this…

To a woman who is wanting a to bear a child, a pregnancy is the beginning of a child from the point of conception. To a woman who does not wish to bear a child, for whatever reason, a pregnancy is a medical condition that needs to be dealt with.

I have never had to make that decision either but have held the hand of siblings and friends going through the process. It’s tough no matter how you approach it. What makes it doubly difficult is the stereotyping and social stigma of having made the choice to avoid bringing someone into the world that you have little hope of providing a decent life for, as is required by law of parents in this country.

IMHO, those who oppose abortion will get more consideration from me when I see that they are willing to take in a child that would have been aborted and caring for them until the age of 21, providing them with health care, homelife, and education through college. When that becomes the norm from abortion opponents, then I might find time to hear their argument. Until then I will continue to hold the hands of those trying make the decision regarding their futures in this most private of issues.

I think strangers and politicians should stay out of our underpants. It’s all about power, control over other’s activities, and male domination.

“When women are finally given the power to control their reproductive organs and make decisions governing their daily lives and well-being, we will then have a world where peace and proper governing can take place.” Oscar Arias, Pocatello, Idaho, April 2000.

Unknown-Arts.org June 26th, 2007 6:00 pm

I personally do not believe I could be party to an abortion. I’m afraid that I come down on the side of all life as being sacred and it would be too much for my conscience. Interestingly, I know that about myself and make my choices accordingly, without any government watching over my shoulder to make sure I do myself no harm. I assume that other people have the same grasp of their own conscience and will make choices in accordance with their own beliefs, never needing a an Executive or Legislative intervention to figure it out.

The fact is, we all make decisions everyday that have consequences impacting our future selves and we have to make those decisions as best we can, trusting that what we decide will be the best thing for our future. If the government were to intervene in every bad decision we MIGHT make, in every regret we MIGHT have, then society would be completely frozen, unable to move.

It is not the job of the government to watch out for our psychic well-being in our personal choices, though it certainly is the way our government is treating us. As if we were children, incapable of making intelligent choices. As if we were not fit for life in a democracy, a thing which they have also chosen to deny us, I suppose for our FUTURE BENEFIT.

While I have said that I could not be party to an abortion, I also realize that it is not, in the end, my decision. Bearing children is not something I can do. So, I bear neither the gift nor the burden of making that final decision, one way or the other. Sure, it is my child as well, but it is NOT MY BODY. I can advocate, I can try to persuade, but, again, it is NOT MY BODY. And that is it. Simple as can be. We cannot legislate within the bodies of other human beings. We cannot pretend to know the mind of the woman making the decision, nor can we take on the risks that she might face in pregnancy. Nor can we know the future of that child. What Hell it might face, being brought, unwanted, into the world. As a nation, we are unable to decide that we will have single payer health coverage, covering ALL OF US, but we think we are able to decide what is best for an unborn child? We think we have a monopoly on compassion, yet we cannot show it to those ALREADY BORN and walking with us? It is inconceivable that we should limit the rights of women to decide in a world where we allow people to wallow in poverty, to die for lack of health insurance, to be ejected from the welfare rolls BECAUSE WE LACK THE COMPASSION TO CARE FOR THE BORN.

Let every person who claims to be pro-life adopt unwanted children until there are NONE. Let the senators, congress people and Supreme Court Justices who subvert the rights of women over their own bodies take responsibility for these lives, each one adopting a child, voting for a health care system that gets beyond insurance companies and TRULY cares for us all. Let them vote to stem the hemorrhage of jobs to countries with slave and child labor and keep jobs, and futures, here, waiting for those unborn babies and the families that must support and care for them. Let them show the morality of our society before we impose morality on the bodies of women!

Jimmy Higgins June 26th, 2007 6:11 pm

It is a PATRIARCHY. I have said my piece on religion in this country and that’s what it comes down to: Women have no rights to their own bodies and cannot be trusted to make intelligent decisions. They are here to serve men and have babies. We’d have them back in the home, permanently pregnant and completely subservient, if we could. In short, we wouldn’t be HAVING this discussion if it were MEN carrying children. We wouldn’t tolerate that paternalistic stance taken by Justice (seems a major sin to have that word associated with him) Kennedy. The condescending tone that suggests we must protect women from themselves. “You’re getting hysterical, honey…”

I, for one, have had enough of treating our sisters as if they were our children. I’ve had enough with this PATERNALISM which the government uses to say we aren’t smart enough to think for ourselves. Well, how the Hell can we be off killing people in the name of DEMOCRACY while we’re terrified of it at home? Get serious, folks. Rule by the people doesn’t mean RULE BY THE RICH PEOPLE. It means rule by ALL OF US, men, women, all colors, all sexual preferences, ALL CLASSES.

After 200 years if this population isn’t ready for democracy, that would be the fault of the people who’ve tried to keep democratic freedom under wraps. The people in office RIGHT NOW.

There are only two reasons for legislating against women in this way: One is because we have to respect for women in this culture and TWO is that we need those babies to we can plug them into sweatshops or send them off to war (Abortion at a later date, we like to say)!

medic6869 June 26th, 2007 6:27 pm

Wow, so many great posts.

Thank you, Conscience, Mainstay and Unknown-Art.org to name a few.

I could add nothing to what you all have stated.

COMarc June 26th, 2007 7:28 pm

Wow, the Democrats sell out yet another part of their base.

To me, if people want to argue the morality of an abortion, they are free to do so. And they are free to try to convince anyone that they shouldn’t have an abortion on moral grounds.

Where I object is when one religious group tries to use the power of the state to force its view of morality on other people. When they start trying to make something illegal, and then using the coercive power of police and courts and prisons to make everyone follow their morality, that’s where my view of freedom and a free nation parts company from them.

Bobbi Dykema Katsanis June 26th, 2007 7:57 pm

Truly, it is very, very simple. Nobody is “pro-abortion,” but that’s what the paleoconservatives want voters to think. Therefore, wouldn’t it make sense for the so-called “pro-lifers” (who often are also pro-capital punishment, pro-war, and anti-any kind of funding for poor women and children, esp. healthcare) and their passionate concern for babies to stop shouting at the pro-choice folks, and their passionate concern for women, and build a world where women and children don’t get thrown into horrible situations where the best choice is an awful one?

