Skip to main content

View Diary: The coming war on women (362 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  abortion as birth control (21+ / 0-)

    I've seen this argument before and it always gets me because it's such a silly thing to say. I'm not denying there are women who view abortion as an 'easy' way to get rid of an unplanned pregnancy, but the reality is there is no 'easy' way to get an abortion for the majority of the country at present, so it's kinda like saying someone is going to get drunk on those liquor chocolate or those tiny courtesy bottles of alcohol that only have a couple swallows in them. Possible, but difficult and the fear that someone might succeed is not enough of a reason to 'ban' liquor chocolates or tiny bottles of booze.

    The reality is that by parroting the 'abortion as birth control' line, you are buying into and supporting the entire abortion argument, which generally boils down to the idea that woman aren't capable of making choices about our own bodies.

    Your conscience is bothered by abortion? You don't believe that woman are intelligent enough to decide? Then put your efforts into increased funding for contraception and sex-ed. Work for your local planned parenthood, many of them don't even perform abortions but do a great deal to prevent the need for them. Talk to your kids, your nieces and nephews, your church group, whatever. Spread the word that contraceptives are easy to use and effective 99% of the time if used correctly and will therefore remove any risk of abortion.

    Your conscience - and women - will thank you and rest easier for it.

    •  That's a great argument (16+ / 0-)

      and I'm sick of hearing the "abortion as birth control" mantra too.

      The bottom line is that, in combination with birth control, the "anti-baby pill" is a truly excellent back-up.  Even in majority Christian democracies in Europe (like Switzerland, where I live), and where Church and State aren't very well separated, a woman can go to a pharmacy on the morning after a contraception accident, and get an anti-baby pill for about $30 dollars, even without insurance -- no muss, no fuss, no prescription. There's no reason -- except the success of Christian fundamentalists in hijacking the abortion discussion -- that this can't be the case in the U.S.

      Anybody who has had an abortion understands it's a truly awful form of "birth control." Even atheists like me, who believe there's no moral issue involved in an abortion, find them painful and unpleasant. The idea we'd do it if we had other means of prevention available is absurd. But it sure as hell better be available as an option if we're denied other means of prevention and pregnancy termination, or if we need it for any other reason.

      •  I'm with you on day after pills (0+ / 0-)

        Sorry, but I can't escape the morality issue.  But, I can see that preventing pregnancy with a day after pill is distinctly different than an elective abortion at 19 weeks because of inconvenience.  That fertilized egg might have the potential to become a person, but a woman isn't pregnant until it implants.  A consciencious person will either practice birth control before or immediately after.  I will always council the latter to have the baby and give it up for adoption.  The purpose of supporting a right to choose is privacy and personal and family decision making. I don't want to sit in judgement of medical decisions. Period. That umbrella will also cover the irresponsible and those who don't come to the same moral conclusions that I do.  I'm OK with that.  But, I don't have to agree that abortion-as-birth control doesn't exist.  It does and it is wrong.  

        •  I think if you're going to claim (7+ / 0-)

          that "abortion as birth control" exists, you're going to have to provide some figures, and demonstrate that those who "choose" it as a form of birth control have access to other easily available and affordable means of contraception and eschew them, preferring to rely on abortion.  And I think those figures are going to be awfully hard to find.

          If you haven't had an abortion, and you're arguing that people "choose" them instead of other forms of birth control, I can pretty much guarantee you're talking out of your ass.

          •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

            There are no statistics.  I have not had an abortion, but have known others that have.  I haven't always agreed with their reasons, but it's not my place to agree. I think that I pointed out that legal is legal regardless of the reason.  My point is that we are not going to win any arguments outside of this website if we focus on the rightness and wrongness of the decision.  There are wrong reasons to have an abortion, but wrong is different than illegal.  We need to focus on how Democratic principles bring the RATE down.

            It's purists like you that chase attempted bridge builders like me out of here.  I won't provide an expletive insult to make make my point.

            •  Your so-called "bridge building" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              is nothing but a lot of moral posturing and hand wringing. I don't give a shit about your "moral concerns." They help keep the Overton window pushed to the right. Don't expect actual pro-choicers, vs. tepid fence-sitters like you, to coddle them.

        •  It's interesting (0+ / 0-)

          that you claim you "don't want to sit in judgment" yet have no qualms about dismissing a woman's choice to have an abortion as a matter of "convenience" and a lack of "conscientiousness" and "irresponsibility."

          Then, a few comment later, you express bewilderment that your efforts at "bridge building" are met with such skepticism.

          "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

          by SingularExistence on Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 04:12:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  This comment and many others are a real rip. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Diana in NoVa

            In so many other areas on this site, we talk about human rights, which are supposedly inviolable, and Obama often fried in print for violating such human rights, including prisoners, LBGT and others, but never, never on this one.

            A women confronted with pregnancy ceases to have human rights, and a group of cells is assumed to have all the human rights available to be discussed, long before it can exercise any right itself whatever. It doesn't matter how the woman came into the situation, rape and incest and total failure of contraception actually and often properly used, or a wanted pregnancy which goes really really bad, anything but immaculate conception,  which is categorically ruled out in our times.

            And the analysis bedcause'morallyand politicallyit could be a winner.'  In other words, simply an idea without separate content which can be manipulated in either direction for political gain. Yuck.

          •  Not all are blameless victims (0+ / 0-)

            That's exactly where the divide is...the right assumes that those who support abortion rights are condoning abortion in every instance.  By supporting a person's right to choose, I don't have to like it in all instances. I just have to accept that it will be legal in all instances. We want it to be legal.  It's never going to be universally acceptable.  You shouldn't care if I believe that there are instances where that choice is wrong.  There's as much outrage on the far left as there is on the far right.  Nobody should be outraged because I allow for the possibility that some irresponsible people use abortion as birth control.  A few people are so caught up in that "some" that they fail to recognize the larger point which was that Democratic principles decrease the overall abortion rate and Republican principles increase the overall abortion rate.

            If we don't at least consider the conservative point of view then we can't seriously debate their points.  I am beginning to see why it is difficult for moderates to speak here.  I'm not condemning anyone and am advocating the position stated by Angry Mouse.  I just get to that position taking a different route.  I'd like to think that there is nothing wrong with this.

            •  Yeah, the woman is totally to "blame," (0+ / 0-)

              which is the underlying message of your subject header.

              "I'm pro-choice, but..." != "I'm pro-choice." Again, don't expect your squeamishness to be catered to by people who, you know, are actually realistic about how abortion policy affects women's lives.

              I am beginning to see why it is difficult for moderates to speak here.

              Boo hoo fucking hoo. "Moderates" have helped the right wing run this country into the ground.

      •  "Morning after" pills do not affect zygotes. (0+ / 0-)

        A well-designed series of animal and human studies have demonstrated that hormonal birth control like Plan B has no post-fertilization effects.  When a woman goes to a pharmacy and gets a morning-after pill, she is not doing anything that any reasonable person should consider an abortion (or anything like an abortion).

        Having an IUD inserted after unprotected intercourse has the potential to prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum.  Taking prescription-only abortifacients like mifeprestone or methotrexate will absolutely interfere with a fertilized ovum, implanted or not.  There is no amount of hormonal contraception a woman can take which can be demonstrated to have any post-fertilization effects.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site