Is there literature for the progressive case against abortion (rights)?

[DerekG]

Note: My wish is not to reignite a debate long exhausted. I posted a thread of a similar nature in a specific forum a half year ago, but feedback was practically nonexistent.


Repulsed as I am with the fanaticism and blatant hypocrisy of the pro-life rightists (who are, of course, anything but pro-life), I am equally disenchanted with those who are so stridently pro-choice they seek to dispel all nuance, and are quick to drown out all moral discourse.

I don't know where to stand: the prospect of its recriminalization disturbs me, yet so does the killing of the unborn; I abhor the idea of reverting to a time when women were forced into the arms of butchers, yet still I fear the possibility that the pro-choice consensus is somehow on the wrong side of history.

I have amassed a wealth of pro-choice literature. Can anyone recommend a progressive author who offers a rational case for setting further limits, or even supporting its recriminalization? Or perhaps a sociological study that explores the consequences of when said procedure has lost its cultural taboo (which will obviously not happen here for quite some time)? Or better yet, an anthology rife with essays by professionals on all sides of the debate?

I would appreciate your input, just don't chide me for exploring every facet. Thank you.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. There is no case, that's why there was no feedback last time.

[ret5hd]

2. No progressive seeks to dispel all nuance, nor are they...

quick to drown out all moral discourse.

None. Period.

They desire to leave that nuance and discourse to a woman, her family and her doctor. Period.

[Bunny]

3. No truly progressive author would advocate for setting further

limits, or supporting its recriminalization.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. From your post, it sounds like you've already made up your mind.

and you're just looking for evidence to support it.

[DerekG]

6. No, I have much of the pro-choice material

What I seek is a counterweight.

[bryant69]

5. Guess you got your answer

Apparently any real progressive would not question the way you do, but would have the answer settled in their mind. Thus anybody you read who has some of these doubts or who articulates a pro-choice progressive position is, by definition, not a real progressive.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Eloriel]

7. Really, now.

don't you think that the DEARTH of such literature speaks volumes all by itself? And is itself an indication that your concerns aren't shared by that many people?

Can anyone recommend a progressive author who offers a rational case for setting further limits, or even supporting its recriminalization?

I just wish you could get a sense of how utterly repugnant such an idea is to some of us, elevating the "rights" of a mass of tissue over the life, health and well-being of fully-functioning adult human females, OR over adult women and even female children (teens) who were sexually assaulted reseulting in pregnancy, AND in the process thrusting poor innocent children into homes where they aren't even wanted.

What's in God's name is progressive about THAT? There IS no progressive argument to be made -- not that I can see or think of or have EVER heard.

shaking my head in disbelief and dismay

[fudge stripe cookays]

8. Ummmmm........

Can anyone recommend a progressive author who offers a rational case for setting further limits, or even supporting its recriminalization?

:wtf:? Ain't no such animal.
FSC

[Bridget Burke]

9. It's really a fascinating intellectual game for you, isn't it?

Find your own anti-choice propaganda.

[havocmom]

If one doesn't want/need an abortion, don't have one. That is choice

Any action/law limiting that personal choice by others is anti-choice. Any action/law limiting that personal choice by a gender never facing the prospect of being pregnant is tyranny of and/or enslaving the gender which does face the prospect of being pregnant.

So, what would be a progressive augment in favor of tyranny and slavery?

cue chirping crickets

[Eloriel]

16. Okay, that response gets my vote! n/t

[parasim]

10. Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice

A self-described "Jewish, atheist, civil libertarian, left-wing pro-lifer", Hentoff has written some stuff that perhaps could be of use to you.

http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/hentoff.html

Not saying that I agree with him... but since you asked...

[JerseygirlCT]

11. There is no way to lessen the number of abortions

through limiting legality or availability. It simply will not work. Not to mention that it's highly unethical (valuing the potential life over the actual).

What can help is greatly increased availability of birth control, greatly improved birth control, and widely expanded sex education. Financial help for those women who would carry a pregnancy if they were assured of the means to care for the child afterwards.