Word to “pro-lifers”: if you really want to end abortions, recriminalization is not the answer, because that won’t do it. Take a look at Chile. Abortion is illegal there, but it still happens plenty, except now the moms die along with their fetuses more often.

Any “pro-lifer” who is anti-feminist, anti-contraception or anti-economic and educational strategies to empower the poor, especially women, is really just a talking piehole for the Republican party and their religious cronies. No brain attached. Some are pretty happy in this state, too, I’m afraid.

Goose2 June 26th, 2007 8:24 pm

I am ALWAYS going to fall into support of the side that wants a right as opposed to the side that want’s to limit someone else’s right.

I have never had an abortion, but if I get pregnant and for some reason need to make a choice, then I get to make the choice, no one else.

Democrats are really faling their base if they move towards any compromise here. Democrats should be standing up for our rights not bargaining them away.

StrangeAnimals June 26th, 2007 8:41 pm

All of the above arguments on behalf of the reproductive rights of women, and the absolute need to preserve those rights as secured by Roe v Wade, are well stated and must continue to be well stated.

But my original argument was not that we should somehow compromise with the pro-life/anti-choice position, but that we should at least try more to understand it.

To call those opposed to abortion “proto-fascists” and the like is to behave no better and no differently than Rush Limbaugh. Yes, there are indeed militantly rabid anti-choicers who care more for non-viable neural tissue than for women and their reproductive rights. And as with any belief group, the most rabid, the most vocal, the most visibly extreme get the most attention.

But I work with hundreds upon hundreds of socially conservative families who are “pro-life”. I counsel adolescents and families on contraception. I teach sex education classes to fifth graders. I know how the average “pro-lifer” thinks, and they are not what you think they are.

Many of them are against the war in Iraq. Some are against capital punishment. Most of them are not opposed to contraception, and many are for appropriate sex education in schools. Most want their teenage daughters to have the HPV vaccination series.

These are not the same folks seen on the news protesting outside abortion clinics, and spewing hatred and venom towards their political opponents as many on this site are doing.

Yes, they consider themselves “pro-life”, but they are decent workaday folks who are open to reasoned discourse when someone just takes the time to sit and talk about the issues. They know I am pro-choice, and not once have I ever been called a hateful name because of it.

lunafish June 26th, 2007 10:09 pm

Whoa, stranganimals; “Most want their teenage daughters to have the HPV vaccination series.”

Yeah, That’s one of the most incredible marketing ploys of late-based, once again, on fear. I am willing to wager that this NEW and IMPROVED way of controling or perhaps guinea-pigging of the next viable generation will have damaging effects on their health of unfathomable consequence. Maybe they want to limit the number of children born to this next generation in order to more easily control them and let only the rich bear their retched young to take over and repopulate.

I don’t trust any medical remedy that comes wrapped in plastic or requires a needle to use. This new vaccine or whatever they call this new substance hasn’t been through the proper testing process for one, is under pressure from the big pharma to have it LEGISLATED AS MANDATORY for all teens!!! This is the same load of crap you get from these same manufacturers of about more than half the drugs on the market today. In a year we’ll find out that all those young girls have been subjected to a substance that creates the opposite effect and GIVES them all uterine cancer. How calvalierly we take their word for what is best for us.

One way to beat the the kapitali$t regime offending the planet, including we humans, is to reject the products they foist upon us with impunity. Go organic, don’t buy all the crap the tell you you can’t live without. All those synthetic chemicals and preservatives will get you…

I make my own medications and am doing quite well in middle age, look years younger than I am, and feel great knowing that I don’t have to pay or co-pay or wait for a goddamned appointment to meet for ten minutes with some clown who is upset that I am aware of my anatomy without the $80K edumacation he got. I know what is good for my body and live accordingly.

Anyone who subjects their daughter or what have you to this ugly device of the regime… (better check to see if Rummy is ceo of that big pharma-as with the avian flu virus).

Yikes, give me a f%^*ing break. If that isn’t male chauvanism at it’s finest…

More cheney doctrine, no doubt.

StrangeAnimals June 26th, 2007 11:04 pm

I find it curious that those who would blast (often deservedly) Rush Limbaugh and his ilk for their oft-spoke paranoias about liberals controlling (and destroying) everything sacred about America - the media, the courts, the religious debate, and the American popular culture - will usually in their very next breath speak their own paranoias about Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and their ilk also controlling (and destroying) everything sacred in America.

I also find it curious how the far left and the far right are not nearly as far apart as they believe themselves to be.

ezeflyer June 26th, 2007 11:06 pm

Planned Parenthood and it’s courageous people are dealing with our greatest problems, overpopulation, resource depletion, immigration, pollution, species extinctions, war, plagues, etc. as well as a womans right to choose though they have been demonized, shot at and murdered by conservative theocrats. They deserve progressive’s support.

Dafoe June 27th, 2007 12:02 am

For those of the religious right who vote for pro life candidates, republicans, obviously every one of the eleven commandments has a qualifier or two, and their incorporated tub thumpers obviously can get the camel along with the rich through the needles eye. Thou shalt not kill except when you want to, thou shalt not bear false witness unless you are in power or rich, love your neighbor unless he is one of them and not one of us, and on and on and on. The so called religious right would be hard pressed to find some one among them who kept all 11. The Dems should stand up on their haunches and proclaim in one loud voice Pro Choice. My ears are cocked.

shakker June 27th, 2007 1:04 am

I oppose abortion except in the rare case of serious risk to the mother.

However, simply passing a law saying abortion is illegal will not prevent abortion.

Proper medical care, an effective social safety net, birth control, disease prevention, education and public safety will reduce the demand for abortion.

