Women have a fundamental right to choose when and how many children they would like to have. Contraception should be so encouraged and so available, effective, and affordable that in the vast majority of cases, women will choose whether or not to have a child BEFORE they are pregnant. Abortions should be safe, affordable, and readily available when needed, but our goal should be to reduce the number of abortions by 90%.
Instead of trying to make abortions illegal, unavailable, unaffordable, dangerous, shameful, or unregulated, we could make them unnecessary. Improved contraception could make abortions largely obsolete.
I’ve been advocating this common sense and common ground message since Ronald Reagan was President. And the response generally is: “But the people against abortions are against contraception as well.” And some are.
However, a recent NPR/PBS/Marist poll showed that 77% of Americans do not want Roe v Wade overturned (a record high), but the majority of Americans want some restrictions on abortions, and over 60% of both self-labeled Pro-Choice and Pro-Life proponents are unhappy with the current system.
“. . . the debate is dominated by the extreme positions on both sides," said Barbara Carvalho, director of the Marist Poll, which conducted the survey. "People do see the issue as very complicated, very complex. Their positions don't fall along one side or the other. ... The debate is about the extremes, and that's not where the public is."
That “dominated by the extremes” approach to the abortion debate has prevailed at least since Roe v Wade promised American women a constitutional right to control their own bodies 46 years ago, Doctors and nurses have been murdered in the name of protecting the sanctity of life. But both sides have ignored the extremely complex moral ramifications of abortions, and the ambivalence of thoughtful, informed, concerned American voters. Worst of all, they have ignored simple common sense solutions, and potential common ground such as the fact that contraception offers cheaper, safer, less morally complex, and even more broadly supported family planning choices than abortions.
Winston Churchill famously said that “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
Most Americans, it seems, may have a similar opinion of abortion rights. Few people think abortions are an ideal solution. But a large majority of Americans, for many years, have agreed that sometimes an abortion is the least bad option, and therefore is an option that should be safely and readily available.
Democratic candidates have generally either proclaimed themselves as staunchly Pro-Choice (and therefore unacceptable to many voters) or tried to avoid talking about abortion at all. A more nuanced honest discussion could offer safer, cheaper, less morally complex ways women and couples could choose when and whether to have children. This positive approach of better “choices” while dramatically decreasing abortions, should appeal to a much broader group of voters.
Of course, even with improved contraception technology and availability, rape, incest, human error, and contraceptive failures will occur. Some abortions will still be necessary, and they should be safe, affordable, and available. But our goal should be to reduce the number of abortions 90% from current levels.
There is no time to lose in changing our approach to abortion. Voter sentiment continues to support access to safe legal abortions. In fact, it is at an all time high. But the anti-abortion faction has been quite successful in chipping away at abortion availability for many women. The “heartbeat” laws recently passed in Alabama and other red states, and the real possibility that Roe v Wade could be overturned, make it imperative that all candidates for the 2020 election finally bring some science, rationality, nuance, compassion, and common sense to how we approach unintended pregnancies and abortions.
This simple change in emphasis could help end one of the most divisive debates in our country, attract moderate voters, reduce unintended pregnancies, and improve the lives of countless women and families.
I hope voters and candidates from all parties will embrace this approach.
John A Uhl MD FACEP
Sunday, Oct 27, 2019 · 7:40:32 PM +00:00
·
juhl
On October 10, 2019 I posted A Better and Necessary Common Sense and Common Ground Approach to the Abortion Debate. I then got busy and distracted and comments were closed when I returned. Sorry! I had no intention to post and run, particularly when so many things I said were unclear or misinterpreted. I promise to never post and run again! Thanks for your interest in this discussion.
Here are comments and my responses:
lakehillsliberal
That is what Planned Parenthood does, they support all aspects of women’s health. The anti-abortion people want to control women, they don’t actually care about abortion itself, it is a false front for their real objective. Presenting a logical alternative will not work with them.
1 Reply
19Recommended
juhl: I agree with you completely! That is what Planned Parenthood WANTS to do and TRIES to do. But the anti-choice folks have always tried to stymie them, and they are winning! They recently succeeded in making rules so onerous that Planned Parenthood had to decline Federal funding. A key right wing goal for decades was achieved. Women’s access to health care is worse and worse in many states. That is why I think it is worth trying a different approach. Our approach of the last half century isn’t working well for women in red states, and Roe v Wade really could be overturned soon.
Exactly. The only way to get to sanity on abortion is for Dems to gain power, and to unleash Planned Parenthood and other such clinics, as well as expand education programs .
juhl: YES! That is precisely my goal!
But I’d happily settle for unleashing Planned Parenthood etc with the help of some anti-abortion but pro-contraception Republicans from red or purple areas.
There is a problem. The majority of folks who are fighting against the right to an abortion are also against most forms of birth control. This would shift the argument but will not result in autonomy over our bodies.
juhl: Certainly many people against abortion are also against contraception. But I don’t think the majority are. As a rough estimate, 77% of people now don’t want Roe v Wade overturned and about 91% think contraception is morally acceptable. Assuming all the anti-contraception people are also anti-abortion, that would be about 9% anti-contraception/23% anti-abortion, or about 39% of anti-abortion people also against contraception. That leaves about 61% of anti-abortion folk who are OK with contraception. THEY ARE THE PEOPLE WE WANT TO CONVINCE to help us decrease abortions (which they want) while INCREASING women’s autonomy and access to good health care (which they also support) and far fewer unintended births. Shifting the argument could very much result in more autonomy over our bodies.
