Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  What makes you so certain? (9+ / 0-)

    Look, the last really egregious anti-choice legislation that passed was the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. That only passed with the help of Democrats. So what makes you think Democrats wouldn't help in the passage of more anti-choice laws, especially if the Republicans take the American people hostage?

    "I want to help clean up the state that is so sorry today of journalism." -- Sarah Palin

    by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 12:12:52 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  In my opinion, partial birth abortions (0+ / 0-)

      are difficult, but not impossible, to defend. That's a really tough one. So, I can see your concern on that ban. I stand corrected...but only to a degree.

      •  Your comment... (8+ / 0-)

        reveals the effectiveness of the forced birth movement.

        "Partial birth abortion" is a made up political term, not a medical one. Perhaps you are not familiar with how they managed to get it through Congress, or the disgusting SCOTUS opinion that upheld it. Basically, forced birthers invented a term intended to play on emotions and to invoke graphic and disturbing images. Then Congress issued its Congressional findings that this so-called procedure is never medically necessary, even though the doctors who perform it testified that it is often a safer procedure for women.

        And because the forced birth campaign was so effective at getting the made up term into our national lexicon, even pro-choicers said, "Well, yes, that's one procedure that is too tasteless to protect." And voila! An utterly bullshit term was codified into law.

        "I want to help clean up the state that is so sorry today of journalism." -- Sarah Palin

        by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 12:29:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Forced Birth" is also a made up (0+ / 0-)

          political term, not a medical one. And you just gave it credence here.

          •  Um... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PAbluestater, mamamedusa, earicicle

            I never claimed that "forced birth" is a medical term. That would be the difference.

            "I want to help clean up the state that is so sorry today of journalism." -- Sarah Palin

            by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 12:53:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The difference is that "Partial Birth" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mamamedusa, Mrs M

            is a pseudo-medical term made up by anti-abortion advocates to scare people into restricting abortion rights by appealing to emotion rather than reason.

            "Forced birth" describes the phenomenon of forcing women to carry pregnancies to term against their will. "Pro-choice" advocates warn against the dangers of a society in which a woman is reduced to an incubator for a fetus that has more rights than she does.  

            "Forced birth" is the rhetorical counter for the right wing's insistence that it is "Pro Life" and that women who seek the right to choose are "Pro Abortion."

            The terms you choose to use indicate the side you choose to take.  If you use "partial birth" you might think you're an ally of women's reproductive freedoms, but you're working against us by accepting that rhetoric. It's like when progressives find themselves using the rhetoric of "reverse racism" -- it's just not a progressive thing to say. No matter how you slice it, it's right wing pie.

            •  I vehemently reject your (0+ / 0-)

              argument over the semantics. That's YOUR and YOURS interpretation of how the words are being used and/or perceived.

              I'm not opposed to fighting this fight for the freedom of any citizen to do whatever he/she wants to do as long as they don't break the law doing it.

              It's very simple...if you don't like a law or the lack of a to change it. That's how our country works. Some need to get it through their stubborn heads that personal desires don't mean shit. Change has a very defined and complicated path in the US. It was built that way so that ALL could have a say in how this republic was going to survive or thrive.

        •  Late Term Medically Necessary (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Termination of Pregnancy - for Medical Reasons.

          Since I know someone who had to make that difficult medical decision - to save the life of the mother - then you look at the Medical Necessity.

          Calling that Difficult Medical Decision - anything else - is just lazy - or brainwashed.

          No Republican voted to agree to the Paycheck Fairness Act - even the Republican Women Hate Women.

          by PAbluestater on Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 09:24:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Newbie tip, bewareofme: Inflammatory anti-choice (7+ / 0-)

        lingo such as "partial birth abortion"  is winger-speak. Progressives and feminists don't use this language. And as Kaili has already pointed out, it is not the name of a medical procedure.