I also believe in free will and the right of minority opinions to compete in the democratic process to make the laws of the land. In our system the regulation of life and death is a state responsibility. The Roe v Wade decision short circuited the democratic process and has created the blowback that allowed the right wing nuts to take power and create conditions that lead to more abortions. The abortion issue in turn has been a hypocritical ploy the neocons bring up every election and never intend to outlaw because if they lose it as an issue their time in office will be over. They also know a large number of people who want abortion on demand will only fight hard to get rid of the Republicans if abortion is actually outlawed.

lpenek June 27th, 2007 4:37 am

StrangeAnimals –
I completely believe you that there are anti-abortion segments who are mindful, morally based and respectful of other opinions. There’s just one problem that has been lost in those ruminations: those aren’t the anti-abortionist we’re worried about. Oops.

fpie June 27th, 2007 8:53 am

The anti-abortion issue surfaced at the same time that it became socially unacceptable for even the die hards to be anti-integration. It’s the same tribe and they know that a vote for an ant-choice candidate is a vote against afirmative action and more to the point, them damn yankees. And they get to pretend to be paragons of virtue. Isn’t that just special?
If the left acquiesses on abortion the reich wing will just find another hot button to pretend to be hollier then everbody about. That’s what consevative christism is really all about.

RuthK June 27th, 2007 10:07 am

I find it annoying that most of the posts seem to think that the issue of abortion centers around the laws.

I am old enough to remember when abortion was illegal. What this meant, in practical terms, was that if you didn’t have enough money for a safe, albeit illegal, abortion, you either had a child you didn’t want or took your chances with a dangerous and sometimes fatal cheap abortion.

People who didn’t believe in abortion didn’t have one. The others just ignored the law. The rich did as they pleased, as always. The middle class included the abortion when they figured their budget.

The “great immorality” at that time had to do with money or the lack of it. It had little to do with abortion itself. What would be different now?

goshawk June 27th, 2007 12:29 pm

The abortion issue pushes a lot of buttons in Americans. For many people, there will be no compromise. That’s why we must allow individual females to be the sole decision makers in regard to their personal mental, physical, spiritual and reproductive health. When I was going to college in the sixties, girls were anxiously anticipating periods and worried about pregnancy. Except for condoms, birth control was hard to come by. Unmarried female students felt intimidated about going to a doctor for a pill prescription and lying about being married so they wouldn’t be lectured. When girls got pregnant, they often got married, even if they didn’t really want to. Some of them committed suicide. Some of them disappeared into an “unwed mothers’home,” and some went to Mexico looking for an abortion. The wealthy families could afford to go to Sweden for a little vacation–no questions asked.
Everyone was worried about the “shame” of unwed motherhood. You were told that if “You play, you pay.” Pregnancy was a punishment for “sin.”
I’d like to leave all of that insanity behind. Let it go. Let’s leave people to make their own personal decisions and keep the government and the churches out of the uterus.

StrangeAnimals June 27th, 2007 12:38 pm

lpenek:

I assume that the anti-abortionists you are worried most about are those most rabid, most violent, and most political. I worry about them, as well, especially those holding public office or judicial posts. I worry about them a lot.

But please understand that as with any rabid group or insurgency, their continued existence depends on the passive support of those in the masses who, while perhaps not condoning their methods, applaud their goals, and perceive the justness of their complaints.

When those pro-choice begin to finally acknowledge the emotionality of the abortion issue, begin to acknowledge the sentiments of the average (not the rabid) “pro-life” adherent, these everyday folks will begin to speak out more against the methods of their most rabid, even violent, “pro-life” peers. They might even be more inclined relax their complete opposition to abortion rights, now feeling less attacked and more understood.

But when those pro-choice wear T-shirts that say “I Had An Abortion”, it appears to those pro-life as a celebratory statement, which further entrenches their pro-life/anti-choice position, and further strengthens their support for their more rabid peers.

When those pro-choice impugn the motives or morals behind the average pro-lifer’s beliefs, or, worse, mock the religious basis for those beliefs, this only serves to further strengthen their support for their more rabid peers.

In general, the conscious and calculated approach of those pro-choice towards this issue over the past few decades has continously galvanized the pro-life/anti-choice movement, and fueled the small but rabid constituency. Has this served the pro-choice movement well?

Liberals discard their traditional tolerant credentials when the mock the beliefs, and the rights to hold those beliefs, of those whose views do not coincide with their own.

Again, I’m not in the least suggesting that those pro-choice should compromise on the rights of women to control their personal reproduction. I’m suggesting that by compromising on the rigid, secular, anti-emotional tone usually taken, more common and mutual understandings might be reached with the masses of those “pro-life” but politically inactive, and this may help to gradually reduce their support for their more inflammatory peers.

wcdevins June 27th, 2007 1:45 pm

Anti-Abortionists changed their moniker to “Pro-Life” to appear more positive. As many here have pointed out, their commitment to life ends at birth: deadly poverty, wars, executions and more are generally, and ironically, planks on the Pro-Life platform. Some commentators, in an attempt to take back the labelling, have taken to calling Pro-Lifers “Pro-Birth”, which much more accurately describes their position.

I would be much more able to listen to the Pro-Birth arguments if they did not moralize so much and drop their morals right after a fetus is born. If they offered care and adoption for the unwanted babies they so defend during gestation their arguments might seem less self- (and religion-) serving. But it seems most of them would rather be right than constructive.

fligloot June 27th, 2007 5:53 pm

I am a man, therefore I am NOT directly involved in the abortion issue.

But, because I am a man, I AM directly involved in the issue of personal control over one’s body and one’s life.

Uknown Arts: I do not share your views on abortions, but I endorse fully and enthusiastically your views on personal autonomy and freedom. Right On!

dkm June 27th, 2007 8:56 pm

A note on the hipocracy of the antiabortion crowd. I live in a part of Mexico that is ruled by PAN, which is a party founded in the 1920’s by a coalition of Opus Dei and wealthy industrialists. You can imagine their policy on abortion. Society here is ruled by the ultraconservative, wealthy Catholics who inflict their “morals” on everyone.

