HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Hillary Clinton Answer On...

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:31 AM

Hillary Clinton Answer On Abortion Leaves 'Pro-Life' Senator Speechless

HILLARY CLINTON’S ANSWER ON ABORTION LEAVES ‘PRO-LIFE’ SENATOR SPEECHLESS (VIDEO)
Clinton’s words come from a place of knowledge. Share them. Everyone should hear:


In 2009, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked in Congress about abortion rights in other countries and whether the administration had any plans to further restrict abortions throughout the developing world.

Her answer was brave, strong and exactly what the body needed to hear. No, the administration had no plans to take action toward restricting abortion in the developing world.


When I think of the suffering around the world – I’ve been in hospitals in Brazil where half the women were enthusiastically and joyfully greeting new babies and the other half were fighting for their lives against botched abortions.”

“I’ve been in African countries where 12 and 13 year old girls are bearing children. I have been in Asian countries where the denial of family planning confines women to lives of oppression and hardship.
Clinton’s argument isn’t just about why the developing world needs, as she says, access to abortion that is “safe, legal and rare.”




More:
http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/videos/hillary-clintons-answer-on-abortion-leaves-pro-life-senator-speechless-video/

242 replies, 19800 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 242 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary Clinton Answer On Abortion Leaves 'Pro-Life' Senator Speechless (Original post)
kpete Apr 2015 OP
haikugal Apr 2015 #1
elehhhhna Apr 2015 #2
haikugal Apr 2015 #14
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #229
haikugal Apr 2015 #230
hifiguy Apr 2015 #41
Lunabell Apr 2015 #47
csziggy Apr 2015 #53
silverweb Apr 2015 #63
Historic NY Apr 2015 #78
brer cat Apr 2015 #149
silverweb Apr 2015 #151
brer cat Apr 2015 #155
silverweb Apr 2015 #173
arely staircase Apr 2015 #187
DrKZ Apr 2015 #195
silverweb Apr 2015 #198
qazplm Apr 2015 #65
REP Apr 2015 #86
seabeyond Apr 2015 #92
REP Apr 2015 #140
stevenleser Apr 2015 #180
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #188
stevenleser Apr 2015 #210
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #211
Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #212
Post removed Apr 2015 #105
Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #163
seabeyond Apr 2015 #68
Scootaloo Apr 2015 #111
seabeyond Apr 2015 #116
Scootaloo Apr 2015 #123
seabeyond Apr 2015 #126
Scootaloo Apr 2015 #127
F4lconF16 Apr 2015 #152
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #154
awoke_in_2003 Apr 2015 #115
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #133
awoke_in_2003 Apr 2015 #147
treestar Apr 2015 #120
seabeyond Apr 2015 #122
F4lconF16 Apr 2015 #156
seabeyond Apr 2015 #159
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #162
seabeyond Apr 2015 #164
F4lconF16 Apr 2015 #166
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #168
F4lconF16 Apr 2015 #172
RecoveringJournalist Apr 2015 #106
haikugal Apr 2015 #138
RecoveringJournalist Apr 2015 #214
haikugal Apr 2015 #215
RecoveringJournalist Apr 2015 #217
haikugal Apr 2015 #218
RecoveringJournalist Apr 2015 #242
kairos12 Apr 2015 #64
InAbLuEsTaTe Apr 2015 #103
F4lconF16 Apr 2015 #157
treestar Apr 2015 #121
seabeyond Apr 2015 #125
AuntPatsy Apr 2015 #101
Scootaloo Apr 2015 #109
seabeyond Apr 2015 #113
treestar Apr 2015 #119
MADem Apr 2015 #139
LynneSin Apr 2015 #221
Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #226
MADem Apr 2015 #238
Maven Apr 2015 #148
bhikkhu Apr 2015 #216
TlalocW Apr 2015 #3
DURHAM D Apr 2015 #4
still_one Apr 2015 #7
haikugal Apr 2015 #9
DURHAM D Apr 2015 #12
haikugal Apr 2015 #18
InAbLuEsTaTe Apr 2015 #107
qazplm Apr 2015 #66
haikugal Apr 2015 #75
druidity33 Apr 2015 #184
treestar Apr 2015 #124
haikugal Apr 2015 #137
brer cat Apr 2015 #153
okaawhatever Apr 2015 #11
Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #31
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #32
hifiguy Apr 2015 #43
Nay Apr 2015 #52
qazplm Apr 2015 #67
Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #73
seabeyond Apr 2015 #74
Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #84
seabeyond Apr 2015 #85
seabeyond Apr 2015 #88
haikugal Apr 2015 #141
treestar Apr 2015 #128
haikugal Apr 2015 #145
Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #161
haikugal Apr 2015 #203
MADem Apr 2015 #142
F4lconF16 Apr 2015 #158
Fridays Child Apr 2015 #33
jeff47 Apr 2015 #34
seabeyond Apr 2015 #72
treestar Apr 2015 #135
jeff47 Apr 2015 #136
northoftheborder Apr 2015 #46
stevenleser Apr 2015 #181
still_one Apr 2015 #5
Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #6
still_one Apr 2015 #8
Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #16
Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #232
Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #233
Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #235
JaneyVee Apr 2015 #10
Agnosticsherbet Apr 2015 #13
Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #165
Novara Apr 2015 #236
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #237
KittyWampus Apr 2015 #15
elehhhhna Apr 2015 #79
nolabear Apr 2015 #17
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #20
haikugal Apr 2015 #23
treestar Apr 2015 #129
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #132
nolabear Apr 2015 #167
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #169
nolabear Apr 2015 #170
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #171
Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #199
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #200
haikugal Apr 2015 #22
fizzgig Apr 2015 #69
REP Apr 2015 #87
haikugal Apr 2015 #143
nolabear Apr 2015 #174
fizzgig Apr 2015 #175
nolabear Apr 2015 #209
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #19
haikugal Apr 2015 #25
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #26
iandhr Apr 2015 #24
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #28
iandhr Apr 2015 #29
Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #201
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #202
haikugal Apr 2015 #204
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #205
haikugal Apr 2015 #207
iandhr Apr 2015 #208
haikugal Apr 2015 #59
enough Apr 2015 #50
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #51
treestar Apr 2015 #134
stevenleser Apr 2015 #182
Marrah_G Apr 2015 #82
awoke_in_2003 Apr 2015 #114
treestar Apr 2015 #117
xmas74 Apr 2015 #213
LynneSin Apr 2015 #220
seabeyond Apr 2015 #21
Novara Apr 2015 #27
haikugal Apr 2015 #30
DrKZ Apr 2015 #35
mcar Apr 2015 #83
haikugal Apr 2015 #89
seabeyond Apr 2015 #36
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #38
seabeyond Apr 2015 #39
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #42
seabeyond Apr 2015 #44
fizzgig Apr 2015 #57
MineralMan Apr 2015 #90
justiceischeap Apr 2015 #190
spanone Apr 2015 #37
smirkymonkey Apr 2015 #40
PinkPotus Apr 2015 #45
StevieM Apr 2015 #56
ZombieHorde Apr 2015 #48
JDPriestly Apr 2015 #49
ismnotwasm Apr 2015 #54
Novara Apr 2015 #60
ismnotwasm Apr 2015 #76
sufrommich Apr 2015 #61
seabeyond Apr 2015 #70
ismnotwasm Apr 2015 #77
seabeyond Apr 2015 #93
ismnotwasm Apr 2015 #100
Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #176
seabeyond Apr 2015 #194
treestar Apr 2015 #130
SunSeeker Apr 2015 #55
Beowulf42 Apr 2015 #58
seabeyond Apr 2015 #62
Freddie Apr 2015 #81
sufrommich Apr 2015 #91
Hekate Apr 2015 #71
Marrah_G Apr 2015 #80
seabeyond Apr 2015 #94
Marrah_G Apr 2015 #102
seabeyond Apr 2015 #104
Eleanors38 Apr 2015 #95
haikugal Apr 2015 #96
seabeyond Apr 2015 #98
haikugal Apr 2015 #99
Novara Apr 2015 #97
Quantess Apr 2015 #108
Evergreen Emerald Apr 2015 #110
haikugal Apr 2015 #146
sufrommich Apr 2015 #112
seabeyond Apr 2015 #118
treestar Apr 2015 #131
Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #178
haikugal Apr 2015 #206
TheKentuckian Apr 2015 #219
Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #231
TheKentuckian Apr 2015 #239
Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #240
TheKentuckian Apr 2015 #241
haikugal Apr 2015 #222
Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #223
haikugal Apr 2015 #224
Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #225
haikugal Apr 2015 #228
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #179
DeSwiss Apr 2015 #144
Liberal_in_LA Apr 2015 #150
freshwest Apr 2015 #160
BobSmith4152 Apr 2015 #177
kiva Apr 2015 #183
nashville_brook Apr 2015 #185
DrKZ Apr 2015 #196
valerief Apr 2015 #186
nashville_brook Apr 2015 #189
DirkGently Apr 2015 #197
DirkGently Apr 2015 #191
PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #192
Novara Apr 2015 #193
Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #227
Gothmog Apr 2015 #234

Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:35 AM

1. Safe, legal and rare...

I hate that term. Safe and legal would suffice. Rare, in what way? Rare isn't needed for support for women to have full health care without judgment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:43 AM

2. rare feels blamey to me

 

Like we must acknowledge that it's soooooo horrible, because hey! unwanted children are a blessing. Which sadly they are not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:06 AM

14. I agree elehhhhna. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #14)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 09:47 PM

229. Triangulating.

 

Straddling the aisle, looking six-seven years out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #229)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 09:51 PM

230. Triangulating...

Straddling the aisle figuring out which side will win and making sure that's your side. It lacks honesty and makes people anything but trustworthy. I'm with you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:29 AM