Women have an inherent right to control their own reproductive destinies. Making good choices availably earlier in the process is the only way to decrease the number of abortions performed.

[gollygee]

12. I'm going to try to explain . . .

this isn't a political issue to women. This isn't something where we worry about what side of history we're on. This is our health, our ability to control our destinies, our ability to control ourselves. I don't ever want to be a slave to the goverment forced to give use of my uterus to a child I don't want. I don't want to have my body used against my will. I'm not sure how to explain this to a man. I've been pregnant. It isn't fun. It isn't something I want to do again. Why should your moral dillema have anything to do with how my body is used?

[Eloriel]

17. And this one and post #15 also get my vote. A lot of people also forget

that it's not impossible for women to die in or of complications due to childbirth, too.

It IS a health issue. I've been pregnant myself once -- your body isn't your own during that time. It does things you have no control over, can't stop or slow down or delay or reschedule. All this is miraculous if it's a pregnancy you want; if not, if it's forced upon you by the state, it's a hideous form of torture that is more demeaning and degrading than can be described, I think.

And other people who are anti-choice don't think past those 9 months (and don't think all that much of the 9 months either which IMO belies their proLife position).

It's not 9 months, it's a LIFETIME. You are NEVER free from your parental obligations unless that child dies. After 18 ore so the parental responsibilities lesson considerably, but they NEVER go away. Once you're a mother, you're a mother for all eternity -- most certainly your entire earthly life (even if you survive your child(ren) ). If you give them up to adoption, that doesn't cut that cord, that biological tie. It's still there, and it hurts both parties: the child who doesn't understand why mother abandoned him or her, why s/he wasn't "loveable enough" or good enough to warrant his or her own mother's love, and the mother who had to let go of the child she gave birth to.

And that discussion helps illuminate one aspect of the objectification of women inherent in the anti-choice position: NO regard for the humanity of things for both people involved, just women-as-uterus and fetus-with-more-rights-than-the-adult-woman.

[tuvor]

13. Would be nice...

...if people would either try answering your post in the spirit with which it was posted, or ignore it altogether. Instead I'm seeing a lot of kneejerk responses that aren't exactly germane to the original post, and attitudes that whisper 'thoughtcrime!'

[Bunny]

14. What makes you think the post hasn't been answered in the spirit

in which it was posted? Just because you may not like the answer doesn't make the answer wrong.

Nice to know that women's rights are "knee-jerk". :eyes:

[havocmom]

28. My reply WAS directed to the spirit of the post

There is no progressive argument against a woman having choice.

Nor was my response knee jerk. I have come to my opinion by living a long time, observing and feeling much. Have also spent part of my life taking care of people who were born normal and healthy but were put into almost vegetative states by physical abuse from parents who did not want them and/or were not well enough to be able to care for them properly.

I have seen women go through serious medical crisis from pregnancy. Have watched the train wrecks that emotional problems can become when an unwanted pregnancy happens. Tried to help kids with emotional damage inflicted by people who simply were unable to give them the care kids need. I watched a woman totally fall apart and become catatonic due to the conflict she had when she became pregnant by rape at a time when abortions were illegal. I have known women horribly damaged by back street butchers back in the old days.

I would rather not see any of that ever again. And that is NOT a knee-jerk reaction.

[sinkingfeeling]

15. As a woman, a mother, and someone who had a legal abortion,

I do not think about the subject as a moral or political discourse. I view the decision of carrying a pregnancy to term or not as a right. You're worried that pro-choice is somehow on the wrong side of history? Do you worry that your right to vote is on the wrong side of history as well? Do you worry that your right to have as many and as deadly a number of guns in your home, car, or on your person is on the wrong side of history?

What we, as a unified nation, should be doing is coming up with plans to reduce the number of abortions within the country. This must include birth control, the morning-after-pill available OTC, education, and financial support for those who wish to have the child. BUT, there will always be a need for the MEDICAL procedure of abortion, just has there has always been since Biblical days. Women should be free to make decisions regarding their own bodies without the interference from anyone else!