I think that for most of people who are against both birth control & abortion is because people who use birth control are prone to be ‘abortion minded’. There’s a horrible recent video from Lila Rose weaponizing the book Subverted: How I Helped the Sexual Revolution Hijack the Women's Movement by Sue Ellen Browder.
juhl: very interesting.
Thanks
I think that for most of people who are against both birth control & abortion is because people who use birth control are prone to be ‘abortion minded’. There’s a horrible recent video from Lila Rose weaponizing the book Subverted: How I Helped the Sexual Revolution Hijack the Women's Movement by Sue Ellen Browder.
Excellent diary! I couldn't agree more. We can refocus the debate on abortion. Common sense solutions to reducing abortions by 90%. I personally am tired of the lack of nuance around this issue by politicians. Abortion is a drastic solution, which is sonetimes necessary, but shouldn't be taken lightly. Science is a good way to inform policy. When is a fetus viable, etc...
4 Replies
1Recommended
juhl: Thank you, thank you!
No, society doesn’t get to decide anything about a woman’s bodily autonomy.
You are wrapping a medical procedure in morality and religion. Do you believe that for any other medical procedure?
juhl: Sadly, society is deciding right now about woman’s bodily autonomy, and it is not a pretty sight! Try getting an abortion, or even contraception, in Alabama. The whole point of my diary is to try to change the discussion, to change legislative election outcomes, to give women better bodily autonomy than they have ever had in all the history of our species.
Who says abortion shouldn’t be taken lightly?
Kay is correct — you start from the frame that there is an inevitable moral element to abortion, and who says? That is your faith talking. Your faith may be right, but it may be absolutely wrong. So the woman gets to decide. Whether you take abortion lightly or un-lightly is irrelevant to her. Just accept that fact.
1 Reply
11Recommended
juhl: I have no problem with people who can “take an abortion lightly”. But I hope you can have enough empathy the realize that for many people it is not that simple and if we were them, we’d be them. I’d rather those people not vote for legislators who jeopardize women’s health and autonomy because their perception of Pro-choice people is we just shout “abortion is no big deal” at them, when they think abortion is a big deal.
Oh, and diarist? Even though many of your points are excellent and I recced the diary, please don’t bold your whole diary. I feel shouted at.
juhl: SORRY! (sorry :-) And thanks for recced the diary! I won’t bold all of future diaries. Ignorance, not malice.
Re boldface font. It can make a diary more readable for senior eyes. It doesn’t happen often but, when it does, it’s a breath of fresh air.
0 Replies
juhl: mine are old too. Thanks.
Abortion isn't a drastic solution in a lot of cases. In many, it's the only solution for the health of the mother.
And I'm curious what you think is lacking nuance in the idea that women's health isn't a political football. Which one of our candidates or senators or governors don't see birth control as part of women's health? Which one says, oh, just let them have abortions?
juhl: I agree. Everyone’s situation is different, and there are times abortion is the obvious choice. (I thought I said that very clearly.) My point is that whenever possible, contraception is safer, cheaper, and less contentious, and still accomplishes the goal of allowing choice in childbirth.
To your second point: I’m tired of women’s health being a political football also, and think we can most effectively end that by stressing common ground solutions to elect “pro-choice but eager to reduce abortions” or even “anti-abortion but pro-contraception” legislators in purple and red areas.
I took my abortion lightly and no one has the right to tell me that’s wrong. I used BC, got pregnant, didn’t want another baby and had no hesitation about getting an abortion. It wasn’t a drastic solution — took about 10 minutes. The drastic solution is everything else that people (like you I guess) want to make a major moral dilemma. I’m a biologist and know that a tiny collection of differentiating tissue is not a person and doesn’t out weigh my rights.
juhl: Again. That’s fine. But to convince people who feel differently that they should vote for people who respect women’s autonomy, we need a different approach that addresses their opinions and concerns too.
It is the anti abortion people who have chosen to be extreme and tell outright lies about the procedure and how it is used.
juhl: Sad but true.
Reposting what I said in a similar diary years ago…
We do not need to go looking for a solution..
.. to abortion. We have the correct solution in place right now: a legal determination from our highest court that this issue is one for an individual to decide in complete privacy, without government interference, period. Democrats need to protect that solution and make sure it is implemented in all states, not look for compromises with people who "don't like abortion." I am so very tired of those of you who "don't like abortion" assuming that this opinion is so very moral, so unquestionably good, that you get to elevate this to a political question that absorbs a huge share of public discourse. Public discourse is hard enough these days without wasting any of its limited capacity for accomplishment on the wrong issues. Don't try to dragoon the Democratic party into supporting your viewpoint, even through the back door of making abortion 'rare' rather than illegal; nobody is harming you or forcing you to get an abortion. It's a personal decision. Leave it at that. Please.
2 Replies
18Recommended
juhl: We THOUGHT we had the solution 46 years ago, but how is that working out for red state women now? What do you think SCOTUS will say next case? We need a different approach and there is no time to lose!
THIS IS CORRECT. The apologists need to let the rest of us alone. They can do whatever they think appropriate for THEIR bodies. I am sick of them and their whining.
0 Replies
4Recommended
juhl: When ALL women can do whatever they think appropriate for their bodies, I’ll be done worrying about abortion.
Too many societies treating pregnant women as public property and policing of pregnant women pushes the idea that women are not to be trusted. To the point that doctors & nurses (especially the authoritarian types) will act as if the child has to be protected from the mother, if the mother isn’t compliant.
0 Replies
1Recommended
juhl: I agree.