41. Yup. That phrasing has always given me an uneasy feeling.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:43 AM

47. Agreed

abortion is a medical procedure. Nothing more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:05 PM

53. To me it implies that women should have effective means of family planning

And be secure in their bodies so they control when they have sex. In an ideal world, those two things would be real. They are not, but we can dream.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #53)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:26 PM

63. That's my take, too.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Abortion should ideally be "rare" because it's not needed - thanks to honest education, excellent health care, and freely available family planning options.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silverweb (Reply #63)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:50 PM

78. Yes...quibbling over rare when it means education.....

vs ignorance as the greatest tool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silverweb (Reply #63)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 05:40 PM

149. Agree.

That is how I have always interpreted "rare" in this context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brer cat (Reply #149)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 05:54 PM

151. Off topic, but...

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]I love your cat gif! One of mine creeps from the back of my chair, down the arm, and onto the keyboard when she doesn't get the attention she wants right away - and also tries to head-butt the phone out of my hand whenever I'm on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silverweb (Reply #151)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 06:00 PM

155. lol

I have a head-butt cat too. They are so strong-willed when they want attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brer cat (Reply #155)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 08:03 PM

173. Tell me about it!

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Gotta love 'em.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silverweb (Reply #63)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 09:20 AM

187. ding ding ding we have a winner

I learned the phrase from Ann Richards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silverweb (Reply #63)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 10:35 AM

195. And yet despite everything abortions are still needed

 

To add the word "rare" is an Orwellian sort of language game that plays into the hard to get ... it is a medical procedure: nothing more, nothing less. It should be considered the same as any other medical procedure and rare is an invitation to try to close abortion clinics or create all sorts of excuses ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrKZ (Reply #195)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 11:15 AM

198. We agree in part.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Abortion is just another medical procedure, to be safely and readily accessible when necessary or desired.

However, I don't consider it "orwellian" to prefer preventing unwanted pregnancies by other means so the procedure is less frequently necessary ("rare". That's what you're inferring, but not the meaning intended.

Hillary is a staunch defender of a woman's right to abortion, without interference from politicians and self-righteous moralists, so the source and context need to be taken into consideration. Also keep in mind that it's still an unpleasant procedure, after all.

Any hospital, outpatient surgery clinic, women's health center, or OB/GYN's equipped office should be able to perform abortions routinely when necessary, and they should be viewed as just another medical procedure. We're in full agreement as to accessibility.

Reducing the need for that procedure - making it "rare" - through excellent family planning is simply good common sense and medical practice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #53)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:27 PM

65. exactly

abortion should be rare because in the best world, everyone has access to effective, cheap and safe birth control options, and they are used, and educated about them. Almost no one gets an unwanted pregnancy because they knew about and were educated on birth control, and had access to cheap (or even free) birth control and yet said, eh, I'll just engage in risky behavior anyways.

In such a world, abortions would be rare because unwanted pregnancies would be rare.

But with limited to no sex education, focus on abstinence only, and all of the other things one can list as problems in the area of contraception, we ain't there yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qazplm (Reply #65)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:57 PM

86. Excuse me?

Birth control fails, even when used properly by women who know how to use it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to REP (Reply #86)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:07 PM

92. of course. but it still reduces with education, birthcontrol, family planning. which is the only

 

point.

the repugs want to take that away

she is saying dumb shits.... that increases not decreases.

i have a condom baby. shit happens. no one is saying otherwise.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #92)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 03:02 PM

140. We disagree

If heart bypasses were safe, accessible and rare
Or root canals were safe, affordable and rare
But no. It's only abortion, a very minor, minimally invasive procedure we hear that should be "rare."
Why?
There should be as many abortions as there are women who want one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to REP (Reply #140)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 01:44 AM

180. I think it works for all surgery.

 

I wish all surgery were safe, accessible, and rare because it was rarely necessary. That works for abortion, coronary bypass, lobe-ectomies, etc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #180)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 09:24 AM

188. No, it doesn't.

If there were well funded and hugely successful efforts limiting access to other procedures and preventative care, sweeping legislation being passed to stop them, protesting and bombing clinics and hospitals, killing surgeons, etc, then maybe.

Aso, it's not typical that a cardiac patient is judged by society for their personal history behind the surgery. They should have exercised, eaten better, oh, it is a genetic abnormality... We are only glad that the procedures exist to help those who need it. I feel the same way about abortion.

It's OK to wish that those procedures weren't needed, but to publicly wish them to be "rare" in the midst of significant and major attacks on access being imposed on them and clinics closing at record pace with some states bring limited to a single facility is, frankly, insane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #188)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 06:05 PM

210. You're forcing the issue. The statement stands on its own. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #210)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 06:31 PM

211. Goddamn right I'm forcing the issue. And I'll keep forcing it.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that she thought that the country would "wake up" and realize that the state-by-state restrictions on abortion were untenable and that we "can never go back" to the situation before Roe, when abortions were only "for women who can afford to travel to a neighboring state." Yet it seems to me that we have gone back to that time; right now poor women are in effect being denied abortions because they can't afford them, or can't afford the gas to get to a clinic that is hundreds of miles away—or can't afford all that and to stay overnight in a hotel to comply with a 24-hour waiting period.
From: http://www.elle.com/life-love/society-career/the-abortion-choice

I'm fucking proud to force the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #211)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 09:59 PM

212. You are a righteous bad ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to REP (Reply #86)


Response to qazplm (Reply #65)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 06:34 PM

163. The abortion rate in Sweden is higher than the U.S.

Sweden has comprehensive sex education and access to cheap birth control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #53)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:30 PM

68. yes. and she was so clear on it. so how do people ignore her words to focus on one word....

 

in many.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #68)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:57 PM

111. because the use of that one word is a problem

 

It's not a jab at Hillary, it's a jab at the phrase itself - one that is in use every time Democrats pipe up on the subjct (which is infrequently enough to be a problem on its own...)

It continues the implication that abortion is a moral issue and not a medical one. The whole reason "rare" is added to the phrase is to appease angry republican dudes who want to keep their thumbs on women, to make it look like democrats don't really support abortion (because abortion is bad!) while arguing that this horrid immoral thing might as well be safe.

It's a Democratic party problem, not a Hillary Clinton problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #111)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:14 PM

116. i disagree. i think she fliped it around and said clearly why it was flipped around.

 

i have always been opposed to throwing in rare, to appease. i listened to this and immediately reacted, and continued to listen. i saw how she took the use of the word rare and flipped the definition from the moral that you suggest to the obvious, duh, .... if we can decrease an invasive procedure thru education and contraceptives, that is what we do.

like someone says, ... would you want rare to be used with knee surgery. damn straight if i can take a pill to avoid the surgery where they are cutting into me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #116)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:19 PM

123. As soon as I hear about people being stigmatized for getting thier knee repaired, sure

 

As soon as orthopedists get gunned down for being "ligament stitchers" and athletic injury clinics get bomb threats for defying the judgement of gravity, okay.

"Rare" perpetuates the stigma of abortion - in fact endorses such stigmatization. And sure, you can spend twenty minutes parsing what Clinton said to weave around that fact. But like I said, it's not a "Hillary Clinton" problem - I don't think she's trying to stigmatize abortion or the people who receive or perform the procedure. I think it's a bad "catchphrase" that she is using on reflex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #123)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:21 PM

126. i adamantly disagree with you. i get you. cause i react the same with that word.

 

i disagree that is what clinton did. i think she did the opposite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #126)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:23 PM

127. Okay

 

Like I said, I'm not going after Clinton on this one. I'm certain she has the best intentions. I think it's a trite phrase and counter-productive that ought to be retired from use, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #111)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 05:55 PM

152. Perfectly said, thank you. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #111)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 05:57 PM

154. The phrase was removed from the party platform years ago.

But many Democrats are beind the times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #68)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:12 PM

115. Because too many people

 

even here, cannot parse nuance. Plus, it is another chance to take a shot at Hilary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #115)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:30 PM

133. Wholly untrue. I support Hillary and hope she stops using that phrase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #133)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 03:54 PM

147. I'm sorry, Nikki...

 

I didn't see (or didn't register on my brain cell) that is it was you. As you may or may not know, Hilary isn't my first choice, but some things that some take her to task on are ridiculous. It gives me tired head, to be truthful. I guess that is why I replied the way I did. It is going to be a long primary, and I fear it will be worse than 08 with the sniping.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #68)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:17 PM

120. Even in agreement with Hillary over an issue

a problem apparently has to be drummed up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #120)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:19 PM

122. i am not a supporter, though listening to du the last week is making me more so. i had never heard

 

this speech and i thought it so good, that all us should hear how it is argued. strong. no apology. no concession.

then i see this.

wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #122)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 06:00 PM

156. There are Hilary supporters here who feel this is a problem.

It was a good speech, and she nailed it. We all acknowledge that. But she used a phrase common to many Democrats that we believe to be wrong, and we stated why. We are not minimizing her speech, but commenting on a part of it that we do think is a problem. It is in no way specific to her--there are many threads on this site about this. I think you're accusing people of things unfairly, here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to F4lconF16 (Reply #156)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 06:30 PM

159. i think we are kneejerking. i reacted immediately also. then continued to listen. i feel

 

she turned it upside down, and slam dunked it using rare, but not as the right defines. i think it was clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #159)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 06:33 PM

162. oh, hogwash. I've taken issue with that phrase for years.

Years. And I take any and every Democratic politician to task when they use it. I've done so face to face and will every chance I get.

