View Story | 61 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
...seek to BAN abortion. It is true that some are more extreme, like those who bombed our clinic (or, being stupid, the garage next door). But their goal is to ban abortion. They will accept a middle ground only as a way station on the road to that goal, a road down which they have gone far with three decades worth of nibbles at Roe v. Wade, nibbles that now account for very big accumulated bites. I do not plan to make nice with people who, whatever their tone of voice, play hardball politics in this matter that messes with women's health and lives.
I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain
by Meteor Blades on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:11:27 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Or as I perceive it: Many people want to be known as pro-life even though, when you ask them one question at a time, their responses are much closer to pro-choice answers. They don't want the pro-choice label because then, they don't have warm and fuzzy feelings about protecting babies, etc.
That means the organized infrastructure of pro-life groups, which hold much more extreme views, have the tacit approval of people who don't even necessarily agree with them. So when you say "the average pro-lifer" wants this or that -- you are potentially alienating even people who don't hold such extreme views. It's important to focus on pro-life organizations for that reason, and distinguish them from individuals who are more open to debate.
by rb6 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:16:31 PM PDT
A majority of people, if you get into it, reveal themselves to be anti-abortion but pro-choice. I had that conversation with my Catholic mother many years ago.
It's easy to just say, "I'm pro-life." The involved ones use a huge number of soft supporters to bolster their numbers. But when you really have the debate, they don't really hold up as people who want to ban abortion.
"Do you think a girl who is raped should be forced to carry to term?"
Unless they answer yes to that and mean it, they're pro-choice.
The society described by saying yes to that and meaning it is way the hell beyond anything almost any American would be willing to live with.
People just aren't thinking it through.
Being angry that the captain isn't doing enough to stop the sharks is no good reason to harpoon the lifeboat.
by Sun dog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:34:50 PM PDT
Allowing an exception for rape is merely a way of saying they're not wholely unsympathetic to her plight--they don't want to look heartless, which they do if they condemn a woman to bear her rapist's child. They know just how self-righteous that makes them sound, how smug and unsympathetic.
And I HAVE thought it through. SO have most of us whoa re pro-0chocie.
The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.
by irishwitch on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:10:51 PM PDT
There is no way to ban abortion except for rape. Does a woman bring a note from her rapist? Do we need a quick conviction before it's too late for an abortion? Do we get a lot of people getting accused of rape because someone really doesn't want a baby.
My point is that people can't have it both ways. They can't say they are anti-choice except for certain cases. The fact is, it's pretty much impossible to outlaw abortion without completely trouncing the Constitution and a free society.
So, the alternative even for someone who wants to feel above it all is to have safe abortions available and make sure that the programs that help prevent unwanted pregnancy get advanced.
by Sun dog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:55:34 PM PDT
that Roe is based on shaky legal grounds, so it depends on how you interpret the constitution. Roe hinges on a right to bodily privacy and is based on Griswold v. Conn. which saw a penumbra or shadow of privacy implied int he 4th amendment--if they can't go after your house without a proper warrant, they should have even fewer right to control your body. The strict constitutionalists on the SCOTUS disagree. Get grishakagal going on this one, or read some of the anti-choice legal eagles opinions on it. I disagree with them, natch.
And it is perfectly possible to allow exceptions for extreme cases--and you are right about just how difficult it would be to obtain an abortion for rape if all else were banned. You'd have to prove you reported it (many rapes aren't reported; most of the calls we got at the crisis center were form women who didn't report). And then what would the standard be? Would reporting be enough? Would you h ave to have someone arrested and charged? The reason they'd allow the exception is simply that this would, in their eyes, an extreme and rare case--and thus few in numbers--which would allow the woman to come before the fetus. They also know most Americans wouldn't buy into banning for rape--that's what screwed the ban in SD. Unfortuantely while you'd think they'd want contraception and info available, they don't. Thay also want to ban all "abortifacient" methods (the Pill, IUD, Depo shots, Plan B) so their claim to push rpevention is BS--anti-chocie Dems killed a bill that owuld ahve provided funding for sex comrpehensive sex and contracpetives becasue it owudl encourage sexual activity and fund aboritfacient methods!
by irishwitch on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:02:08 AM PDT
I wasn't saying pro-choice people hadn't thought this through.
I realize why they don't want to say they believe in an exemption for rape. It's because they don't want to appear heartless. But what it exposes if you follow through with the arguments from there is that being anti-choice is, at its core, heartless.
by Sun dog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:07:10 PM PDT
...ask them:
Do you think a woman should have to wait 24 hours after she comes to a clinic to obtain an abortion?
Do you think a woman should be required to view photographs of the stages of development of a fetus before having an abortion?
Do you think medical procedures for poor women should be covered by Medicaid? Do you include abortion in that coverage?
Do you think 15-year-old girls should be required to get their parents' permission before obtaining an abortion?
Do you think a woman who wants an abortion for economic reasons should be denied this option?
Do you think the husband (or boyfriend) should have a legal say over whether his wife (or girlfriend) has an abortion?
Their answers to those questions determine for me whether they are pro-choice.
by Meteor Blades on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:26:47 PM PDT
I'm just talking about a way of getting through the fog. A way of thinking about it where they can realize that they may be anti-abortion for themselves but that it really doesn't make sense to try to legislate that for others.
You're talking more about pro-choice as a badge. I'm talking about the fact that the anti-choice people have done a better job of getting big numbers of people to think that's the side of the fence they are on.
by Sun dog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:59:01 PM PDT
...I understand that you're trying to break through to the other side, and I appreciate that. It's an approach that sometimes works. But only sometimes. And my concern is that every nibble into reproductive rights protection KILLS women. So, when I hear talk about uniting with these folks, what that says to me is not so much trying to pry them out of their false consciousness about their real views but rather reaching some kind of compromise. The trouble is, compromise with those who would ban abortion is deadly.
by Meteor Blades on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:36:20 PM PDT
There's no compromising here, not from me.
Again, I'm not talking about addressing the hardcore politico anti-choice people. I'm talking about taking them out at the knees.
They have been able to push people around not because of their street protests and intimidation. That stuff has probably cost them more than it's gained. They have had success because of the huge numbers of people who think of themselves as 'pro-life.'
I'm talking about taking the public dialogue to the point that those masses of people realize which side they're actually on. We win that argument and the nutjobs are relegated to a noisy little fringe instead of part of a coalition that gets insane Republicans elected president.
by Sun dog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:32:13 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 61 comments