“But, the unborn!”, many will plead. Yes—I, too, decry abortion; I cherish all life, human and not. Regrettably, as many U.S. Conservatives fixate on fetuses—and themselves—The Right mostly shows little regard for the BILLIONS of other already-born human (let alone non-human) lives. In fact, American conservatism has long supported countless policies and attitudes (at home, and around the globe) that attack, undermine, and shorten all lives (obviously including the unborn, as well as every other living thing). Isn’t it strange, then, that so-called “Christian/ pro-LIFE” conservatism takes for granted nearly all of the living world—and sabotages every bit of it—yet forever obsesses over a comparatively microscopic subgroup involving abortion?
Furthermore, anti-choice activism/law simply doesn’t protect the unborn; like poking a beehive, these actions only make the debate more hostile and stuck. Thus, if the goal is protecting pre-birth babies, let’s stop trying to control people; compassion and collaboration are magnitudes more effective.
To truly, significantly, and permanently curb abortion, the answer is clear: desire to improve the birth-to-death lives of everyone—particularly girls and women; education, health care, a safe, clean, sustainable environment, tolerance, justice, equality, etc. Vastly positive in itself, stronger lives for all means not just far less abortion. It also means that each new life begins more likely to thrive and succeed. A self-reinforcing cycle—and irrefutably Christian and pro-Life—this is what universal, continuous, enduring advancement looks like—something we all can embrace.
Meanwhile, in addition to immeasurable benefit from defending and strengthening every human being, such a breakthrough in the abortion debate would also ease much other divisiveness, thereby revitalizing immense common ground long shared by everyone.
3 Replies
0Recommended
juhl: I agree. Thanks.
“Pre-birth babies?” Are you sure you’re in the right conversation? Since when do you expect your audience here to be irrefutably Christian? That immense common ground of yours doesn’t — quite — fit with the common ground of a substantial number of other members here.
0 Replies
3Recommended
juhl: l think you’re misunderstanding his intentions. It’s not that the audience has to be Christian. It’s that his take on my suggestions is CONSISTENT with Christianity, and “pro-life” in a larger sense, and in fact, could hopefully appeal to such people, so that they vote for “pro-choice, but anti-abortion” candidates and give all women decent health care including autonomy over their bodies.
Really? We all have to be Christian now? Since f*ing when.
juhl: Again, I don’t think that was his intent at all.
You are OUT OF YOUR LANE. You are a man trying to control women’s bodies. This conversation needs to be OVER.
0 Replies
2Recommended
juhl: Yikes! Tough crowd! I don’t get that sense about poor Jeremy at all! Why such aggression and hostility?
". . . the debate is dominated by the extreme positions on both sides," said Barbara Carvalho, director of the Marist Poll, which conducted the survey. "People do see the issue as very complicated, very complex. Their positions don't fall along one side or the other. ... The debate is about the extremes, and that's not where the public is."
This quote, which the diary goes on to support, presents a false argumentative model - that opinions on this matter exist along a linear scale which has unreasonable extremes at either end and a reasonable middle.
Supporting women's right to control their own bodies is not an extreme position. It is a fundamental human right that is, somehow, never a cause for debate regarding men.
You don't negotiate human rights based on their poll numbers. Three is only one extreme side here, the side that thinks women can't decide for themselves what to do with their bodies.
3 Replies
23Recommended
juhl: I’m not sure what you mean. Who do you think is presenting that false argumentative model? That certainly wasn’t my intent! (Sorry if I somehow gave that impression!) . Nor do I think it was Barbara Carvalho’s. Rather than a linear scale, I suspect opinions regarding abortion are more a normal bell-shaped distribution with a few people extremely for or against abortion and the majority somewhere in between. I think she was surprised that the opinions were not as polarized as the debate. Hence her suggestion that most of the debate is from the minorities at the ends, not the majority in the middle.
Also, importantly, the poll has NOTHING to do with whether peoples’ opinions are rational or irrational, or moral or immoral. Only WHAT their opinions are.
juhl: I’ve been a huge fan of your posts for years. Cool pen name too.
And yet there are no unreasonable extremists working hard to abort all pregnancies or require contraception for all heterosexual intercourse.
But there are lots of unreasonable extremists working hard to prosecute miscarriages and prohibit contraception.
Pregnancy choice, the completely moderate and overwhelmingly popular position, is just collateral damage in the War on Women. Which itself is just a campaign in objectification, the conversion of everything — and everyone — to property.
0 Replies
5Recommended
juhl: I agree. I was trying to stress common ground and be conciliatory, but I think that implied a moral equivalency between the people at opposite ends of the debate that was not intended, and does not exist.
I believe that the Marist College is a Roman Catholic college. That is the extreme edge.
0 Replies
2Recommended
juhl: If you have any Republican friends, tell them you think an NPR/PBS poll is right wing biased. They’ll think that is absolutely hilarious! (If you don’t have any Republican friends, you should try it. In spite of being politically misinformed, some are lovely people, and it is good for us to not confine ourselves to an echo chamber where everyone thinks the same thing) .
If the point of the anti-abortion crowd was to reduce or eliminate abortions, your line of thinking would be correct. But they have proven over and over that they don’t care about eliminating abortions. They care about preserving a patriarchal system by controlling women’s behavior, limiting women’t options and shaming women who don’t conform (and even some who do, like say, victims of incest or rape). They don’t want women to be able to choose when to have children or how many to have.
I was a child when Roe v. Wade happened, and I have spent my entire adult life watching our side try to make every “compromise” possible, present all the facts, argue, apologize, reason, protest, counter-protest, fight, share their personal stories, and on and on. It never does any good, because it’s not about abortion. It’s about women’s rights to be full citizens and make their own choices.