It's not a fucking knee jerk. It's important to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #162)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 06:37 PM

164. as have i and clearly stated repeatedly. not a new rant for me. pretty important to me, too. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #159)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 06:55 PM

166. Clear to the left, exactly.

It is not always understood to be that way by those not on the left. Our words need to be clear to each other--we need to be even clearer in what is right to them. Any other way and they use it as an opportunity. There was a really good post from LeftyMom someone posted down below. I can't find it at the moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to F4lconF16 (Reply #166)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:02 PM

168. here you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6527437

LeftyMom
19. That's the political genius and moral cowardice of the phrase.
To pro-choice people it means "unplanned pregnancies shouldn't be common, for women's sake." To the mushy middle it means "abortions for deserving women but not for those trampy other women." To anti-choicers it means "let's whittle away at legalized abortion even if we can't get a ban past the Supremes yet."

It's a political Rorschach ink blot. It means what you want it to mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #168)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:50 PM

172. That's the one. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #53)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:43 PM

106. Agreed

My take, too. And using the word "rare" let's fundies know that educated even-minded adults on the other side of the political spectrum don't think abortions should be handed out willy nilly in the way the fundies would like to see guns handed out. Abortions are gut-wrenching decisions I would not wish on anyone to have to make in their lifetime. But they should be safe, legal, not stigmatized - and, yes, rare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RecoveringJournalist (Reply #106)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:48 PM

138. Are you implying that those of us who are saying "abortion on demand" are not..

Educated, even minded adults? That we would hand out abortions willy nilly? We have a fundamental disagreement I think, but that's ok...there's room for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #138)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 08:48 PM

214. Not even close

That would be a big mistake to assume. I fully believe in abortion. But by showing the fundies that people in favor of it do not think it should ever be a willy-nilly decision - that it is in fact a huge, often gut-wrenching decision that will stay with a woman forever in her mind and should never under any circumstances be taken lightly - it says that THEIR mischaracterizations of the pro-choice crowd are way WAY off.

And if there is anyone who thinks it SHOULD be a willy-nilly decision, there's who I fundamentally disagree with. IT should be "rare" to the extent that it should never be taken lightly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RecoveringJournalist (Reply #214)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 09:16 PM

215. It should be as easy as taking a pill...

It doesn't have to be "gut wrenching" by any means. Any mental anguish usually comes from others saying and thinking it's killing a baby, not from choosing to end a pregnancy. I'm sure it is gut wrenching for someone who planned a pregnancy and then finds they have to abort due to health or other problems.

Also the notion of the unspoken number of abortions a woman may have. There is judgment on women for that as well. Why are women subjected to harsh judgment for everything from enjoying their sexuality to planning their family..or not having a family? It's no one's business what another woman does and I'd like to see us get past the restricting so called 'morality' of abortion.

So in my view "willy nilly" is fine, "rare" is judgment, and sends the wrong message. I don't believe for a moment that I can reason with most forced Birthers (I have only changed one mind that I know of) and I think it's a mistake to accommodate them in any way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #215)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 04:52 PM

217. Gotcha

No it doesn't HAVE to be. But that does not mean that it isn't for the person undertaking the procedure, regardless of who does or doesn't say anything on the periphery. And morality is a completely moot point with me. I'm not talking about morality at all. My point is completely different. Abortion is unfortunately a completely unique type of surgical situation. Nothing else done to a man or woman surgically is in the same neighborhood. Therefore, an intelligent populace has no choice but to look at it somewhat differently. There's no way around that. It's NOT heart surgery. It's NOT a prostate exam. And just because people are looking at it differently does not mean that judgment is involved. Sure, some people do. But not everyone. I don't. And equally unfortunately, only women are subjected to the procedure. That's nature and not changeable. I DO wish men had the same type of situation applied to us. Then a lot of minds would be changed. But that's not something that's ever going to happen.

With all that said, I still believe abortion is a decision that should never be taken lightly. My mother had an illegal one (before me - and back when it was a whole different American situation.) And honestly, I'm lucky to be here. I almost was not. I also know several people who have had one since it became legal. Every one of them, my mother included, looks back on it with a bit of apprehension. It has stuck with them forever. Some have said things along the line of, "gee I wonder what the child would have been like." They're fine. But they are different people than before the procedure. Not better. Not worse. Just different.

If you can't see that I'm actually talking UP abortion and applauding the courageous women who undertake the procedure, then I feel bad for you because you are completely misinterpreting my POV.

So bottom line, abortion should be legal - safe - on demand, yes - and a thoughtful decision every time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RecoveringJournalist (Reply #217)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 05:15 PM

218. We'll you've explained yourself clearly and for that I thank you,

However the notion that any woman would undertake an abortion without thought (wtf) is anathema to the whole discussion about abortion, birth control and family planning. It should be assumed a woman has thought about it and made a choice.

Every experience in our lives change us, every decision moves us in a different direction...Your saying abortion somehow brands or injures women and I'm not buying it.

Abortion is no different than any other form of health care, that's the point.

Thanks for the discussion and I'm glad you support women's choices, all of women's choices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #218)

Thu Apr 23, 2015, 02:05 PM

242. You're welcome

But I agree to disagree with you about it being a different situation. That in no way means that I don't support it.

Cheers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:27 PM

64. Don't hear the phrase "safe, legal, and rare" to describe any medical procedures for men.

And I'm a man. Blamey is right on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kairos12 (Reply #64)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:39 PM

103. Yes, why say rare? As if something's wrong with having an abortion. It should be safe, legal, affordable and available on demand...

There, fixed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to InAbLuEsTaTe (Reply #103)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 06:02 PM

157. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kairos12 (Reply #64)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:18 PM

121. Men don't have an equivalent procedure

to consider. Pregnancy is rare for them too. Just not applicable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #121)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:20 PM

125. you can damn well bet if there is an alternative to prostate surgery they go for it, ... oh wait.

 

they are more and more not doing the surgery, cause men are so old, it is slow moving, they die of other stuff. so they are decreasing the INVASIVE surgery for other alternatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:27 PM

101. I agree as well with your post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:50 PM

109. It's a concession to the people who think women have their uterus hoovered every weekend

 

And i wish democrats would ditch that line. it creates a "loophole' exploited by opponents who say "Well, having one clinic in an entire state makes it safe, legal and rare! haw haw haw!"

"Safe, legal, and whenever a woman goddamn feels she needs it" is a much more solid position.

But... it wouldn't be the Democratic Party if we weren't campaigning towards people who'll never vote democratic no matter what, i guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #109)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:09 PM

113. i dont see it as a concession at all. the opposite. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:16 PM

119. in no way did she mean that right wing theme about unwanted children

and it's not pleasant to go through. Isn't it to be avoided on some level?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:51 PM

139. Feels "empowered" to me....like "rare because a woman should have control over her circumstances,

and should not have to rely on the good offices of others to give her access to birth control" kind of rare. "Women with the ability to make their own decisions with regard to birth control without encountering legal, moral or monetary roadblocks at the grocery store, the pharmacy, or the doctor's office" kind of rare.

Which, sadly, is not the case for many women....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #139)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 05:49 PM

221. Exactly! 'Rare' to me means women have choices so they never have to consider abortion

When there are limited choices for women - then we find that more women end up with unexpected pregnancy and there tends to be a higher number of those that end in abortion.

Abortion is not the best form of birth control, in fact it's probably the absolutely WORST form of birth control. But when you strip away all other options for women where they are given few other choices, it tends to get used as a form of birth control. Personally I think the GOP likes it that way - what better way to 'slut shame' women then to make them go through the humiliation of going to a family planning clinic to be shamed by the protestors and maybe even the nurses & doctors themselves as the woman decides if she wants to terminate their pregnancy. And the only way to ensure the 'slut shaming' is by making sure the women isn't well educated on the many ways to keep her from getting pregnant, make sure that the few forms of birth control available are either too expensive or unreliable and then make sure there are limited clinics to even receive abortions so there is always a big crowd outside there to 'slut shame' the women for her choices.

But with the progressive choices - we empower women, we don't shame them. We make sure they are well educated. We make sure that reliable birth control is affordable and even free. We take the power away from the 'Slut Shamers' and give it back to the women because in the end these women are not sluts and do not deserve this shame. When women have control over their reproductive choices then the GOP and their ilk loses that power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #221)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 09:45 PM

226. Both Sweden and Denmark have abortion rates higher than the U.S. They have oodles of education

and affordable access.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp335pd.html

Oh, and we shame women when we characterize one of the tools in their family planning tool box as so odious it must be made rare.

Well, congratulations "progressives" while you were playing language footies under the table with the fanatics, the fanatics won and made abortion rare to access in the majority of the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #221)

Wed Apr 22, 2015, 08:37 AM

238. You've articulated my POV on this issue better than I ever could.

The whole process of having to "supplicate" in order to excercise one's right of choice is a least-optimal process. Being able to go to the store and buy a pill to halt the process, or better still, having access to medications to prevent contraception in the first place, is an empowering thing--but only if the access is truly there, and women needing to avail themselves of these options know about them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 04:19 PM

148. Agree 100%. Should be "safe, legal and accessible"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 09:31 PM

216. Rare is what happens when you have good education and access to birth control

I don't have any problem with rare - its a realistic and ideal result. Abortion will always be a difficult health decision, one that has to be made when other things have failed.

...though, for the most part, I keep my mouth shut on the issue as I am male and will never have to make the decision myself. I had a girlfriend many years ago who opted for an abortion. I know it was a hard decision, and she made the right choice for herself. Having a kid is a big decision, and not having a kid is a big decision as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:47 AM

3. I see your side

But abortion would be rare IF comprehensive sex education and access to birth control were the norm in the world. As it is, it's not even the norm in America.

TlaocW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:49 AM

4. I like the term because

she is talking about full comprehensive planning.