There are several web sites that contain the personal stories of women who have had abortions...and since almost 50% of all living women have had an abortion, why don't you get their stories? Listening and attempting to understand their rationalization and reasons for their decisions might help you to grasp why progressives are pro-choice.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Most progressives abhor slavery..even for women.

Even for "naughty" women who enjoy sex and don't want kids. Even for "sinful" women who think that 1/2/6 is enough. Even for women who want to do other things for 9 months rather than throw up, have back pain, hemorrhoids, and all the other swell things that being pregnant bestows on the beneficieries of glorious motherhood.

I'm a guy, but the women who endure such things have more intestinal fortitude than I'll ever have. I had a kidney stone once, and as I was writhing in agony, a nurse came by and said, "Now you know what a woman goes through when she has a baby." She had a bit of a smile on her face.

[Shrek]

19. A couple of links

A self-described Haven for Progressive Pro-Lifers.

A debate from the infidels dot org site.

[Zhade]

20. There's no such thing as a progressive case for restricting rights.

Calling such an argument "progressive" would be a bald-faced lie.

[meow2u3]

21. Abortion - A Liberal Cause?

by Jefferis Kent Peterson
Abortion has been numbered among the liberal causes of modern politics. Abortion is identified with women's rights just as the Civil Rights Movement was identified with equal rights for African Americans and other minorities. But is abortion really a liberal cause? A careful examination of the history of the abortion rights movement would shock even the most ardent defender of a woman's right to choose. The founders of the movement were in fact racists who despised the poor and who were searching for a way to prevent colored races from reproducing. Rather than defending the rights of the poorest of the poor, which is the tradition of liberalism, the founders advocated abortion as a means of eliminating the poor; especially Blacks, Jews, Slavs, and Italians. And rather than desiring to help the poor through welfare programs, they wanted to eliminate all charities and government aid. Today, most liberals would be shocked to know of this racist heritage. Not only is the founding of the abortion rights movement anti-liberal, but it may have been an attempt to promote racial genocide.

The modern day abortion rights movement began as the American Birth Control League in 1921. Among its founding board members were Margaret Sanger, Lothrup Stoddard, and C. C. Little. The latter two people were known for their racist views, but Margaret Sanger continually shows up in the company of other racists. In fact, she was the guest speaker at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Silverlake, N. J. in 1926.<1> Not only did she not disassociate herself from these racist views, her own writings leave little doubt as to her sympathies. In implementing a plan called the "Negro Project," that was designed to sterilize Blacks and reduce the number of Black children being born in the south, Sanger wrote:

http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/consistent/peterson.html
_________________________________

Contrary to popular belief, Margaret Sanger was far from a liberal feminist. She was a racist and a right-wing social Darwinist who hated the poor so much she wanted them eliminated. So why the hell are we as liberals and/or neoprogressives identifying with a Nazi sympathizer like Sanger?! It makes no sense, at least to this neoprogressive.

[countryjake]

26. Slick, real slick! Sure you know what progressive means?

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/bio-margaret-sanger.xml

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Margaret Sanger was far, very far, from being a "Nazi" or a racist.

Some other members of the advisory board on the "Negro Project":

W.E.B. DuBois
Adam Clayton Powell
Mary McLeod Bethune (National Association of Negro Women founder)

"There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. . . . Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her." - Dr. Martin Luther King

Margaret Sanger's books were among the first burned by the Nazis.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/bio-margaret-sanger.xml

[Solly Mack]

22. I'm not Terri Schiavo. Don't make my health choices your moral dilemma

And you labeled it a matter of "moral" discourse when your morals play no role whatsoever in the choices I make.

It's not about you. I'm not some fucking cause for people to rally around and bemoan over because they can't accept a woman having control over her own body...get the fuck out of my womb and stay out!

What cultural taboo? Some made up patriarchal bullshit meant to control a womans behavior? Fuck that shit.