Having said that, it is common for high school and university women, daughters of these well-to-do families, to all of a sudden, during the middle of the term, have a desperate need to visit an “aunt” in Texas for about a week or so. When they come back they have lost an inch or two around their waistline and have stopped throwing up in the morning. How are these people any different from the “Right-to-Life” crowd in the US?

StrangeAnimals June 26th, 2007 1:09 pm

Let me first say that I am vehemently pro-choice.

But I do believe that it is important that those who are pro-choice come to understand and acknowledge the pro-life position. When one starts from the belief system, whether grounded in religious beliefs or simply felt deeply in the moral core, that life begins at conception, of course abortion is considered equal to taking a life.

But when those pro-choice reduce the pro-life sentiments in favor of banning abortions exclusively to the patriarchal aspirations of Old Testamentarian and overwhelmingly male politicians, they fail, and fail miserably, to understand the deeply held beliefs of tens of millions of compassionate and well-meaning Americans.

Abortion is such a complicated issue precisely because there is genuine morality on each side. No matter how perplexingly inconsistent it seems to abortion rights advocates that the caring shown by abortion foes for a fetus does not generalize with similar intensity to a caring for others in our society who are in need of help, it is important to acknowledge that abortion foes are nevertheless displaying heartfelt caring.

Most right-to-lifers are motivated by a genuine desire to defend the defenseless. Those pro-choice, including most Democratic politicians, must begin to show some respect for, even while disagreeing with, the position of those who believe that there are no circumstances, save the health of the mother, under which an abortion should ever be available.

Nobody wants an abortion. Women choose an abortion for a variety of reasons, none of them easy. Most often it is not for convenience, but for poverty. Two-thirds of women who have abortions claim their primary reason is that they cannot afford a child. Abortion represents a sad, even tragic choice for too many women, many of whom society has failed to protect from poverty, rape, incest, or inadequate access to health care and contraception.

Abortion is, as has been said, “a right that ends in sadness”. It is a right only of last resort, to be exercised with solemn understanding of its tragic consequences.

Abortion is also a moral choice, one so solemn and serious that to appear celebratory about having the right to make that choice rightfully offends and enrages. Those who are fighting to preserve the legal right conferred by Roe v. Wade should at least acknowledge that the legal right represents a moral choice, and that those who take the moral choice seriously are not the enemies of those who prize the legal right.
plysj June 26th, 2007 1:16 pm

I agree with Henneberger. Most of the people who I know vote Republican do it for one sole reason, abortion. I am willing to compromise on this to get more socially and environmentally progressive officials in Congress and President. Personally, I find it to be an awful option, but it should be available, safe, legal and rare. Both sides exaggerate and paint a drastic picture that is full of soundbites and lacks substance. The war, destruction of the environment, and the erosion of our safety net, are far more serious issues and need to be addressed. Abortion is a smoke screen used by both sides to pander to their base. And the Dems do not have the balls to say, hey, we think abortion IS wrong. If they actually did say that, they would get the single issue voters back from the Republicans. I mean look at culture of life Bush. He destroys life by the thousands, but the magic word he says is that he is pro-life and he gets the votes. I suppose the above just shows the twittiness of the US population, but to win the masses, the Dems need to shift their position. On a global scale with the major problems we are having, abortion is a minor issue and is not worth the grandstanding, which for the past 8 years has insured a Republican victory (although I believe that both elections were stolen).
Rick Wagner June 26th, 2007 1:41 pm

“Pro-life” is actually anti-choice. Do they really think that women who make a painful choice do it easily?

Those who think abortion is always wrong in any circumstance should never have one, but they shouldn’t take away others’ right to choose.
conscience June 26th, 2007 3:04 pm

Henneberger wrote a fantasy piece and the NY Times published it –

To ignore “patriarchal aspirations” still reflected in major organized patriarchal religions would be to ignore much of the reality of life today and the past where the lives of females were held as less valuable than males.

Abortion is not that complicated an issue.
Fanatical fetus worship is what has to be recorded when we see the lack of concern by these same “pro-life” thinkers to the loss of 800,000 innocent lives in Iraq–!!!

And, as well, in the case of “partial truth abortion” where the lives of females who wanted these children may be harmed or lost now in procedures which will be less safe for them.

The “anti-choice” argument has been acknowledged, has been debated and found to be wanting in compassion for pregnant females with lives and responsibilies and concerns as Mothers, Daughters, Aunts, Sisters . . . already established lives which the “pro-life” community continues to address in “having a bad hair day” terms.

Nor do I see any signs that “right-to-lifers are motivated by a genuine desire to defend the defenseless” — !!!!
What this poster seems to be suggesting is that we pretend that the values and reasoning of the “pro-life” debaters are rational. They are not!

As another, wiser poster points out we have increasing poverty, increasing lack of health care, contraception and education — and, I would add, as the right wing rises we have increasing sexual abuse of females domestically and internationally.

Demanding that females who make the choice for abortion see it as a “moral” choice is also lacking in rationality. It’s a childish concept which leads me to think that what the “pro-lifers” are really asking for is to have abortion recognized as a “sin.”

Anyone who is voting Republican in order to try to control someone else’s personal decisions about childbearing has invited fascism to cross our threshold — while giving support to a war-mongering administration which has led America to decay, disruption, torture of prisoners, bankrupting of our Treasury, lies and secrecy in Orwellian terms, economic chaos and inequality.

This is one of the most violent administrations ever to direct our government and to vote for such violence is to be out of touch with reality.

How delusional can you be to believe that this is a “pro-life” president–???
I’ve never seen such disdain for human life — !!!!