Put another way - "If you weren't such a bunch of sexist assholes and understood that providing education and comprehensive pregnancy prevention we would not need to be talking about abortion. Take a sex education class you morons and get of our bodies."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:59 AM

7. Of course that is the full context of what she is saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:03 AM

9. We will always need abortion, always..

There is no birth control that is 100% effective, women need abortions for a myriad of reasons and we need to accept it as a perfectly valid medical procedure. Saying "rare" is a value judgment women don't need.

Should we continue to shame women for needing an abortion? I don't think that's helpful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:05 AM

12. You seem to be looking for a fight.


I have had an abortion and I am not ashamed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:15 AM

18. Why do you say that?

What have I said that suggests I'm looking for a fight? Many of us have had abortions, myself included, and there has been a decades long effort to shame us for it. It's a fairly recent development that those of us who have had abortions have felt the strength of our numbers and realized we need to come out and own it. It being our abortion. The major push right now is to stop sex Ed, birth control and abortion, they are always spoken of that way. I see abortion as birth control and we will always need it as an option.

Just my opinion, and I don't know that Clinton means what we think she means without some corroboration. Right now it looks like a verbal concession to the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #18)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:43 PM

107. Yes, I agree, shouldn't concede anything to the right that helps their cause to deny women the right to choose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:28 PM

66. doesn't the word rare

indicate a continuing and enduring presence of abortions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qazplm (Reply #66)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:41 PM

75. No. It's unnecessary and implies there is something wrong with abortion. nt

Why include something so ambiguous when support for women's choices can be expressed clearly without it? Abortions are not icky (to use a word someone else used) and we need to get past it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #75)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 06:25 AM

184. here's the thing though...

I make the assumption that no one really WANTS an abortion. Life intervenes in some way and a woman may need an abortion. They should be safe and accessible. It should not be stigmatized. But at the same time it is a really unpleasant procedure that many women feel is their only choice. What's wrong with wishing less people have to go through with it? With starting a productive discussion about education, access to family planning, keeping clinics open, etc ? That's my take on the 'rare' comment out of context of the sloganeering aspect. I'm sort of a glass half full guy ;0 Plus, is this quote from 2009?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:20 PM

124. Hillary just did not mean that

and we all know it.

How you get shaming of individual women from that is a real reach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #124)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:44 PM

137. It's a concession to the right to soften her position.

You don't see it that way, OK. I'm done making concessions to the right on this issue because it has done nothing to help women secure their rights and has allowed the camels nose under the tent, to our detriment. I think this fight has become much too real to back off at this point. There is no compromise with these people, none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #137)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 05:57 PM

153. If those jackasses

would quit the abstinence only education of young people, and stop their efforts to make birth control harder to obtain, abortions would become more rare. Abortion is a medical procedure and ALL medical procedures carry some risk. To make it necessary less often is a good thing and not necessarily a "concession to the right." I don't think she is backing off at all, but instead expanding the position to include education and access to birth control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:03 AM

11. Exactly. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:06 AM

31. I hate it. It prioritizes abortion as a political issue over the health and needs of women.

First and foremost the desire to make abortion “rare” creates an im- mediate normative judgment about abortion. While a major piece of art may be “rare” and thus even more valued, such is not the meaning in this case. Rather “rare” suggests that abortion is happening more than it should, and that there are some conditions for which abortions should and should not occur. It separates good abortions from bad abortions. It creates an under- standing that women’s individual decision making is somehow responsible for the violent disruptive social conflict over abortion in the United States. The general sentiment is that if women were just more responsible we as a nation would be less polarized over abortion. In an op-ed in the New York Times entitled “This Is the Way the Culture Wars End,” liberal columnist William Saletan explained this location of blame: “This isn’t a shortage of pills or condoms. It’s a shortage of cultural and personal responsibility. It’s a failure to teach, understand, admit or care that unprotected sex can lead to the creation—and the subsequent killing, through abortion—of a developing human being.”13

Such individualization of responsibility is harmful to women. Abortion is currently one of the most stigmatized events in a woman’s life and the widespread endorsement of “rare” both produces and reproduces this stigma.14 A recent review of mental health and abortion found profound psychological implications of stigma. According to experimental studies stigmatization can create negative cognitions, emotions, and behavioral reactions that can adversely affect social, psychological, and biological functioning. Societal stigma is seen as particularly pernicious because it leads to internalized stigma in which women adopt the negative societal beliefs and stereotypes about themselves.15

The inherent delegitimization of abortion in the call for it to be “rare” was pointed out early on by a conservative anti-abortion blogger “[T]he phrase actually brings up an important question: if abortion is merely a medical procedure—a simple choice, then why should it be rare?”16 Recently Pastor Rick Warren, who provided the invocation at President Obama’s inauguration, reiterated the critique when challenging Obama’s pro-choice position: “Now, I don’t understand the, the idea of it should be rare and, and less. Well, either you believe it’s life or you don’t. It—why would you believe it should be rare? Because if, if it’s not—if a baby, a fetus is not a life, then why restrict it?”17

As this sentiment suggests, support for making abortion rare, presup- poses that abortion is wrong and somehow different than other health care. This ongoing marginalization of abortion as a different type of health care, one in which the goal is reduced use rather than expanded access and en- hanced quality, has contributed to the significant decline in the number of locations where abortions are performed in the United States. In 2004, only 1,787 facilities continued to provide abortion care and 86 percent of counties were without a known abortion provider.18 Increased access to care is not part of the “rare” message and efforts to expand services could be construed as working against the goal of making it less frequently used.


http://www.ansirh.org/_documents/library/weitz_jwh10-2010.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #31)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:08 AM

32. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #31)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:30 AM

43. VERY well said.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #31)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:59 AM

52. An excellent discussion of that word 'rare' and why it is used. Thx. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #31)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:30 PM

67. I would think any medical procedure

that could be simply, cheaply and easily prevented/avoided should be "rare."

If there was a simple, cheap and easy way to avoid the need to have your tonsils removed, I'd prefer that procedure to be rare as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qazplm (Reply #67)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:37 PM

73. Abortion is the sole medical procedure that is described as so icky that it ought to be rare.

It stigmatized abortion as abhorrent and those who seek or have had abortions as outsiders.

And really, why should it be rare? Giving birth is more dangerous to a woman's health than an abortion. Should full term pregnancy be rare, also?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #73)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:39 PM

74. why? should it be rare? it is costly, invasive, stressful. wouldnt you rather NOT get preg

 

instead of having to go thru the shit and the pain and the after symptoms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #74)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:54 PM

84. Should knee replacement surgery be rare?

A person can advocate for comprehensive sex education and universal access to affordable birth control without stigmatizing a necessary medical procedure.

I've had 2 abortions and gave birth once. Pregnancy was far more stressful and giving birth was far more painful and the after symptoms lasted far longer. Pregnancy through term is also costly, invasive, and stressful. Should it be rare?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #84)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:55 PM

85. if there are preventative alternatives? fuck ya. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #84)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:01 PM

88. and nowhere was i arguing stress and pain level between abortion and giving birth.

 

you and i almost always agree.

we are not here. but we do not need to take it to a place, you and i know neither of us are at or saying.

i recently helped niece to get an abortion. it was eye opening. hard, stressful, painful, expensive and time consuming.

when i was talking about it on du, the challenge of finding something in state, a person said to me

there is NO reason for an invasive surgical procedure for any preg. we have other ways and means. that stuck with me. we have a pill that will take care of it, without the surgical invasion. that is a good thing. that should be the go to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #88)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 03:03 PM

141. I'm glad you were able to find the help you needed.

I went back and corrected myself that of course there are times that a procedure was needed and apologized for getting too heated. I feel intensely sometimes and have to reign myself in when I realize I've been too, too. I'm sorry

I posted about Women on Waves with a link. For reasons I don't understand I can't get a blue link but here is the addy http://www.womenonwaves.org. There is a video about the work they're doing all around the world to help women and yes there are drugs that can be used to get around a lot of this right wing nonsense but we still need to fight them because there are times a procedure is needed.

I just really want abortion to be normalized and guilt free.

Hey, the blue link worked!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #84)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:24 PM

128. Everything undesirable to go through should be as rare as possible

for the person for whom it is undesirable. Contraception should come first as most people would prefer that over having to get an abortion each time. But where it fails, there is abortion, but that would be more rare if we could have more birth control.

Nobody can seriously say Hillary is being secretly anti-choice. It is clear she is only pointing out that we need more than just abortion, but other things. Admit to being in agreement with her on ONE thing doesn't mean you have to vote for her, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #128)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 03:27 PM

145. I really don't think anyone is attacking Hillary. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #128)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 06:32 PM

161. I have disliked the use of the word since I first heard it in 2005. It has nothing to do with

agreeing or disagreeing with her.

Modern abortions, when performed within the 1st 12 weeks (and the vast majority of them are) are fast, easy, and fairly painless. Both chemically induced abortions and surgical abortions. I hate the use of the word "rare" because it comes from the assumption that abortions are icky.

Fun fact, the abortion rate is higher in Sweden, a country well known for it's early sex education and ease of acquiring birth control, than it is in the U.S. So readily available and affordable access to birth control and comprehensive sex education may or may not reduce the abortion rate.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #161)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 01:10 PM

203. That's interesting.

So we need to get rid of all the value judgements around this issue. Abortion is part of the family planning, life choice package and should be freely available without stigma or argument. This decades long champaign to end Roe needs to be stopped. All methods available today are safe and should not be controlled to please the churches and moralists. They need to be affordable and available to the poor, which is most of us.