What consequences? You want someone to claim society crumbles when women have abortions? That's just another "blame women" control tactic.


How's this for history?: Women have had abortions for centuries upon centuries upon centuries upon centuries. Do some research...our female ancestors used all kinds of methods to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancies.

Civilization hasn't crumbled yet. (what a surprise-not)

A progressive doesn't seek to control women. Once they do, they are no longer a progressive.

[havocmom]

29. BRAVO Solly Mack!

Bravo!

[Solly Mack]

33. Thank you

hug:

[Mandate My Ass]

23. Murder is the #1 cause of death to pregnant women in the US

particularly, murder by the sperm donor. That topic never comes up in the moral discourse part of the discussion of which side of choice one resides. Pro-lfe? Hardly.

The only thing criminalizing abortion is going to accomplish is to change which party kills the woman, her partner or some half-assed butcher trying to make a buck on the misfortune of others.

You seem disappointed there's no social taboo (backlash) against a private, reproductive procedure which does not affect you or your private medical decisions. you're not disturbed with recriminalization, you just want to wring your hands publicly in order to pretend those "killing the unborn" were given every benefit of the doubt even though it put them on the wrong side of history.

Kiss my strident, choice-loving ass, why don't you?

[Lone Pawn]

24. How about the Progressive Case for Slavery?

:eyes:

[lala_rawraw]

25. I think that

What you need to do is list your questions in particular. In other words, are you asking with regard to the fabricated term "partial birth" or are you asking with regard to the general medical procedure or what? I would be more than happy to answer, respectfully and in private if you wish, anything on this topic. I am not one who has in any way written anything on the topic by any means. I am however, very much aware of the information and have been very involved in the pro-choice movement, which by the way, is not always meaning "pro-abortion". L

[DemExpat]

30. Perhaps sociological studies on the Dutch abortion policy

would lead in the right direction.
To my understanding and experience it is an open abortion policy but counterbalanced by excellent anti-conception education and availability.

I also am pro-choice as a last resort and only in the early weeks, and I do understand your stance and quandary.

I googled and found this:

http://www.piwh.org/ACCESS_rvwAdvisory3.html

30TH ANNIVERSARY OF ROE V. WADE, JANUARY 22, 2003
Abortion in the Netherlands and the United States: Worlds Apart
Abortion rates in the Netherlands are dramatically lower than in the United States, especially among teenagers. Teens in the U.S. are nearly seven times more likely to have an abortion than they are in the Netherlands. The difference has nothing to do with legality - abortion is legal in both countries - but everything to do with sound policies on sexual and reproductive health generally.
________________________snip_____________________________



DemEx

[DemExpat]

31. This pdf doc shows how policy came about in The Netherlands

and a good IMO balance was reached between protection of the unborn, (and seeing abortion as a last resort), and implementing large-scare education and family planning services.


The Dutch limit is 24 (21 actually) weeks which I consider to be high, and would support a lowering of this to 12-16 weeks as is in some other European countries. (see page 6 of the document)

http://pvnewyork.org/contents/pages/742/abort.pdf

DemEx

[LisaLL]

32. You can be 100% on board with Pro-Choice is Pro-Prevention

Derek G,

Here is the heart of the Pro-Choice Pro-Prevention approach. Pro-Choice is and has always been Pro-Prevention:

We prevent abortions by preventing unintended pregnancies and improving resources for families. We prevent the injury and death that occurs to women from illegal abortion by keeping abortion legal.

As an Ob/Gyn this has always been the true pro-choice position. You may find this essay that I wrote on the Rockridge Institue website useful:

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects/reprod/littmanabortion?nopag=1

It's called "A Roadmap for defining and Winning the Real Abortion Debate: Prevention vs Punishment"

(I also provide what the research has shown in country after country to be effective in preventing unintended pregnancies, reducing abortions, and preventing the death of women.I would hope that this prochoice consensus would certainly be on the right side of history!)