        Pregnancies rarely must be terminated in the third trimester, and the reasons for doing so almost always involve potentially fatal complications for the fetus, the mother or both. But when a woman and her doctor reach this terribly difficult medical decision,  how can you justify politicians, judges or voters reaching into her womb and overriding the doctor's treatment plan? Do you really believe that imposing a potential death sentence on the mother is a morally preferable outcome? If so, how is that a progressive, feminist political position?

        Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.

        by earicicle on Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 02:23:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ummmm.... (0+ / 0-)

          "Progressives and feminists don't use this language."

          So, don't use the language, terminology, vernacular, whatever, if you're a progressive or a feminist.

          I tend to refrain from labeling myself as either. I'm bewareofme. My thoughts and opinions on ANY pregnancy termination belong to me alone, and I can express them here in whatever form I choose. If the powers that be here want to ban me or delete my account for using the term partial birth abortion, that's their perogative. So be it.

          You can suggest the semantics you feel I should use, but you really have no sway with me. I feel your imperative that I use different terminology because you want me to is akin to somebody telling me what I should do with my body and/or when to do it.

          I am well aware of the hazards of third trimester abortions. I really don't need you to 'educate' me. But, hey, thanks anyway.

          Just as I don't want the gov't in my womb, I don't want you or anybody else impeding on my freedom to do whatever I want within the bounds of the law.

          •  And what you are defending as a term, bewareofme, (0+ / 0-)

            is placing a life saving procedure outside of the law, UID 274844. You remind me so much of Rainbow Girl.  

            •  I'm bewareofme and I can assure (0+ / 0-)

              you that if Rainbow Girl and I share some similarities, it is purely coincidence.

              I try to live life in a realm of balance. Although I am active in several online communities, I have a very difficult time subscribing to the extremes of any of them as I see that as counterproductive to the life I wish to pursue. It's not that I'm not passionate about certain issues, it's just that I've learned that there's a difference between being proactive and being reactionary. Employing the latter when I was younger rendered me useless in my endeavors of passion. I attempt to take the long view on issues of great importance to me, and, quite frankly, semantics doesn't earn that respect. It's action that I covet and really believe in.

              My online activities are secondary to what I do in the real world. After having been around DK for some time now, I realize that many here have that relationship backward...a lot of talk on here and very little action in the real world. I concede that is me being somewhat judgmental and that is not very nice of me. But, I'm human and I make mistakes all the time. Everyone does.

              I realize that this place is all that some have and that this is, indeed, their action in the world. I would have to be hard pressed, though, not to believe that a majority here say what they say due to the cloak of anonimity that online communities offer. That's the attraction to these types of forums, and another reason why I prefer action in the real world. Putting oneself out there for any and all to see is true courage, not this psuedo-courage begat by a keyboard and electronic code.

              •  In other words, (0+ / 0-)

                you're a really special snowflake who thinks that the power of words and the power of framing — important concepts in politics — aren't as important as your special-snowflake right to "express yourself."

      •  Intact Dilation and Extraction... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        arlene not hard to defend. Before the Congressional ban went into effect there were estimated to be around 2000/year out of close to five million pregnancies, a statistically insignificant number. An ob/gyn skilled in the procedure will tell you the choice to use it was because the life of the mother was at serious risk. Ironically, it was often used for pregnancies discovered to to be ectopic only in the third trimester, which, if carried to term would almost certainly kill the mother and probably the fetus.

        And there are a host of other indications for implementing the procedure, making it crazy to have become a political football where a group of politicians, wholly ignorant of the stakes and circumstances surrounding the procedure, stick their uninformed hands into a useful medical procedure and tell doctors what they can and cannot do. Having done it once, Republicans will surely like to codify all medical procedures as a matter of law, based entirely on political, emotional, and uniformed arguments like this one.

        By the way, if you haven't read the opinions, including Justice Ginsberg's dissent on this, do so. Kennedy's argument, writing for the majority is so tortured and without an empirical base as to have been likely to have failed an elementary rhetoric test. And Ginsberg's argument is incisive, biting, and beautifully to the point. I don't have the link to it at the moment but both opinions should be easy to find on-line.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site