People are people....birthcontrol fails or isn't used perfectly, life happens so why moralize about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #84)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 03:08 PM

142. If they can find a way to do microsurgery that makes knee replacement surgery unnneccessary, hell

YES it should be rare. In fact, nowadays, they are getting RID of "whole knee" replacement and going to partial knee replacement. One of these days, maybe they'll find a way to repair knees with a needle full of space-age "bone cement" or even stem cells, so they don't have to chop out the bone and put in metal or ceramics. Any invasive procedure that involves a doctor CHOPPING on you should be as rare as one can manage. If it's possible to avoid it, one should.

It used to be that to remove a gallbladder they had to gut a patient like a fish. Nowadays, they poke a few small holes in the patient and slide that thing out without leaving much of a scar. That old style slicing-and-dicing is "rare" nowadays and good thing, too. The only place they'd do that kind of old school surgery nowadays is in places where the newer equipment isn't available.

Dogging Clinton for using "rare" as if she means something other than "Gee, if women had access to education, family planning, medications, doctors to prescribe birth control, PLAN B, etc., that would make abortion less of a front-line option" is just a cheap shot.

As for pregnancy, it should be as rare as the person carrying the fetus wants it to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #31)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 06:06 PM

158. Thanks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:10 AM

33. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:12 AM

34. Rare implies "last resort" and thus "bad".

It's a way to keep calling abortion "icky".

Abortion needs to be safe and legal.

Rare will take care of itself if we actually had the family planning support you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #34)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:37 PM

72. or, with family planning and other measures, they will not be needed at the same rate. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #34)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:32 PM

135. It does not.

Diamonds are rare. Rare means not happening a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #135)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:39 PM

136. And why not have abortion happen a lot? Because it is bad. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:41 AM

46. Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 01:48 AM

181. Exactly. It's not a concession, it's saying open up family planning options and

 

Sex education so that women being in the circumstance to need one ends up being rare because they have the options and both sexes have the education beforehand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:56 AM

5. It should be rare. With contraception and family planning there would be less. Sure, there will be

times when inadvertent conception occurs, and of course with criminal acts such as rape or incest, or medical necessity or for the health, physical and mental state of the mother, which is why it is between a woman and her doctor.

I see nothing wrong with the statement that it should be safe legal and rare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:57 AM

6. Rare because there is family planning, as in birth control being available. If there isn't

a pregnancy then there is not a need for an abortion. As she also explained there are differences in opinions and some takes their opinions to the extremes but I like choices. I also like having family planning available so there are less unwanted pregnancies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #6)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:00 AM

8. Yes, and of course there are the criminal and health related aspects why it needs to be legal. Rape,

incest, and the life or health of the mother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:09 AM

16. I totally agree, especially a young girl and in cases of incest, a young victim of rape should not

be punished and forced to have a child. I don't think older women should be forced to have a baby from rape. Yes rape should be a never situation and I don't care what Todd Akin said, a woman does not shut down the ability to get pregnant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #16)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 10:01 PM

232. There are no "especially" cases for any female who wants to have an abortion...

There are no weepy cases. There are no punishment cases.

There are only abortion cases if a female wants to have one. For any reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #232)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 10:22 PM

233. I understand what you say, my point was and is a young girl should not be punished further after

Rape to have the baby should she become pregnant as a result of rape. In no way am I advocating the right of choice of abortion be restricted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #233)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 10:49 PM

235. We don't agree often but we agree on this. Cheers to us!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:03 AM

10. Rare = accessible contraception and family planning.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:05 AM

13. With education, family planning, and good birth control, abortions will be rare.

They will happend due to the rare accident or because a crime was committed

That is precisely why a big part of the Republican/Conservatie/Religous assault on women's rights is against Education, family planning, and birth control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 06:49 PM

165. Sweden has all that and its abortion rate is higher than the U.S.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #165)

Wed Apr 22, 2015, 06:17 AM

236. This can't be stressed enough

Education doesn't reduce abortions. And why do they need to be reduced anyway? That's playing right into the anti-choice's hands. Oooooh, abortion is BAD. No, it's not. It's a legal and safe medical procedure.

Women aren't idiots who need to be counseled, need to have state-sanctioned rape to shame them (transvaginal ultrasounds), need to sit through waiting periods in case they change their minds (that rarely happens), and don't need to be lied to about a false link to breast cancer or a false promise that their medication abortion can be reversed. Women are not children. When a woman has decided she can't bring up a child she has the legal right to terminate.

The procedure is already rare, and getting more rare. See: In the first quarter of 2015, legislatures in all 50 states collectively introduced 332 provisions aimed at restricting abortion services, compared to 335 during the entire 2014 legislative session, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Novara (Reply #236)

Wed Apr 22, 2015, 06:34 AM

237. Yes! Abortion is a moral and positive choice that that liberates women, saves lives, and protects

families.

Change the rhetoric. It's not a "necessary evil". And the patriarchal attitude that if we'd just educate these stupid women they wouldn't get knocked up is bullshit. Women are fertile for up to FORTY YEARS, ffs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:07 AM

15. Because it speaks to the need for CONTRACEPTION.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #15)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:52 PM

79. then say abortion and contraception should be safe, legal and available to all

 

See, easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:13 AM

17. I disagree. Abortion is a last resort because it's invasive and has risks. Other options

should be so easily used that we never get that far down the list of options. There's no shame implied, just compassionate pragmatism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabear (Reply #17)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:21 AM

20. It's far far safer than carrying a child to term and delivery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #20)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:28 AM

23. Absolutely! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #20)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:25 PM

129. There's no way Hillary means that as the option

She means as against birth control, most forms of which are likely safer than having the abortion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #20)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 06:59 PM

167. Well yes, but we're talking about alternatives to that.

So is she.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabear (Reply #167)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:07 PM

169. Rare to you is never?

That's ridiculous Utopian fluff.

Women are fertile for up to 40 years. Contraception fails, mistakes are made, etc. Abortion should be used any time it's needed, period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #169)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:20 PM

170. I can't figure out why you're arguing with me.

My interpretation is that, given a hierarchy of choices, not getting pregnant in the first place is preferable, not for any moral reason, just because it IS a medical issue, and why go through it if you don't have to? Next would come morning after meds, which are far from pleasant but are safe enough to use at home. Next early term abortion, because the fetus isn't developed enough to engender worries about pain if one is so inclined. Late term is least preferable because it's physically harder and the morality does trouble some people.

There's nothing wrong with hoping that the procedures further along the timeline have to happen more rarely than those that are less involved.

Where do we disagree here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabear (Reply #170)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:31 PM

171. We're discussing. It's a discussion board, no?

I have explained why I take people to task for the way they phrase/frame it because abortion rights are being attacked in epic proportions. I strongly and passionately feel that the left needs to stand up firmly and strongly on abortion rights as well as access to education and contraception.

I'm discussing the use of the phrase "safe, legal and rare" because I feel strongly that the frequency is not a problem. Lack of access to it is. The party removed the phrase from our platform years ago with good reason. I've detailed the issue I have with it repeatedly, including here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6527478

I am discussing specifically with you because, you said, "Other options should be so easily used that we never get that far down the list of options." Bolding mine because, like the word "rare", that jumped out at me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #171)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 12:18 PM

199. In 2005, Hillary also floated the notion of never...

I can't find a transcript of her speech in 2004 but her use of the words "not ever" and "rare" were noted...

Speaking in January on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, Clinton made some fairly stunning remarks when she acknowledged that abortion is a "a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," and said, "There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our Constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances."

William Saletan, author of "Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War," suggested in his Slate.com column at the time that Clinton was repositioning her party to win the abortion war.

Perhaps so, but I don't care why she's saying it. I'm just glad someone is speaking up. I've always maintained that you eliminate abortion by treating the subject honestly through education.


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-12-14/news/0512140173_1_abortion-war-abortion-opponents-abortion-question

The notion that abortion will never or rarely be used as a result of education and free or cheap access to birth to birth control is a fantasy. Sweden, who does all that, has a higher abortion rate than the U.S.

What I find interesting is, as the Democrats shifted their focus to "rare" by promoting birth control and education, the right intensified their fight against both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #199)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 12:21 PM

200. Yeah, that's 100% bullshit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabear (Reply #17)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:26 AM

22. I hope you're right..

But right now there are safe abortions available using drugs that can be self administered up to 20 weeks (I believe that's the cutoff) that are being controlled in various states. There is also the morning after pill. Most abortions can be dealt with using these drugs, if they're made available.

In any case I still don't see the need to include rare in that phrase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabear (Reply #17)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:31 PM

69. it would not be a last resort for me

it would be the only option on the extreme off chance that my iud failed. i made sure to choose the most effective form of bc because i do not want kids, but i would have an abortion in a second if the situation arose.

the way i read this post is that women should carry to term and either keep or adopt out the child. if a woman does not want to carry the child to term, no one should force them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fizzgig (Reply #69)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:59 PM

87. It wasn't "last resort" for me

Or my mother.
Or my grandmother.
The only difference was mine was safe and legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fizzgig (Reply #69)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 03:13 PM

143. I had an IUD placed 6 weeks after giving birth to my one and only child.

It was a Dalkon Shield and it nearly killed me. I'm glad they've made them safe because they're a good option, and I hear you...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fizzgig (Reply #69)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 08:51 PM

174. I didn't read it that way at all.

I read it as a wish that good education, contraception and respect for women's wishes would be so ubiquitous that pregnancies wouldn't happen unless they were wanted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabear (Reply #174)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:53 PM

175. you and i share the same wish

i understand your intent, i'm just uncomfortable with putting any qualifier on it other than safe and legal.

i could, and should, have been much more articulate in my original reply

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fizzgig (Reply #175)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 04:54 PM

209. Crazy medium, the Internet. But we're totally going to figure it out.

Someday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #19)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:36 AM

25. Thanks for the links PN...

I see that this is a worthy discussion that has been ongoing! Well done! I'm glad I'm in such good company.