Let’s get past trying to appease them or compromise with them. We all, every single one of us, have the absolute right to control our own bodies and make our own medical decisions. Discussion over.
4 Replies
juhl: I agree with your first 2 paragraphs. But I’m not trying to appease or compromise. I’m trying to get anti-abortion, but pro-contraception legislators elected in red and purple areas to change the reality you describe in your first 2 paragraphs.
This is the principle from which I base any discussion about abortion:
It’s about women’s rights to be full citizens and make their own choices.
When you start with that basic principle, it becomes much easier to knock down the various forced-birther arguments. No matter what anti-choicers say, you can always circle back to the fundamental right of self-determination which ensures women maintain liberty over their own bodies — their own health and well-being — in a free and enlightened society.
juhl: All true. But how is that working out for red state women now?
Exactly.
No compromise. No “coming together”.
There is no such thing.
It’s a woman’s right. You can either dig it or buzz off.
0 Replies
7Recommended
juhl: Again. How is that working out for red state women now?
As I said elsethread, I prefer to take the debate sideways: it’s discrimination. I focus on the bad effects of discriminating against pregnant women, insisting that it IS discrimination, and insisting that the debate should be ‘is it necessary discrimination’? Focusing on the question on if the fetus is or isn’t a ‘baby’ (when in many social situations it clearly is) is ceding the ground about discrimination. If it’s a child then it’s OK to have all these expectations regarding pregnant women: that they should attempt to bring the pregnancy to term, that they are defective if they don’t want to be mothers, adoption is a reasonable request, etc.
0 Replies
0Recommended
juhl: I agree. But we’re not ceding ground. We’re trying to get better people elected and better laws passed.
What is the “extreme” pro-choice position?
2 Replies
juhl: Well, certainly none I’ve heard of are extreme in the “harrass patients and kill providors at abortion clinics” sense.
that women have the right to make their own decisions.
doesn’t sound “extreme” to me.
juhl: I agree.
Well, speaking only for myself…
I have spoken with folks who argue that abortion should be completely unfettered by regulation, and should be available through a pregnancy...even after the point at which the fetus can survive and be healthy outside the womb without medical intervention.
When I asked, “So, you’re saying that, in the extreme case, a woman with a healthy pregnancy who is at or beyond her due date should be allowed to choose an abortion?”, the response was, “Yes — absolutely.”
To me, that is an extreme pro-choice position. Thankfully, persons holding that opinion are, in my observations, a tiny minority.
2 Replies
2Recommended
juhl: Yes, that is rare, extreme, pro-choice.
You present a phony hypothetical that the forced birthers love to throw into the discussion, but which in real life doesn't occur.
Late term abortion is extremely rare. Only a lunatic carries a baby for eight or nine months and then decides parenting is not for them. When an abortion is performed at this stage, it is because something is extremely wrong with the fetus, or because the mother's life is in danger. In both cases, it's happening to a woman who clearly wanted a child. It's a family tragedy, and to distort this rare, sad experience into a cynical "What about...?" political argument is typical of people who want to turn the discussion away from women's bodily autonomy, where it belongs.
juhl: People asked what an extreme pro-choice position would be. He told them. Please don’t shoot the messenger.
It may be a “phony hypothetical” to you…
...but:
1) It’s an argument made to me by folks on the political left.
2) Obviously, it’s an argument destined to fail.
The original poster cast (rhetorical) doubt on the existence of extreme pro-choice positions; I shared my personal experience on the question.
The larger point, of course, is that the law can’t handwave things away with “only a lunatic would...” — so, as we work to secure reproductive rights, we have to put a fence (so to speak) around the lunatics.
juhl: I agree.
My support for ‘no laws’ (the Canada situation) is because anti-abortion politicians and law enforcement individuals will say ‘women lie’ & ‘doctors lie’ … and forcing medical people to made delays to get proof enough is risking the pregnant woman’s health. Crisis situations can develop very fast during miscarriage & labor.
The forced-birth people have a habit of translating theoretical situations into ‘abortion on demand the day before’ & if something theoretically could happen into ‘it happens all the time’.
0 Replies
6Recommended
juhl: I don’t know anything about Canada’s laws or situation, and certainly am against unreasonable or dangerous delays and obstacles. I think some reasonable rules are possible and necessary, however. And the same NPR/PBS poll said a majority of American voters want some restrictions on abortion, even though 77% do not want Roe v Wade overturned.
As others have pointed out, there aren't two extremes on this. I have never, ever heard a pro-choice person disregard birth control. Ever. We wouldn't because we believe women should have control over their bodies and reproductive decisions.
So your beef is with the actual extremists- the ones who want to ban abortion AND limit birth control options in any way possible. So you're writing as though this is an easy problem to solve if the two sides would come together, and yet one side of your audience is already where you have determined to be moderate and reasonable.
juhl: I’m sorry I seem to have implied that both extremes are similar. They aren’t, morally or rationally.
My point was that the abortion debate has focused on our differences rather than our common ground. Many people are against abortion and still for contraception. So if we work together with them, we can significantly lessen the number of abortions, and significantly improve women’s health care and ability to plan their families. Things are not going well now. We need a different approach.
The actual extreme “balancing” the actual extremists in the forced birth camp would be some kind of “total abortion” extremists who insist all pregnancies be terminated, the way forced birthers want no pregnancies terminated. There are of course none of those outside of severe mental cases. Yet there are plenty of extremist forced birthers, including those who’d prosecute miscarriages and even contraception.
“Democratic candidates have generally either proclaimed themselves as staunchly Pro-Choice (and therefore unacceptable to many voters)...”