What we see from the right — which includes the “pro-life” community — is that when the shoe is on the other foot, they make the same decisions that rational people make.
They need, however, to overcome their paranoia and preoccupation with trying to enforce childbearing on other females.
CV June 26th, 2007 3:56 pm

Rick Wagner, your point of terminology is a good one, allow me to expand.
These two phrases, “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Abortion” are misleading. No one (or danm few) is PRO abortion, It’s a last resort in a tough situation, so Pro-Choice is closer.
Pro-Life, most often turns out to actualy be Anti-Abortion, ’cause the same people that call themselves Pro-Life are often quite OK with Capital Punishment, Military engagement and free access to firearms.
There is so much baggage attached to these labels it behooves US to avoid them and find better ways to get the point across.
(I’m not so sure about Pro-Choice, either as some years ago, my girlfreind and I were part of the Clinic Defenses in LA when Operation Rescue was besieging and bombing them. Since I’m male and will never have to face that decision firsthand, I took the issue from the Choice end. I had a T-shirt with a ban sign over a motorcycle helmet that said “My Head, My Choice”. It didn’t go over too well, so I question the commitment to Choice per se)
conscience June 26th, 2007 4:03 pm

Just want to add that anyone who suggests that we should humor the “pro-lifers” by pretending that their debate is based on “morality” would have no more of an argument if they were asking us to humor those who find homosexuality immoral.

And, presumably, there are those who vote Republican because of their homophobia. Not much different from “pro-lifers.”
Nader4prez June 26th, 2007 4:19 pm

The right to life ends at birth.
jedediah zachariah jedediah springfield June 26th, 2007 4:23 pm

if you want some ammo vs. the anti-choice crowd, just point out to the bible thumpers that orthodox judaism, reading the same hebrew scriptures as they, does not conclude that abortion is wrong. and the christian new testament has nothing to say on the matter.

having said that, this fact demonstrates that it’s problematic to base public policy/health issues on somebody’s reading of 2000 plus year old religious texts.

good intentions and “caring” aside, most anti-choicers are proto-fascists. why? b/c their belief is based upon religious authority alone.
epona June 26th, 2007 4:33 pm

Abortion is a horrible choice to make, I know, I made that choice many years ago, and I know I did what was right for me at the time. Here is my suggestion to those who wish to criminalize or make this highly personal and painful choice illegal: fully fund and expand all the necessary social services that these additional children would require, welfare, social services (woefully understaffed and underfunded to protect the huge numbers of children already in the system..abused, neglected, etc.), health care, education. PURSUE ALL THE FATHERS OF THESE CHILDREN RELENTLESSLY FOR CHILD SUPPORT, and force them to continue to pay for half the cost of all the expenses (the true medical, welfare, etc) expenses of raising every child they father, to the age of 18. As many have said, MANY times, if men could get pregnant, abortion would never have been an issue. And don’t forget, women of means, always have had and always will have, access to abortion….they have and will if necessary, go out of country, and quietly take care of business. The hypocrisy of this issue is simply maddening.
Mainstay June 26th, 2007 4:37 pm

The title “Pro Life” is jargon - a title chosen to sound righteous, a title created to sway perception.
As to it’s Christian foundation, Jesus clearly stated that one must remove the log in one’s own eye before working on the sliver in another’s. In simple terms: all the moralizing about someone else having the right to appraise their circumstances and choose whether to bear a child or not, is not some grand benevolence, compassion, charity - or even being one’s Brother’s keeper - it is simple manipulation to one’s own view, and strikes me as officious as that controlling “other” does not bear the actual ongoing ramifications of bringing another person into the world.

Reproductive choice seems to expose our perceptions of who is really “equal”. Men would never agree to having their own body functions regulated by law… and far too many don’t even champion the lives of their own children; of those men who have separated from the mothers, better than 55% have abandoned those children’s well being, by doing whatever was possible to avoid or limit child support.

Those who oppose the right to choose abortion, are not paragons of higher wisdom, they simply demand to legislate human birth. Regardless of circumstance or resources they state that human birth must occur no matter how ill conceived.

To actually be Pro Life would be far more multifaceted and complicated than requiring every pregnancy to come to term (as if THAT were possible or sustainable).
Being Pro life would mean that one would not kill or allow killing in one’s name - period. Pro Lifers would not eat animals or plants, would not use insecticides or antibiotics, and would NEVER sanction war or the bearing of arms. Pro Lifers would not have allowed the killing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur or any other nation to occur, let alone to endure for years on end.
Pro Lifers would demand and legislate that every life was assisted to live sustainably; with enough to eat and drink, shelter from harm, and that all would have equal opportunity to thrive, rather than be segregated by economics, race, creed, nationality, or gender. Pro Lifers would see pollution of any sort as a criminal offense and would prohibit it under any circumstance. Pro life would mean that life - not species, would be the criteria in the taking or utilization of environments.

People who want to legislate the choices of others declare themselves to do so in “sacredness”. They declare that it is more sacred to require that an innocent be born into a world of pain, degeneracy, poverty, and hardship, than that each birth be desired, cherished, and welcomed. Such a mandate negates motherhood as more than incubation, and ignores the physiological affects on the fetus of an unchosen gestation, while it seems to suggest that blood and flesh are more sacred than spirit, that quantity is more sacred than quality, and that conception is more blessed than intention.
As a spiritual being I find such propositions unsupportable.
Marikken June 26th, 2007 4:39 pm

“The right to life ends at birth.” That’s right Nader4prez. The zygote is sacrosanct, but once a fetus is born, it becomes a “dependent” and a drain on society. The government does reassign them value when they hit 18 and the government wants workers and soldiers - FOR FREE!
lunafish June 26th, 2007 5:24 pm

Waaaay back when I was in my teens and Planned Parenthood was a new organization, and just prior to the Roe v Wade decision, I remember seeing a book in the waiting room at a PP clinic. It was entitled, “Our Bodies, Ourselves” written by women for women concerning their reproductive physiology and the social norms and biases we face. I picked it up and browsed a little and finding my way to a page that I have remembered well into my non-childbearing years as there was a quote to live by for all humans who take issue with this topic. Goes like this…

To a woman who is wanting a to bear a child, a pregnancy is the beginning of a child from the point of conception. To a woman who does not wish to bear a child, for whatever reason, a pregnancy is a medical condition that needs to be dealt with.