LeftyMom
19. That's the political genius and moral cowardice of the phrase.
To pro-choice people it means "unplanned pregnancies shouldn't be common, for women's sake." To the mushy middle it means "abortions for deserving women but not for those trampy other women." To anti-choicers it means "let's whittle away at legalized abortion even if we can't get a ban past the Supremes yet."

It's a political Rorschach ink blot. It means what you want it to mean.


This is exactly what I mean and we continue to do this in many areas. We need to change our language to be clear with our messaging.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #25)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:38 AM

26. Amen. I adore that reply of LeftyMom's.

And thank you for being a strong ally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:34 AM

24. You can use that argument to increase access to contraception.

If we increase access to contraception it would reduce the number to abortions.


I think I have heard Planned Parenthood use the safe, legal and rare argument for this reason.


Though I totally agree with the sentiment of your post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iandhr (Reply #24)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:43 AM

28. Reduce to what? Rare is a relative term which means very different things to different people.

Saying it should be "rare" indicates - clearly - that it is happening more than it should be and that there are 'good' and 'bad' abortions. Abortion is one of the most stigmatized events of a woman's life and the widespread "rare" mantra propagates that.

Calling for it to be "rare" proposes that there is something wrong with abortion. It places the procedure as a very different type of health care. One in which the goal is reduced use rather than expanded access and enhanced quality. And this has contributed to the significant decline in the number of locations where abortions are performed in the United States. The result is also fewer physicians - good physicians - who are even taught abortion care. Less than half of all OB/GYN's residency programs offer training in abortion care.

Saying it should be rare legitimizes efforts to restrict access to abortion.


here is a good piece summarizing my feelings on this matter: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/04/26/safe-legal-rare-another-perspective

A common narrative in the political and cultural discussions of reproductive health focuses on reducing the number of abortions taking place every year. It’s supposed to be one thing that those who support abortion rights and those who oppose abortion can agree on, the so-called common ground. The assumption is that we can all agree that abortion itself is a bad thing, perhaps necessary, but definitely not a good thing. Even President Clinton declared (and many others have embraced) that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. According to the Guttmacher Institute, almost half of all pregnancies among American women in 2005 were unplanned or unintended. And of those, four in 10 ended in abortion. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#1) In other words, between one-fifth and one-quarter of all pregnancies ended in abortion. Without any other information, those statistics can sound scary and paint a picture of women as irresponsible or poor decision-makers. Therefore reducing the number of abortions is a goal that reproductive health, rights and justice activists should work toward, right?

Wrong. Those numbers mean nothing without context. If the 1.21 million abortions that took place in 2005 (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#1) represent the number of women who needed abortions (and in my opinion, if a woman decides she needs an abortion, then she does), as well as the many women who chose to terminate pregnancies that they very much wanted but could not afford to carry to term, then that number is too high. The work of reducing the number of abortions, therefore, would entail creating an authentically family-friendly society, where women would have the support they need to raise their families, whatever forms they took. That could include eliminating the family caps in TANF, encouraging unionization of low-wage workers, reforming immigration policies and making vocational and higher education more accessible.

On the other hand, if those 1.21 million abortions represent only the women who could access abortion financially, geographically or otherwise, then that number is too low. Yes, too low. If that’s the case, then what is an appropriate response? How do we best support women and their reproductive health? Do we dare admit that increasing the number of abortions might be not only good for women’s health, but also moral and just?

What if we stopped focusing on the number of abortions and instead focused on the women themselves? Much of the work of the reproductive health, rights and justice movements would remain the same. We would still advocate for legislation that helps our families. We would still fight to protect abortion providers and their staffs from verbal harassment and physical violence. What would change, however, is the stigma and shame. By focusing on supporting women’s agency and self-determination, rather than judging the outcomes of that agency, we send a powerful message. We say that we trust women. We say we will not use them and their experiences as pawns in a political game. We say we care about women and want them to have access to all the information, services and resources necessary to make the best decisions they can for themselves and their families. That is at the core of reproductive justice. Not reducing the number of abortions. Safe – yes. Legal– absolutely. Rare – not the point.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #28)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:49 AM

29. I agree with you.

I was merely suggesting it as a way to go after the far right.

We say something like "If you hate abortion so much you should support universal contraception access. More women having access to contraception would reduce the number of abortions that take place."

Then they spot there bs about "consequence free sex"


Then we expose them for the women haters that they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iandhr (Reply #29)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 12:21 PM

201. Except the far right also believes that birth control pills are abortifacients.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #201)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 12:22 PM

202. Yup, see Hobby Lobby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #202)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 01:14 PM

204. The science didn't enter the argument did it? It was all 'belief'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #204)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 01:18 PM

205. It should have. It's not an abortifacient, that's a scientific fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #205)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 01:22 PM

207. Which was amazing that the SC didn't use science to reach a decision ... We're toast!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #201)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 01:31 PM

208. Agreed

But the rest of the country doesn't and we could use it to expose those a**h****


But I agree we have to stop the stigmatization

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #28)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:21 PM

59. You hit all the salient points, well done!

Thanks for your post, very comprehensive and clear. Thumbsup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:53 AM

50. What if someone said that heart surgery should be safe, legal, and rare?

Would that be judgmental? Or would it mean that good preventative health-care should be available to everyone so that we need fewer heart surgeries?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to enough (Reply #50)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:57 AM

51. If they said it while most states were simultaneously closing clinics, limiting access to it and

preventative care, passing sweeping legislation to stop heart surgery, protesting and bombing clinics, killing heart surgeons, that would be a problem. No?

Also, they don't say that about cardiac surgery. It's not typical that a cardiac patient is judged for the history behind the surgery. They should have exercised, eaten better, oh, it is a genetic abnormality... We are only glad that the procedures exist to help those who need it. I feel the same way about abortion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to enough (Reply #50)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:30 PM

134. +1

It could all be as rare as possible. Fewer invasive surgeries. More prevention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to enough (Reply #50)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 01:50 AM

182. Exactly, or lobe-ectomies, or many other surgeries. It works for all of them. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:54 PM

82. I think what she means by rare is by trying to lower unwanted pregnancies in the first place

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:10 PM

114. I think it means

 

education and easy access for birth control. These two things would drastically cut abortion rates because they wouldn't be as needed. But, if they are needed, they should be safe, legal, and nobody's business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:15 PM

117. It should be a last option

As people have said, it's not easy to go through. Birth control is important to avoid people having to make that decision.

Unless you want to argue it's better than birth control. I recall the Soviets practically used it that way, which was odd in that they could get birth control pills over the counter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 11:58 PM

213. I always felt that the "rare" part wasn't blame-y

but rather meant to assist in keeping them rare through education, along with cheap and easily access to contraception.

Teach women and men both the basics of sex ed, make it easy to access contraception and abortion does become much more rare. It's not blame-y but just the basis of family planning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #1)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 05:37 PM

220. To be honest you shouldn't

If this country did things the right way it would be rare.

If we provided proper sex education for women
If we provide free birth control as part of their healthcare plan
If we made Plan B birth control available over the counter
If we made Family Planning affordable for all women to attend

If these things were done you'd naturally find the number of of abortions would decrease. States where many or all of these things are already done tend to have a lower rate of pregnancies ending in abortions than those that withhold sex education, free birth control and Plan B. There is overwhelming evidence that points to the fact that states that teach 'Abstinence Only' in the school have a higher rate of teenage pregnancy than those that do not.

Plan B is the emergency contraceptive that if taken within 24-48 hours of unprotective sex can prevent a pregnancy. I also think that should be made available for women who have been raped. Why should a woman have to worry about if a rapist got her pregnant.

And as for affordable family planning that is to ensure that women get proper healthcare during pregnancy so that there is a better chance that the child they have will be delivered healthy. But Family Planning clinics can also provide other forms of long-term birth control that have less chance of failure such as IUD and injection (less chance of forgetting to take a pill).

So the 'Safe, legal and rare' has always made sense to me because done right means that women have plenty of options to ensure that they don't end up in a position where they must decide if they want an abortion. Lack of options means more abortions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:21 AM

21. kicked ass. sing it sister. ya...

 

i am going there. with this video.

thank you.... i know this has been out there, but i have not listened.

well, du shoved me into participating in this, now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:40 AM

27. No. Rare = stigma

There is no stigma in terminating an unwanted pregnancy. Well, there shouldn't be. I understand the anti- crowd wants to make it shameful. We won't let them!

Making it rare means that those women who need abortions are probably victims of rape, incest, birth control failure, etc. And they will be harder to obtain. There will also be those situations where a woman may die if she brings her pregnancy to term. Do we want to make these women jump through hoops to get necessary healthcare? Do we want to pass judgment on them because they need to avail themselves of this "rare" medical procedure? It's bad enough as it is already. Making it rare makes it unavailable for those who need it.

This is not some pie-in-the-sky world where only grave situations produce abortions. Most abortions in the US are obtained by women who are mothers already, and who can't bring another child into the world, for whatever reason. You're never going to get decent sex education in the red states. So making abortion one more impossible hurdle for women by making it "rare" will only damage them further.