Just because some voters think the state (and the church) should decide that it’s unacceptable for anyone to get an abortion and unacceptable to vote for pro-choice politicians doesn’t make the “pro-choice” stance an extremist point of view. False equivalence does not equal nuance.
Having been involved in the reproductive rights movement for more than half a century, I can assure you that there has been plenty of nuanced talk about abortion, about preventing pregnancy through education, contraceptive availability, and accessible health care. We have a model for reducing the number of abortions. A sometimes murderous forced-birther movement has been doing all it can to undermine that model for decades.
juhl: Again, I apologize if I implied any moral equivalency between extremely pro-choice, and pro-life people. And I certainly do not think pro-choice is an extremist stance.
And I don’t doubt YOU have had plenty of nuanced discussions about abortion. What the PBS/NPR poll said, however, is that the general public has NOT heard that discussion. And since we are currently doing a horrible job of protecting women’s health care and autonomy, or even Roe v Wade, I think we have an opportunity to elect better legislators if we acknowledge that not everyone shares our views, and if we work with them, NOT COMPROMISING OUR CORE VALUES, but addressing their concerns, women’s lives could be better.
We’ve even tested that model. I forget what state it was (I want to say Colorado or Missouri) that decided to provide free contraception to anyone that wanted it. The abortion rate plummeted. They got rid of that program, and it went back up.
0 Replies
2Recommended
juhl: Absolutely true! That is what we want everywhere!
Since when is Pro-Choice an extreme position?
The idea that a candidate who is staunchly Pro-Choice would be unacceptable to the majority of voters, when you say at the same time that 77% of Americans do not favor overturning Roe v. Wade, is illogical.
The same people who are Pro-Choice are the people who are in favor of readily available, affordable and effective forms of contraception. But no form of birth control currently on the market is 100% foolproof, and victims of rape and incest can’t “plan” for pregnancy prevention.
No one on the Pro-Choice side is advocating for a woman to be forced to use contraceptives, or forced to terminate a pregnancy against her will. We are advocating for each woman’s right to make her own decisions about when or if she will bear a child.
The extremists are the ones who are trying to take these choices away. No government or religious group should have the power to preemptively make these decisions for all women, with no consideration of a woman’s beliefs or individual circumstances.
Pro-Choice IS the “common-sense position.” It is the Human Rights position. The forced-birthers position is that women are not fully human beings. It smacks of counting slaves as “three-fifths” of a human in the pre-Civil War days.
1 Reply
12Recommended
juhl: Please read more carefully before criticizing. I didn’t say unacceptable to the MAJORITY of voters. I said unacceptable to MANY voters. Huge difference. Again, the point of the diary is that there are millions of voters against abortion, but still for contraception, and we should work with them to make women’s lives better.
AND Women’s rights must be protected no matter what the guy across the street thinks. Numbers should not decide who gets rights.
Exactly — imagine if there was a group that advocated forced sterilization for all men after they fathered two children, or one that criminalized a man having sex without a condom unless the woman is his wife— THOSE would be extreme positions, but there’s nobody trying to take away men’s choices.
juhl: Yes again.
By the way, diarist, it's not polite to hit and run with a post. You should stick around and respond to and/or acknowledge comments.
If you do decide to do that, I have a few questions for you:
A) there is a post just a few above yours about how states collect personal data about women who seek abortions. This is extreme. What is the comparable extremism on the left?
B) some states are passing/trying to pass/laying the groundwork to pass bills that would require investigations of miscarriages. What is comparable on the left and bills that they introduce?
C) in some states, laws have been passed to create arbitrary building codes for women's health clinics, making compliance so onerous that the clinic has no choice but to shut down. Again, I'd like a pro-choice example if this sort of workaround.
D) Planned Parenthood provides critical care for low income women. Abortions are a very small percentage of the care that they provide. Even so, anti-choice extremists are willing to defund PP and put countless lives in danger just out of spite. Can you give me an example of pro-choice people forcing women to go without crucial health care in order to push their pro-choice agenda?
E) I could go the entire alphabet with examples of extremism from the pro-coat hanger crowd. And I'm struggling to think of anything remotely comparable from pro-choicers. But since you see this extremism on both sides, I'd like to be enlightened.
0 Replies
12Recommended
juhl: SORRY!!! I’m tryihg to make up for that here, and will be careful to never post and run in the future. Also, I never intended to imply moral equivalency between extremely pro-choice, and pro-life people. There is none. And I agree with all you examples. Thanks for taking the time to read and reflect on my suggestions.
You’ll get no argument from any pro-freedom folks on the abortion issue about the need for increased education and access to birth control. And you’re correct that it would reduce the number of abortions. And that would be great, since prevention is almost always better than reaction. However, it’s not extreme to hold the position that a woman should be able to get an abortion if she determines, with consultation with her doctor/health care professional, that she wants to get an abortion. It’s basic human rights.
0 Replies
3Recommended
juhl: I agree completely.
Why do you think forced birthers hate choice? It’s not because of abortion. It’s because they hate choice.
They don’t care about anything except stopping women, and giving their men power to do so. Abortion is just one mask on the misogyny.
0 Replies
juhl: Yes. And it’s time we outsmart them by working together with those against abortion but for contraception. Let’s expose the forced birthers’ true intentions and hypocrisy. How will they oppose our plan if it significantly reduces abortions and over 90% of Americans are in favor of contraception?
I agree with the diarist on the basis that he supports some abortions, but would like to reduce abortions by using better technology for contraception. This was not possible when Roe vs. Wade was confirmed by SCOTUS. Now it is. Yet he is being attacked for simply making the suggestion that we should reduce the number of abortions, and avoid having Roe vs. Wade overturned by a conservative Supreme Court.
I am totally against someone telling me that I as a woman cannot use birth control. I am totally for what the diarist is saying, use better methods of birth control.
Fact is that abortion is not birth control. It is when someone is out of control. Because when one is considering abortion when a fetus becomes viable, is this not an out of control situation, especially when birth control is/was available? (I am also not condoning all the times when a woman is unnecessarily delayed in obtaining an abortion because of bad and patriarchal laws. But this too should be addressed.)
Those who put weight on Democrats to take a stand are sorting out the candidates that may have a some religious background, or even just an aversion to killing. Being uncertain about when is it okay to terminate a pregnancy or when it is not, is not naturally a conservative or liberal decision. We cannot deny that many people who are Republican are choosing the party solely because of this one issue. I know many Republicans who love their neighbor whatever color, gender including (LGBTQ), who help folks with disabilities, believe that everyone should have the right to health care, and would put their life on the line to help refugees.
I myself hope to forever remain a Democrat, and I an going to shut up now and take my beating.
juhl: Thank you. Nicely said.
Oh please. It isn’t up to you to decide when a situation merits abortion or not. This bullshit that viable pregnancies are commonly terminated is just that — it’s BULLSHIT.
We’re talking about abortion very late in the term. I realize that some very early fetuses have been kept alive by extreme measures. That doesn’t mean a 6 month fetus is “viable.” It isn’t, not without extreme measures and generally with a lot of pain and agony and probably severe damage like blindness.
So let’s say 7 to 8 months is “viable” in a practical sense. I’d go on the later side of that. Say approaching 8 months.
NOBODY terminates a pregnancy at 8 months unless there is a compelling medical reason to do so. That could be a catastrophic situation involving the fetus OR a threat to the life and health of the mother OR BOTH and either way it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
These are harsh and terrible situations. They are extremely uncommon.
Consider yourself beaten. But seriously? Other people’s pregnancies are not your business at all. Ever.
1 Reply
8Recommended
juhl: I think that is an inaccurate and overly simplified take on what she said, and unneccessarily hostile.
Just because you vicariously beat me does not necessarily mean that you are correct. Using phrases like really?, bull--— and gaslighting my opinion only means that you have the right to your opinion, and I have mine. I am a woman, and I can speak for woman (and do) just as you can. Also, if you cannot explain to me why my niece who was born at six months (24 weeks) is alive and well from a birth 36 years ago does not give me confidence in your supposed scientific theories.
If it were men having to go through the abortions, I would not change my view, and would give you that it would more likely be done at nine months considering the gender’s avoidance of taking responsibility for their sexuality.
Fact is that there are many who think like me, and I believe that unless abortion stops being a politically divisive issue, the pendulum will swing, and the only way it will swing is back I’m afraid. Let’s put our heads together so that it benefits everybody.
juhl: I agree.
It is not your business. We draw a line at medical privacy. We draw a line a women’s bodily autonomy.
What is so difficult to understand about that? I refuse, REFUSE to give you control over my body.
Period.
You are not anybody’s owner.
I honestly do not think you realize the inherent wickedness in your proposal to somehow control another person’s body.
As for your niece, mazel tov. No excuse to invade another person’s body, her life, her health, her future. Miracles happen. So do catastrophes.
Protect the LIVING — the woman.
juhl: I don’t understand your degree of hostility, or why you think she deserves it. She isn’t trying to control your body. Red state legislatures are trying to control your body. We’re trying to change that.
Thank you for the blessing. I do not want you to lose your rights.
This shouldn’t be such a politically divisive issue. It seems like you are against me for wishing that there were fewer abortions. I feel things could be made better with consensus and acceptance of everyone’s views. Wouldn’t reducing the number of abortions that women endure be better?
The diarist’s statement is that he hopes to talk about reducing the number of abortions by stopping unwanted pregnancies, not taking away your rights. Yet, he was pretty much attacked versus opening a discussion as to the where, why, how’s and feasibility of his suggestion. This may be why the diarist hasn’t responded.
This is like the subject of gun control (I am no gun supporter BTW) in reverse. No one better even suggest that it can be better by using technology because someone else will take their rights away.
juhl: Again, well said. But I wasn’t ducking criticism. I was just temporarily MIA. Thanks for sticking up for me in my absence!
Unfortunately, it gives strength to the forced-birth side to agree about ‘too many abortions’. I am reminded of an LGBT Muslim that I heard speak at a BDS event. He didn’t like Israel’s pinkwashing. He also had some issues with his family, but he wasn’t going to talk about that to strangers who were trying to push Islamophobia.
When sexism is so bad, isn’t focusing on some aspects of abortion putting the cart before the horse?
0 Replies
1Recommended
juhl: Seems to me the forced birth side has far too much power already. Our whole plan is to reduce that. I think that working together with the anti-abortion, pro-contraception people will be a huge net benefit to women and society.
Forced birthers are against contraception as well as abortion — because they want to control women. Talking about the phenomenon that better access to contraception leads to reduced need for abortion is only useful in proving that forced birthers are lying when they say it's all about stopping the "killing of the babeeees.”
Wouldn’t reducing the number of abortions that women endure be better?
Women endure a whole lot of desire by other people to control them. Not only by forced-birtherism, but by gaslighting and isolation as well. Reducing those would be better.
juhl: As best I can tell, about 39% of people against abortion are also against contraception. It is the other 61% of people against abortion but for contraception we would like to work with.
Look up the word “vicariously”. It is not the appropriate word for whatever you were trying to convey.
juhl: Perhaps. But saying someone is beaten or incorrect doesn’t make it so.
You say “...my niece who was born at six months (24 weeks) is alive and well...” It would be of value to you to consider the distinct possibility that your niece’s fetal age at birth was mistaken.
At 24 weeks gestation, the lungs are only barely beginning to form and are not capable of functioning properly outside the womb; much of the brain is not formed/not fully formed — especially the portions that would govern eyesight, etc.
I could go on at length but the point is simply that most medically knowledgeable people would highly doubt that a 24-week fetus could survive outside the womb, especially not without major intervention and very possibly not even with that.
You do yourself no favors by trying to rely on that extremely tenuous example in this discussion.
0 Replies
juhl: I don’t think age of viability is really our core issue here.
Oh, FFS.
When Hobby Lobby started started their legal battle against covering birth control in their insurance plans, who was fighting and protesting that? Moderates, or pro-choice activists? Who made the arguments that birth control was necessary for women's health and safety? Moderates or pro-choice activists? Who has been at the forefront of these fights? At every turn it's been pro-choice people, because we aren't limited in scope on what constitutes a choice. My right to access birth control is just as fundamental as my right to access an abortion and I challenge you to find a pro-choice person who does not believe that.
And "aversion to killing?" That's laughable. Anti-choicers don't care that birth control is sometimes not used as a means to prevent pregnancy but as a means to treat conditions that are dangerous and painful to women. They don't care that ectopic pregnancies are a medical emergency. They don't care that a dead fetus in the womb is also a medical emergency.
An aversion to killing? Right.
1 Reply
7Recommended
juhl: Again, I’m afraid I implied a moral equivalency between extremely pro-choice and pro-life people which was not intended.
Sorry, that was insensitive. I should have said that there are feelings associated with termination of a pregnancy. I did not mean that people who believe in a right to choose like killing. It was a poor choice of words.
Your still calling it ‘killing’, don’t know about evolution do you? You are a disgrace and dangerous to other women.
How do you sleep at night? You are a sadist.
juhl: Yikes! Such hostility.
Those feelings belong to the person who would be having the procedure, so they should be the one to make that decision. See how that works?
I see that you have feelings associated with termination of pregnancy. You should take those feelings into account when making reproductive choices for yourself.
You should I hope you come to a place of peace in realizing that other women have the right to make their own reproductive choices, using whatever means of discernment is appropriate for them.
Yet he is being attacked for simply making the suggestion that we should reduce the number of abortions, and avoid having Roe vs. Wade overturned by a conservative Supreme Court.
I’m not sure how pointing out that reducing the number of abortions will NOT somehow magically avoid Roe being overturned or appease the anti-choice, forced-birther crowd equates to attacking the diarist.
We’ve been reducing the number of abortions for years, and their response is “Lalalalalalalala, I can’t hear you with these fingers in my ears!” We’re the side that has been always been for reducing abortions through better sex education and greater, cheaper access to birth control. They’re the side for “barefoot and pregnant.”
So explain to me how a 14 year old who’s been raped by her uncle is the one that’s out of control? Or a woman who’s just been told that her much loved and much wanted fetus has no chance of surviving and her life is in jeopardy too is out of control? Stop buying into the RWNJ talking points.
0 Replies
6Recommended
juhl: You’re missing the point, which is that if we can enlist anti-abortion, but pro-contraception voters and legislators to work with us, we can outsmart the forced birthers, and provide women with good health care and autonomy over their bodies.
Phooey. We already do that. It won’t appease the busy bodies. That’s because the “protection of life” isn’t what the anti-abortion wars are about.
They are about controlling women and our sexuality. Period.
juhl: Yes, and that is why we need to outsmart them.
Neither "God" nor Biology sets any criterion for legal personhood
Biological science supplies no grounds for forced-birth at-any-price, with its theocratic agendas of reactionary, paternalist control over women.
Biology contains no red-line demarcating human person from human non-person. Modern Biology says nothing about legal persons whatsoever.
Religious authoritarians propose conflicting stages of embryonic or fetal development at which to impose theological pseudo-biology, soul infusion. Religion says nothing about legal personhood.
Personhood is not a biological concept. Not a religious concept. Personhood is a secular legal concept. Personhood belongs neither to catholic magisterium nor to protestant xristo-fascism. Legal personhood belongs solely within the sphere of Law.
Note that some non-human entities are legal persons. The US itself and each State has legal personhood.The United States, for example, acts as a person to achieve two goals announced in the Constitution to "provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare" that is, external defense and internal security.
Conceptually, a person is an individual, an independent entity. An individual has well-defined boundaries, personal boundaries. It has an internal structure through which, in a self-determined manner, as an agent, it achieves ends or goals deriving from its own abilities and “roles” in life.
Roe and medical practice recognize that development is a continuous process divided by convention into stages -- except in cases of gross abnormality or maternal danger, surgery does not occur in the third trimester. (Thus no “partial birth abortions", no “infanticide".)
No embryo, no fetus is an individual. (It is certainly not a child — the phrase “unborn child” is an oxymoron.) Neither embryo nor fetus is eligible for legal personhood.
By tradition and law, individuation for human beings begins at birth. Humans, when newborn are completely helpless, continuing to develop for eighteen years in protected minority status as legal persons and as citizens.
Human personhood, seen as the vehicle for unfolding an individual's human potential, can thrive only in a polity designed for that purpose.
That facade, “abortion debate," masks a core truth: women are no longer chattel -- wards of their fathers, brothers, spouses, or the State. When will women themselves finally be acknowledged as fully legal persons? Being free, like men, to direct their own gender, sexual and reproductive lives as each sees fit.
That determination belongs to public policy, to political action, on-going by women collectively for themselves despite aggressive illegality mainly by white male catholics and xristo-fascists.
Post-Roe forced-birth restrictions amount to reassertion of (white) male domination over modes of reproduction; just as gender job discrimination, including sexual harassment, is continued assertion of (white) male domination over modes of production.
Note on abortion in history of medicine:
Can male writers stop with pseudo-history of medicine? “Freedom" to have an abortion in colonial and 19th-early 20th century America? Essentially a death wish as it had been for women over100 millennia.
No safe abortion drugs existed; no surgical procedure of any kind was safe — childbirth in a hospital was dreaded because of doctor-caused disease. Legality means nothing when medicine as a male-only profession had doctors who went from dissecting table to handle female patients with bare, unwashed hands.
Only about 100 years ago, 1920!, could an abortion surgical procedure be statistically safer than a full-term birth. Today drugs are the means of abortion required before nine weeks, being both safer than surgery and more private. Abortion “must" be forbidden only when it is safe, when women are fully legal persons, free from male control, free from children if they so desire.
juhl: Thanks for the perspective.
Actually, I think ‘unborn child’ is a valid social concept — social, not legal — and it isn’t helping to make a big deal about the phrase. To someone who wants their pregnancy, ‘unborn child’ is natural usage. Happily expectant parents & their doctors/nurse & their friends say ‘the baby’ all the time. It sounds crazy to the other side, and confirms their opinion of how wrong we are.
I’ve had many conversations with anti-abortion people in person and online. Many of them were not also forced birthers. They weren’t all trying to block clinics or get anti-abortion laws passed, but they were unhappy. I think for most of them it sincerely was ‘about the baby'. Or, in a few cases, they were having an existential crisis. (These were people born with birth defects whose mothers were pressured about about abortion.) This isn’t to say they weren’t being cynically used. (Such as people who call infant hospice ‘infanticide’, /boggle) Dismissing those feelings as may be satisfying … but I think it hardens the divide.
I prefer to take the debate sideways: it’s discrimination. I focus on the bad effects of discriminating against pregnant women, insisting that it IS discrimination, and insisting that the debate should be ‘is it necessary discrimination’? Focusing on the question on if the fetus is or isn’t a ‘baby’ (when in many social situations it clearly is) is ceding the ground about discrimination. If it’s a child then it’s OK to have all these expectations regarding pregnant women: that they should attempt to bring the pregnancy to term, that they are defective if they don’t want to be mothers, adoption is a reasonable request, etc.
I have a different solution in mind.
WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE TREATED AS BROOD MARES. FULL STOP.
Her body. Her choice. Her right. BUTT OUT.
juhl: Again: True, but not sufficient to acheive real health care and body autonomy for women. Lots of people have angrily, stridently,consistently said what you are saying at least the past 46 years. And you and they are correct. And we are losing. Time for a new approach.
But both sides have ignored the extremely complex moral ramifications of abortions, and the ambivalence of thoughtful, informed, concerned American voters.
That’s where you lost me. Sure, there are people on both sides like this, but the “thoughtful, informed, concerned” people are almost entirely on one side. They may not communicate it well, which I agree is a problem, but it is difficult to create a complex nuanced message when it really does come down to one thing. Does a person have the right to make their own personal/medical decisions.
juhl: Sorry I lost you. An minor example of what I meant: I’ve been a strong supporter of Planned Parenthoos for many years. I’ve often received emails from them saying something like “They’re trying to take away abortion rights. Please send money.” But I’ve never received anything from them saying, (even though it is true,) “Most of what we do is NOT about abortions. In fact the contraception we provide prevents countless abortions and unintended pregnancies and the other health care we provide is critical to the health of thousands of women. Please support us” I think that is an approach worth trying.
Yes. Why does the diarist assume that there are "extremely complex moral ramifications of abortion." Not everyone feels that way; I certainly don't. I'm sure there are women who regretted having an abortion, just as there are women who have regretted having kids, but the overwhelming emotional response to having an abortion is relief. It's the relief, that you are back in control of your own life, body and destiny. It's the relief that you will not bear a child that you cannot afford, or care for, or whose life will be full of pain and suffering. It's the relief of knowing you will not be forced to bear the child of the man who raped you, and be haunted for the rest of your life.
juhl: All good points, but I hope you can also empathize with those who find it more difficult.
I didn’t want to have an abortion when my birth control failed. It didn’t take me long to decide, but I kept hoping I would miscarry. I was highly socially trained — my mother (I didn’t tell her) told me when I was a teenager that she didn’t thing abortion should be illegal, but, having carried children, it wasn’t for her. Lots of things later, as the training wore off, made me feel retrospectively relieved.
juhl: Glad it worked out. There are certainly times when abortion is the best, and at other times the least bad, option.
I would expand on that: Does a person have the right to make their own sexual/reproductive/personal/medical decisions?
0 Replies
juhl: One would hope so, but not right now in many red states, regrettably.
Thanks you all for you help and interest in this discussion.
juhl
" data-html="true" data-placement="right" data-toggle="popover" href="https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/10/10/1891495/--A-Better-and-Necessary-Common-Sense-and-Common-Ground-Approach-to-the-Abortion-Debate#" id="reblog-toggle" data-original-title="" title="" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(60, 55, 54); text-decoration: none;">
Add to Blog
" data-html="true" data-placement="right" data-toggle="popover" href="https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/10/10/1891495/--A-Better-and-Necessary-Common-Sense-and-Common-Ground-Approach-to-the-Abortion-Debate#" id="update-toggle" data-original-title="" title="" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(60, 55, 54); text-decoration: none;">
Update