I have never had to make that decision either but have held the hand of siblings and friends going through the process. It’s tough no matter how you approach it. What makes it doubly difficult is the stereotyping and social stigma of having made the choice to avoid bringing someone into the world that you have little hope of providing a decent life for, as is required by law of parents in this country.

IMHO, those who oppose abortion will get more consideration from me when I see that they are willing to take in a child that would have been aborted and caring for them until the age of 21, providing them with health care, homelife, and education through college. When that becomes the norm from abortion opponents, then I might find time to hear their argument. Until then I will continue to hold the hands of those trying make the decision regarding their futures in this most private of issues.

I think strangers and politicians should stay out of our underpants. It’s all about power, control over other’s activities, and male domination.

“When women are finally given the power to control their reproductive organs and make decisions governing their daily lives and well-being, we will then have a world where peace and proper governing can take place.” Oscar Arias, Pocatello, Idaho, April 2000.
Unknown-Arts.org June 26th, 2007 6:00 pm

I personally do not believe I could be party to an abortion. I’m afraid that I come down on the side of all life as being sacred and it would be too much for my conscience. Interestingly, I know that about myself and make my choices accordingly, without any government watching over my shoulder to make sure I do myself no harm. I assume that other people have the same grasp of their own conscience and will make choices in accordance with their own beliefs, never needing a an Executive or Legislative intervention to figure it out.

The fact is, we all make decisions everyday that have consequences impacting our future selves and we have to make those decisions as best we can, trusting that what we decide will be the best thing for our future. If the government were to intervene in every bad decision we MIGHT make, in every regret we MIGHT have, then society would be completely frozen, unable to move.

It is not the job of the government to watch out for our psychic well-being in our personal choices, though it certainly is the way our government is treating us. As if we were children, incapable of making intelligent choices. As if we were not fit for life in a democracy, a thing which they have also chosen to deny us, I suppose for our FUTURE BENEFIT.

While I have said that I could not be party to an abortion, I also realize that it is not, in the end, my decision. Bearing children is not something I can do. So, I bear neither the gift nor the burden of making that final decision, one way or the other. Sure, it is my child as well, but it is NOT MY BODY. I can advocate, I can try to persuade, but, again, it is NOT MY BODY. And that is it. Simple as can be. We cannot legislate within the bodies of other human beings. We cannot pretend to know the mind of the woman making the decision, nor can we take on the risks that she might face in pregnancy. Nor can we know the future of that child. What Hell it might face, being brought, unwanted, into the world. As a nation, we are unable to decide that we will have single payer health coverage, covering ALL OF US, but we think we are able to decide what is best for an unborn child? We think we have a monopoly on compassion, yet we cannot show it to those ALREADY BORN and walking with us? It is inconceivable that we should limit the rights of women to decide in a world where we allow people to wallow in poverty, to die for lack of health insurance, to be ejected from the welfare rolls BECAUSE WE LACK THE COMPASSION TO CARE FOR THE BORN.

Let every person who claims to be pro-life adopt unwanted children until there are NONE. Let the senators, congress people and Supreme Court Justices who subvert the rights of women over their own bodies take responsibility for these lives, each one adopting a child, voting for a health care system that gets beyond insurance companies and TRULY cares for us all. Let them vote to stem the hemorrhage of jobs to countries with slave and child labor and keep jobs, and futures, here, waiting for those unborn babies and the families that must support and care for them. Let them show the morality of our society before we impose morality on the bodies of women!
Jimmy Higgins June 26th, 2007 6:11 pm

It is a PATRIARCHY. I have said my piece on religion in this country and that’s what it comes down to: Women have no rights to their own bodies and cannot be trusted to make intelligent decisions. They are here to serve men and have babies. We’d have them back in the home, permanently pregnant and completely subservient, if we could. In short, we wouldn’t be HAVING this discussion if it were MEN carrying children. We wouldn’t tolerate that paternalistic stance taken by Justice (seems a major sin to have that word associated with him) Kennedy. The condescending tone that suggests we must protect women from themselves. “You’re getting hysterical, honey…”

I, for one, have had enough of treating our sisters as if they were our children. I’ve had enough with this PATERNALISM which the government uses to say we aren’t smart enough to think for ourselves. Well, how the Hell can we be off killing people in the name of DEMOCRACY while we’re terrified of it at home? Get serious, folks. Rule by the people doesn’t mean RULE BY THE RICH PEOPLE. It means rule by ALL OF US, men, women, all colors, all sexual preferences, ALL CLASSES.

After 200 years if this population isn’t ready for democracy, that would be the fault of the people who’ve tried to keep democratic freedom under wraps. The people in office RIGHT NOW.

There are only two reasons for legislating against women in this way: One is because we have to respect for women in this culture and TWO is that we need those babies to we can plug them into sweatshops or send them off to war (Abortion at a later date, we like to say)!
medic6869 June 26th, 2007 6:27 pm

Wow, so many great posts.

Thank you, Conscience, Mainstay and Unknown-Art.org to name a few.

I could add nothing to what you all have stated.
COMarc June 26th, 2007 7:28 pm

Wow, the Democrats sell out yet another part of their base.

To me, if people want to argue the morality of an abortion, they are free to do so. And they are free to try to convince anyone that they shouldn’t have an abortion on moral grounds.

Where I object is when one religious group tries to use the power of the state to force its view of morality on other people. When they start trying to make something illegal, and then using the coercive power of police and courts and prisons to make everyone follow their morality, that’s where my view of freedom and a free nation parts company from them.
Bobbi Dykema Katsanis June 26th, 2007 7:57 pm

Truly, it is very, very simple. Nobody is “pro-abortion,” but that’s what the paleoconservatives want voters to think. Therefore, wouldn’t it make sense for the so-called “pro-lifers” (who often are also pro-capital punishment, pro-war, and anti-any kind of funding for poor women and children, esp. healthcare) and their passionate concern for babies to stop shouting at the pro-choice folks, and their passionate concern for women, and build a world where women and children don’t get thrown into horrible situations where the best choice is an awful one?

Word to “pro-lifers”: if you really want to end abortions, recriminalization is not the answer, because that won’t do it. Take a look at Chile. Abortion is illegal there, but it still happens plenty, except now the moms die along with their fetuses more often.

Any “pro-lifer” who is anti-feminist, anti-contraception or anti-economic and educational strategies to empower the poor, especially women, is really just a talking piehole for the Republican party and their religious cronies. No brain attached. Some are pretty happy in this state, too, I’m afraid.
Goose2 June 26th, 2007 8:24 pm

I am ALWAYS going to fall into support of the side that wants a right as opposed to the side that want’s to limit someone else’s right.

I have never had an abortion, but if I get pregnant and for some reason need to make a choice, then I get to make the choice, no one else.

Democrats are really faling their base if they move towards any compromise here. Democrats should be standing up for our rights not bargaining them away.
StrangeAnimals June 26th, 2007 8:41 pm

All of the above arguments on behalf of the reproductive rights of women, and the absolute need to preserve those rights as secured by Roe v Wade, are well stated and must continue to be well stated.

But my original argument was not that we should somehow compromise with the pro-life/anti-choice position, but that we should at least try more to understand it.

To call those opposed to abortion “proto-fascists” and the like is to behave no better and no differently than Rush Limbaugh. Yes, there are indeed militantly rabid anti-choicers who care more for non-viable neural tissue than for women and their reproductive rights. And as with any belief group, the most rabid, the most vocal, the most visibly extreme get the most attention.

But I work with hundreds upon hundreds of socially conservative families who are “pro-life”. I counsel adolescents and families on contraception. I teach sex education classes to fifth graders. I know how the average “pro-lifer” thinks, and they are not what you think they are.

Many of them are against the war in Iraq. Some are against capital punishment. Most of them are not opposed to contraception, and many are for appropriate sex education in schools. Most want their teenage daughters to have the HPV vaccination series.

These are not the same folks seen on the news protesting outside abortion clinics, and spewing hatred and venom towards their political opponents as many on this site are doing.

Yes, they consider themselves “pro-life”, but they are decent workaday folks who are open to reasoned discourse when someone just takes the time to sit and talk about the issues. They know I am pro-choice, and not once have I ever been called a hateful name because of it.
lunafish June 26th, 2007 10:09 pm

Whoa, stranganimals; “Most want their teenage daughters to have the HPV vaccination series.”

Yeah, That’s one of the most incredible marketing ploys of late-based, once again, on fear. I am willing to wager that this NEW and IMPROVED way of controling or perhaps guinea-pigging of the next viable generation will have damaging effects on their health of unfathomable consequence. Maybe they want to limit the number of children born to this next generation in order to more easily control them and let only the rich bear their retched young to take over and repopulate.

I don’t trust any medical remedy that comes wrapped in plastic or requires a needle to use. This new vaccine or whatever they call this new substance hasn’t been through the proper testing process for one, is under pressure from the big pharma to have it LEGISLATED AS MANDATORY for all teens!!! This is the same load of crap you get from these same manufacturers of about more than half the drugs on the market today. In a year we’ll find out that all those young girls have been subjected to a substance that creates the opposite effect and GIVES them all uterine cancer. How calvalierly we take their word for what is best for us.

One way to beat the the kapitali$t regime offending the planet, including we humans, is to reject the products they foist upon us with impunity. Go organic, don’t buy all the crap the tell you you can’t live without. All those synthetic chemicals and preservatives will get you…

I make my own medications and am doing quite well in middle age, look years younger than I am, and feel great knowing that I don’t have to pay or co-pay or wait for a goddamned appointment to meet for ten minutes with some clown who is upset that I am aware of my anatomy without the $80K edumacation he got. I know what is good for my body and live accordingly.

Anyone who subjects their daughter or what have you to this ugly device of the regime… (better check to see if Rummy is ceo of that big pharma-as with the avian flu virus).

Yikes, give me a f%^*ing break. If that isn’t male chauvanism at it’s finest…

More cheney doctrine, no doubt.
StrangeAnimals June 26th, 2007 11:04 pm

I find it curious that those who would blast (often deservedly) Rush Limbaugh and his ilk for their oft-spoke paranoias about liberals controlling (and destroying) everything sacred about America - the media, the courts, the religious debate, and the American popular culture - will usually in their very next breath speak their own paranoias about Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and their ilk also controlling (and destroying) everything sacred in America.

I also find it curious how the far left and the far right are not nearly as far apart as they believe themselves to be.
ezeflyer June 26th, 2007 11:06 pm

Planned Parenthood and it’s courageous people are dealing with our greatest problems, overpopulation, resource depletion, immigration, pollution, species extinctions, war, plagues, etc. as well as a womans right to choose though they have been demonized, shot at and murdered by conservative theocrats. They deserve progressive’s support.
Dafoe June 27th, 2007 12:02 am

For those of the religious right who vote for pro life candidates, republicans, obviously every one of the eleven commandments has a qualifier or two, and their incorporated tub thumpers obviously can get the camel along with the rich through the needles eye. Thou shalt not kill except when you want to, thou shalt not bear false witness unless you are in power or rich, love your neighbor unless he is one of them and not one of us, and on and on and on. The so called religious right would be hard pressed to find some one among them who kept all 11. The Dems should stand up on their haunches and proclaim in one loud voice Pro Choice. My ears are cocked.
shakker June 27th, 2007 1:04 am

I oppose abortion except in the rare case of serious risk to the mother.

However, simply passing a law saying abortion is illegal will not prevent abortion.

Proper medical care, an effective social safety net, birth control, disease prevention, education and public safety will reduce the demand for abortion.

I also believe in free will and the right of minority opinions to compete in the democratic process to make the laws of the land. In our system the regulation of life and death is a state responsibility. The Roe v Wade decision short circuited the democratic process and has created the blowback that allowed the right wing nuts to take power and create conditions that lead to more abortions. The abortion issue in turn has been a hypocritical ploy the neocons bring up every election and never intend to outlaw because if they lose it as an issue their time in office will be over. They also know a large number of people who want abortion on demand will only fight hard to get rid of the Republicans if abortion is actually outlawed.
lpenek June 27th, 2007 4:37 am

StrangeAnimals –
I completely believe you that there are anti-abortion segments who are mindful, morally based and respectful of other opinions. There’s just one problem that has been lost in those ruminations: those aren’t the anti-abortionist we’re worried about. Oops.
fpie June 27th, 2007 8:53 am

The anti-abortion issue surfaced at the same time that it became socially unacceptable for even the die hards to be anti-integration. It’s the same tribe and they know that a vote for an ant-choice candidate is a vote against afirmative action and more to the point, them damn yankees. And they get to pretend to be paragons of virtue. Isn’t that just special?
If the left acquiesses on abortion the reich wing will just find another hot button to pretend to be hollier then everbody about. That’s what consevative christism is really all about.
RuthK June 27th, 2007 10:07 am

I find it annoying that most of the posts seem to think that the issue of abortion centers around the laws.

I am old enough to remember when abortion was illegal. What this meant, in practical terms, was that if you didn’t have enough money for a safe, albeit illegal, abortion, you either had a child you didn’t want or took your chances with a dangerous and sometimes fatal cheap abortion.

People who didn’t believe in abortion didn’t have one. The others just ignored the law. The rich did as they pleased, as always. The middle class included the abortion when they figured their budget.

The “great immorality” at that time had to do with money or the lack of it. It had little to do with abortion itself. What would be different now?
goshawk June 27th, 2007 12:29 pm

The abortion issue pushes a lot of buttons in Americans. For many people, there will be no compromise. That’s why we must allow individual females to be the sole decision makers in regard to their personal mental, physical, spiritual and reproductive health. When I was going to college in the sixties, girls were anxiously anticipating periods and worried about pregnancy. Except for condoms, birth control was hard to come by. Unmarried female students felt intimidated about going to a doctor for a pill prescription and lying about being married so they wouldn’t be lectured. When girls got pregnant, they often got married, even if they didn’t really want to. Some of them committed suicide. Some of them disappeared into an “unwed mothers’home,” and some went to Mexico looking for an abortion. The wealthy families could afford to go to Sweden for a little vacation–no questions asked.
Everyone was worried about the “shame” of unwed motherhood. You were told that if “You play, you pay.” Pregnancy was a punishment for “sin.”
I’d like to leave all of that insanity behind. Let it go. Let’s leave people to make their own personal decisions and keep the government and the churches out of the uterus.
StrangeAnimals June 27th, 2007 12:38 pm

lpenek:

I assume that the anti-abortionists you are worried most about are those most rabid, most violent, and most political. I worry about them, as well, especially those holding public office or judicial posts. I worry about them a lot.

But please understand that as with any rabid group or insurgency, their continued existence depends on the passive support of those in the masses who, while perhaps not condoning their methods, applaud their goals, and perceive the justness of their complaints.

When those pro-choice begin to finally acknowledge the emotionality of the abortion issue, begin to acknowledge the sentiments of the average (not the rabid) “pro-life” adherent, these everyday folks will begin to speak out more against the methods of their most rabid, even violent, “pro-life” peers. They might even be more inclined relax their complete opposition to abortion rights, now feeling less attacked and more understood.

But when those pro-choice wear T-shirts that say “I Had An Abortion”, it appears to those pro-life as a celebratory statement, which further entrenches their pro-life/anti-choice position, and further strengthens their support for their more rabid peers.

When those pro-choice impugn the motives or morals behind the average pro-lifer’s beliefs, or, worse, mock the religious basis for those beliefs, this only serves to further strengthen their support for their more rabid peers.

In general, the conscious and calculated approach of those pro-choice towards this issue over the past few decades has continously galvanized the pro-life/anti-choice movement, and fueled the small but rabid constituency. Has this served the pro-choice movement well?

Liberals discard their traditional tolerant credentials when the mock the beliefs, and the rights to hold those beliefs, of those whose views do not coincide with their own.

Again, I’m not in the least suggesting that those pro-choice should compromise on the rights of women to control their personal reproduction. I’m suggesting that by compromising on the rigid, secular, anti-emotional tone usually taken, more common and mutual understandings might be reached with the masses of those “pro-life” but politically inactive, and this may help to gradually reduce their support for their more inflammatory peers.
wcdevins June 27th, 2007 1:45 pm

Anti-Abortionists changed their moniker to “Pro-Life” to appear more positive. As many here have pointed out, their commitment to life ends at birth: deadly poverty, wars, executions and more are generally, and ironically, planks on the Pro-Life platform. Some commentators, in an attempt to take back the labelling, have taken to calling Pro-Lifers “Pro-Birth”, which much more accurately describes their position.

I would be much more able to listen to the Pro-Birth arguments if they did not moralize so much and drop their morals right after a fetus is born. If they offered care and adoption for the unwanted babies they so defend during gestation their arguments might seem less self- (and religion-) serving. But it seems most of them would rather be right than constructive.
fligloot June 27th, 2007 5:53 pm

I am a man, therefore I am NOT directly involved in the abortion issue.

But, because I am a man, I AM directly involved in the issue of personal control over one’s body and one’s life.

Uknown Arts: I do not share your views on abortions, but I endorse fully and enthusiastically your views on personal autonomy and freedom. Right On!
dkm June 27th, 2007 8:56 pm

A note on the hipocracy of the antiabortion crowd. I live in a part of Mexico that is ruled by PAN, which is a party founded in the 1920’s by a coalition of Opus Dei and wealthy industrialists. You can imagine their policy on abortion. Society here is ruled by the ultraconservative, wealthy Catholics who inflict their “morals” on everyone.

Having said that, it is common for high school and university women, daughters of these well-to-do families, to all of a sudden, during the middle of the term, have a desperate need to visit an “aunt” in Texas for about a week or so. When they come back they have lost an inch or two around their waistline and have stopped throwing up in the morning. How are these people any different from the “Right-to-Life” crowd in the US?

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)