It's not an ideal world. We will never have comprehensive sex education and freely available birth cotrol that works 100% of the time. Making abortions rare only stigmatizes those women who need them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Novara (Reply #27)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:50 AM

30. Well said..

If I understand it correctly birth control is not covered under Obamacare (please correct me if I'm wrong) but Viagra is covered. That infuriates me. Women struggle under such heavy restrictions and inequality and most is due to religion. We don't need your stigma just give us healthcare...and that includes birthcontrol in ALL it's forms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #30)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:23 AM

35. Yes you are correct. But there is more And yesthere is a Clinton inovlved

 

The original Hyde Amendment passed in 1976 but because of the 1973 decision on Roe V Wade Congress altered the amendment several times
In 1993 President Clinton signed into law the version of the Hyde Amendment which permits medicare medicaid funding only in cases of rape and inscest ... the National Abortion Federation and the ACLU felt that poor women were unduly and unreasonably targeted an and given the Clinton position on welfare reform was a horrible travesty that resulted in all sorts of inequities that persist today
In the ACA there was going to be a problem with Representative Stupak who introduced the Stupack-Piitts amendment ... ultimately without getting into too much detail the Hyde Amendment was placed in the ACA (affirming it would extend into the new law).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #30)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:54 PM

83. You are incorrect

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mcar (Reply #83)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:03 PM

89. LOL...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Novara (Reply #27)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:25 AM

36. that would be the ONLY word i had an issue with. i get it too. and i do not think she needs

 

apologize for, with how she used it.

she was saying, with education.... i can attain rare more than with ignorance. so yes, in the manner she used it, i got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #36)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:28 AM

38. I agree. She has a 100% rating with NARAL and 0% with the anti choice groups.

I just hope that she removes it from the discussion like the party platform has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #38)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:28 AM

39. she could. she does not have to. it totally makes sense how she uses it. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #39)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:30 AM

42. *I* wish she would stop using it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #42)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:31 AM

44. obviously peace, as others wish the same. again, .... me? meh. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Novara (Reply #27)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:13 PM

57. the "rare" part also bothered me

and i wholly agree with your analysis.

five years ago colorado got a private grant to provide free- or low-cost long-term birth control for teens and low-income women and it helped do wonders for teen pregnancy and abortion rates. the grant has expired and now there is bipartisan support to continue funding it using state dollars with the right-wing loons howling about it. the budget has gone to the governor and i can't find anything about funding this program. i really hope it made it in.

if those jerk offs are so concerned about abortion (and welfare usage), you would think that programs that lessen unwanted pregnancies would be popular with them. of course, that's trying to apply logic to a group of illogical people.

edit: it looks like the family planning funding made it into the budget. good on all those who fought for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Novara (Reply #27)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:04 PM

90. No. Not at all. Effective and readily available contraception,

which Hillary Clinton strongly supports, will help to make the need for abortion rare. That's a good thing. It is far better and safer to avoid pregnancy than to have an abortion procedure. The right, and many nations, make contraception difficult to obtain, and some would even like to make it impossible. That would, of course, increase the number of abortions.

Imagine a world where every woman had complete control over her own reproductive choices. Frankly, that would almost eliminate the need for abortion. Nobody wants to have an abortion. Many do not want to be pregnant. Contraception is the best solution. Abortion must be available, but if it were rarely needed, that would be ideal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Novara (Reply #27)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 10:00 AM

190. There's thinking in the anti-choice movement that women use abortion as a form of birth control

They don't stop to consider how difficult the decision is to make for many women.

In this context, and in my opinion, the reason the Dem party has adopted the word "rare" is because they, as many others, believe that if contraception and education were the norm, abortions would be "rare." It's the rise of abstinence-only teachings that has led to the rise in teen pregnancies. It's not being taught how pregnancy actually happens that is leading to more teen pregnancies (or did during the Bush admin).

No one in the Dem party is saying that abortion shouldn't be a procedure used by whomever wants to use it but they are saying that if the anti-choice people would allow contraception and education, then abortion would become rare.

I see nothing wrong with that. It doesn't stigmatize abortion or women who have it, it's just stating that if we educated people, it would become rare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:26 AM

37. k&r...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:29 AM

40. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:39 AM

45. That's the most impressed with Clinton I have ever been

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PinkPotus (Reply #45)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:11 PM

56. Welcome to DU!!!

Nice to have you posting here!!

Speaking for myself, I am often very impressed with Hillary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:46 AM

48. A good answer.

I agree with the "rare" complaints some people make, but it doesn't take away from the overall excellence of the answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:47 AM

49. Hillary's strength is talking about issues concerning women and children.

If only she had the same conviction and enthusiasm about dealing with our economic disparity and the dominance of the oligarchy.

We shall see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:09 PM

54. Rare isn't a value judgement

Abortion is a medical procedure. All medical procedures carry risk. However, as long as misogynist sexual standards remain in place, as long as there is a lack of male birth control, as long as birth control isn't always reliable, as long as rape exists at all, as long as the dangers of pregnancy are dismissed, (and the anti-reproductive health monsters downplay both permanent disability and death as a result of pregnancy) as long as full reproductive coverage is denied to any woman at all as long as women can say "my body my business" abortion is going to exist.

So why *I* say legal and safe and none of anybody else's business, 'rare' is a comprehensive goal, not an ideology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #54)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:25 PM

60. Making abortion rare will place value judgments on it.

As long as.....as long as.....as long as.....

What you've described is life. And reality. There will be no utopia where all of these things do not exist.

So yes, it needs to be safe and legal. But let's not put the concept of rare into it because the reality is, using "rare" as a goal will end up limiting access. That's the world we live in.

I really have no time for ideology. Not where women's healthcare access is involved. We have to work within the constraints of reality.

IMO, it's playing into the anti's hands to use "rare" as a goal. They want to eliminate safe, legal abortion. Saying it needs to be rare is only playing into that narrative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Novara (Reply #60)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:49 PM

76. A comprehensive goal

Parsing words is ridiculous. I don't think Clinton was putting a value judgement on abortion, she was saying the need for an invasive medical procedure could be reduced, with proper family planning, access to healthcare, education of populations, elimination of misogyny.

The maternal death rate needs to be rare --it's not. There is a lot of work to be done on women's health world wide. If we accomplish even some of it, lives will be saved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #54)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:25 PM

61. This. Her point is,abortion exists legal or not.

Illegal abortions kill women.I don't understand why anyone is getting stuck on the word "rare".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #54)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:32 PM

70. right. rare here is a good thing. means other solutions so not needed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #70)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:50 PM

77. I think I'll hit my head with a brick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #77)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:09 PM

93. totaly fuggin blowing my mind. the more i listen, and the more i think about it, and thought

 

progresses along.

i to reacted to her word choice, rare. i hate that word. and all it took was me listening to what she was saying, for me to say

i get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #93)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:25 PM

100. Well her husband said it in 1996

Obama said it more recently. But a women who had been working for women's rights? Oh the shit doth flow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #100)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:57 PM

176. And in 1996, the feminist organization that I was involved with protested Bill's use of the word.

As did plenty of other feminists.

You assume that this capitulation to the right's characterization that abortion is dirty and icky hasn't been debated for decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #176)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 10:34 AM

194. i would have to see how bill used it. did he do it as a concession. abortions should be rare. thats

 

it

because that is not what hillary did, at all.

she had two conversations.

abortion

and the rw going after family planning, contraceptives, education.

that was her context of using the word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #54)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:26 PM

130. I agree and the reaching to make it one

is absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:10 PM

55. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:20 PM

58. What most don't get

What very seldom or never enters into the conversation is that pro-lifers also want to prohibit contraception. This is anti-feminism at its worst, because it takes away the capacity of a woman to control the very core of her life. Don't let them foul us. They are not concerned with any body's wellbeing, they are concerned with their hidden agenda: controlling women's lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beowulf42 (Reply #58)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:26 PM

62. anti abortionists, rather than prolife. and yes. that would be the point and reasoning,

 

context, for clinton to use.... and rare.

with family planning the abortions decrease.

but.... these people do not want to decrease either abortion, or unwanted preg.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beowulf42 (Reply #58)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:53 PM

81. 100% correct

A woman who is constantly pregnant and/of caring for young children cannot realistically get a good job or an education. She will be forever dependent on her Lord and Master husband. That's their true goal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beowulf42 (Reply #58)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:06 PM

91. They also have no problem with women dying from botched

back alley abortions ,it not only serves them right but serves as an excellent warning to any other woman contemplating abortion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:34 PM

71. She did very well. Those who want to fasten on one word need to listen to the whole thing again.

She smacked that self-righteous prig around. The "pro-lifers" are trying to get rid of contraception, and that has terrible consequences--AND SHE SAID THAT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:53 PM

80. That was a great answer from her

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #80)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:11 PM

94. i thought so also. but go figure. and still, we argue. lol. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #94)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:37 PM

102. LOL I know

I am not one who wants her for the nomination, but I have no problem praising her on things I think she gets right I think the internet gives people a very all or nothing type mentality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #102)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:42 PM

104. i sit the same place as you do. i thought what she said was important enough for all us to hear

 

i put in hof. as a reminder of how to address. not cause she is running.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:11 PM

95. "Speechless?" One can only hope.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:19 PM

96. Hillary did a good job with her answer...but

I still think the use of the word rare was used in the context that "yes, we agree that abortion is terrible" but birth control, education etc. brings down the numbers. The emphasis is on the wrong thing. It's not about abortion it's about comprehensive healthcare for women. The word rare is a concession and that must be the way she feels about it, fine, but it sends the wrong message in my view.

Thanks for posting this video kpete the discussion was wonderful!

On edit: I want to say something about Hillary. I love the fact that she's a fighter and can go toe to toe with anyone. I really love that about her and we do need a fighter in the WH, it's other stuff I have problems with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #96)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:22 PM

98. period at the end when she uses rare. then she explains how one decdreases it. then she brings

 

rare back in. to me, cleary saying.... dumbshits, this is how you get rare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #98)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:24 PM

99. Yeah we all know what they really want and I'm done giving them anything. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:21 PM

97. The "rare" talk is just another example of the left shifting to the right

It plays right into the right's hands. They want to eliminate safe, legal abortions so women are punished for making their own decisions about their own bodies. They want to keep women down. Keeping them pregnant and/or shaming them for trying to take control of their own lives keeps patriarchy alive. Letting them die from an unsafe abortion only means they get what they deserve for being uppity.

Abortion needs to be safe, legal, and readily available. It does not mean that good birth control doesn't also need to be safe, reliable, and readily available but even so, sometimes birth control fails. Sometimes women don't use it perfectly. In some abusive relationships a woman can't use birth control because she is fully under the control of her partner. Women are raped - even spousal rape.

Many of you seem to be forgetting that we live in the real world. Many of the same people who want to eliminate abortion also want to make birth control rare. Give them an inch and they will take a mile.

Women cannot afford to settle for compromises. Saying abortion needs to be rare plays into their narrative that it's a bad thing. We've had enough of that shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:47 PM

108. Jeeez. People are willing to dismiss the whole speech just for the use of "rare".

Myself, I was cheering. I'll vote for her just for that response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #108)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:57 PM

110. another example of looking for a reason to dismiss Clinton

She was bad-ass and exactly correct. And people want to find something wrong with her...so they created meaning out of whole cloth just to use it against her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Evergreen Emerald (Reply #110)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 03:50 PM

146. Please, she's a big girl and no one said anything other than she did a good job.

She kicked his sorry ass and I love that about her. I take exception to the inclusion of the word rare and with good reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #108)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:00 PM

112. I don't get it either, she's been consistently pro choice for

as long as she's been on record in regard to abortion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #112)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:16 PM

118. as she says.... she has been to the places with botched abortions and watched the suffering.

 

educate and provide so those women do not have to experience? sure. works for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #108)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:27 PM

131. Unable to agree with her on the one thing they agree on!

Agreeing with her on this doesn't require people to vote for her. You'd think it does, with all this effort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #131)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:25 PM

178. Swedenhas a higher rate of abortion than the U.S. And Sweden has early sex ed which

follows through their entire educational career and all methods of birth control are available and cheap to all. They have access all that Hillary advocates, and yet, abortion is not less "rare".

The whole "rare" thing is to assure the religious right that liberals agree that women who access an essential tool to their reproductive health are doing something dirty and unacceptable.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #178)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 01:19 PM

206. Keep saying it.... :-) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #178)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 05:23 PM

219. I've noticed that those supporting the language refuse to respond to that point.

I'm not sure the data supports the assertion in the big picture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #219)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 09:53 PM

231. ...

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp335pd.html

And this is is data that both the anti-abortionists use and the pro-choice use. And data that has been replicated with other studies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #231)

Wed Apr 22, 2015, 05:29 PM

239. That wasn't clear at all, sorry. I meant the assertion that better education and access to birth

control would make the procedure more rare.

If that is the case then like you point out then how do we explain Sweden or even Europe as a whole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #239)

Wed Apr 22, 2015, 10:21 PM

240. How do explain Sweden and Europe? Women will have abortions.

That is how you might explain women around the world.

They will have abortions.

Accept it. Abortion on demand when a woman chooses to make that decision and fuck that "Oh it's so difficult," treacle.

Most women are relieved that they have that choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #240)

Thu Apr 23, 2015, 05:53 AM

241. I am agreeing with you! I was only seeking to clarify that LA, not push back. I'm sorry if I'm not

clear for whatever reason but I'm not sure why you are seemingly aging with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #178)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 05:53 PM

222. Luminous, did you have a link we can use.

This is important information and I want to have it available for discussion. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #222)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 07:05 PM

223. I'm on my phone and it is a pain to post links.

I'll try to remember when I get home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #223)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 07:30 PM

224. Thanks! There's no rush.... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #224)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 09:37 PM

225. Here you go. And the stats are consistent on both pro-choice and anti-choice websites.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp335pd.html

Hell. Denmark is a hair above us and Norway a hair behind. Clearly, education and access to affordable and wide range of birth control options are not likely to budge these numbers.

I remember when organizations like NARAL and NOW were looking for softer language to counteract "pro-life" (because I attended tedious 3 hour meetings around this issue). Pro-life seemed so positive! Unlike that 'dirty' thing we were advocating. Someone somewhere came up with "rare" because, you know (throwing a bone to the assholes), what women sometimes do to facilitate family planning and reproductive health is so odious, it must be made rare.

What is even more distressing is that she claimed, in her speech on the anniversary of Roe v Wade, that education and access could reduce abortion to not ever. It's damn crazy talk and it pisses me off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #225)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 09:47 PM

228. This information is either. Being ignored or suppressed.

It's so damned important. I can't feel she's supportive of abortion and using that "rare" is the camels nose! Did anyone on this thread ever address this information? You brought it up over and over and I didn't see anyone address it. They keep saying the same thing as though this information didn't exist. Wow....if we can't get people here to address their attitudes how the hell will we impact the teahadists?

Thanks.. Keep up the good work!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #131)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:34 PM

179. I *have* voted for HRC and I will again.

And as a supporter, I would very much like her to drop the antiquated phrase which was removed from the party platform years ago, with good reason.

You thought I was arguing with you above? Well I think that you're projecting your defensiveness of her on me. I get it, it's rough here during the primaries, but this is important to some of us. I've taken 2 female Democratic gubernatorial candidates for governer to task face to face for using this phrase and I would with Hillary as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 03:13 PM

144. K&R

 

- Jacques Fresco is absolutely right. We cannot govern ourselves with idiots. People who have no expertise in a field have no business making life and death decisions based upon their own fantasy and bullshit beliefs.

We will NEVER GET ANYWHERE until we change this stupid bullshit system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 05:44 PM

150. kick

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 06:32 PM

160. Thanks, kpete! In that same hearing she reiterated she opposed forced abortions, as well. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:04 PM

177. YUmm...great...TPP? Worse than crickets

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 01:58 AM

183. Abortions are not cheap.

They are medical procedures that carry a risk - not a large one, but still a risk.

Women often need to pass a gauntlet of protestors to get to a clinic, not a pleasant thing to do at the best of times.

So yes, I'm perfectly fine with rare. Always available and legal and safe? Absolutely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kiva (Reply #183)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 09:13 AM

185. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kiva (Reply #183)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 10:42 AM

196. I had a skin tag removed I had a basal cell removed should those be rare? How about colonoscopies?

 

You are 40 times more likely to die from a colonoscopy yet I would never tell anyone it should be rare since it is a voluntary medical procedure that people ought to have at the age of 50 ... and yet saying an abortion should be rare because it carries a risk is not a valid argument medically. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/08/08/3469232/abortion-safety-trap-laws/

Abortions are a medical procedure and should be conducted under safe conditions ....

Rare is not what is wanted it should be there and it should be nobody else's business

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 09:14 AM

186. Good answer. The right answer. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 09:29 AM

189. holy cow, ya'll -- times have changed with regard to "rare"

the use of the word "rare" has always bothered me and i thought i was the only one. i'm sure they use it b/c it polls well to turn heads of a demographic we want on board.

back when they started using the "rare" theme i thought we'd never get to the place where it's questioned. and here we are. bravo.

what has always bothered me about the word is that it's ambiguous as to what it modifies. are we talking about the procedure being rare for one person -- or rare for society as a whole.

1 in 3 women have abortions. IT'S NOT RARE on the social level. it's quite common. on the personal level, it's none of our business how many times a woman accesses the procedure...but in practice, b/c of expense and disruption etc, you want it to be rare. and yet, no one should be able to limit how many times a woman accesses the procedure, which is a notion that's embedded int he language. so, "rare" in the personal context is really annoying. and dangerous.

seems to me we've evolved beyond needing to use the word entirely. we should be able to talk about having full access to family planning AND childcare AND healthcare AND equal pay so that having a family doesn't relegate women to poverty and abuse.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #189)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 11:08 AM

197. +++ It was the camel's triangulating nose under the tent.


Just like "late-term abortions," it was a way to insert the idea that abortions were a moral hazard of some kind. Democrats chose to hope we were talking about giving teenagers as much information and as many options as possible, *including* safe, legal abortion.

But that's not what they meant at all. And that's not what we got.

It's way past time to stop trying to appease people who see any discussion of abortion only as an opportunity to assert their right to control women's bodies and make their healthcare decisions for them.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 10:02 AM

191. "Rare" was a mistaken concession we must retract.

In trying to triangulate a working compromise with people who have no interest in reasonable discussion, we were led to believe the "rare" language was to be about reducing teenage pregnancy with rational measures like intelligent sex education and access to birth control.

Instead, it was taken as a concession that abortion is evil, and the same factions Clinton was trying to appease promptly set about a regime of "abstinence only" education and conflating birth control with "abortifacients."

All along, we were dealing with people with zero concern for women's health or privacy, who at bottom just want to ensure sex = pregnancy = punishment for women.

We need to clarify forcefully and repeatedly:

"Safe, legal, and ON DEMAND"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #191)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 10:04 AM

192. Amen and THANK YOU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #191)

Sun Apr 19, 2015, 10:30 AM

193. Yes, absolutely. Why should abortions be rare?

Why should they be rare? Why should any outpatient medical procedure be rare?

And why the hell should we play into their narrative that it's a bad thing that needs to be reduced? Isn't it damaging enough that the anti-choice people are making abortion really, really difficult to obtain? We need to play into that narrative too?

We don't live in a perfect world where everyone who wants contraception can easily get it, and it works 100% perfectly 100% of the time. This is why abortion needs to be safe, legal, and easily available to any woman who needs one. Not RARE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Novara (Reply #193)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 09:46 PM

227. Exactly. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 10:32 PM

234. That was a great answer by HRC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread