Gbaji:
You know, I am still trying to decide if you've been playing devil's advocate so long you don't actually understand what the real issues here are, or if you are just completely divorced from the reality the rest of us live in, or if you just don't CARE what the facts of the matter are, so long as you can find a way to tell someone they are "wrong."
gbaji wrote:
Is it not in our best interests to find ways to trim that number down if we can?
And isn't that what people who tend to be pro-choice are trying to do with comprehensive sex education programs that give thorough and factual contraceptive use information, and programs to make contraception affordable to everyone, and making sure women have access to the morning-after pill?
But the people who tend to be pro-life throw back their heads and howl about abstinence-only education being the only "moral" approach and that the distribution of condoms "encourages" people to have sex, and how pharmacists shouldn't have to provide morning-after pills. THEY are the ones inflating the rate of unwanted pregnancies every time they fail to recognize that
study after study after study has demonstrated that abstinence-only education not only failes to prevent kids from having sex, but that it also INCREASES the likelihood that when they do decide to have sex, they'll make poor contraceptive choices.
They're the ones inflating the unwanted pregnancy rate every time they try to make it harder for women to get access to affordable birth control.
I would LOVE to see the rate of unwanted pregnancies get so low that a larger portion of abortions performed are done in cases of "legitimate" need, such as rape and incest. I've said time and time again that I don't like the idea of abortion, and that I can't ever see myself choosing to have one in any but the most extreme situations, and I can't see myself encouraging anyone to have one except in the most extreme of circumstances. My career of choice is to bring babies INTO this world; I hate the idea that babies aren't having the chance to be born.
But that's NOT what the pro-lifers want, and if you don't recognize that, you are simply not functioning on the same plane of reality the rest of us are. Sometimes I think their goal is to make pregnancy a punitive measure for being immoral enough to have sex in the first place. Whatever their reasons, they aren't willing to allow the necessary steps to be taken that will reduce the abortion rate. They want the whole damned pie, and if I have to go to the other extreme to keep them from getting it, then fine, that's what I am doing, because that is where they are FORCING me to go.
Quote:
We have a responsiblity, not to blindly push for our agenda, but to make sure that the agenda we push for is actually the "right thing" to do.
I agree. That's why I am for comprehensive sex ed and widespread access to dependable contraception, and over-the-counter access to the morning-after pill. Because those are the means by which the abortion rate is going to be successfully reduced, which I would LOVE to see happen. So why aren't the pro-lifers all for it? There's the middle ground I want to reach. Lower abortion rates, that's what they want, right? Few or no abortions except in cases of extreme circumstances. I'm all about the compromise. So why do they insist on legislating their own brand of morality with regards to who has sex and how and why, rather than in taking the necessary steps to reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies?
Don't you see? I wasn't the one who ran to the far left. I was pushed there because it was the only way to combat the far right, which is so very unwilling to compromise on ANY of these issues.
Quote:
We cannot do that as long as we continue to argue the point by using false information and blown up statistics.
Which I have never done. I've said illegal abortions means abortion becomes unsafe and costs women their lives. I've never pretended that rape and incest presents a majority of the rate of abortions, only that its a valid argument for keeping abortion legal.
But...let's look at some of the blown-up statistics coming from the other side:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html
A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
Women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile Of course, that is just the tip of the iceberg of the misinformation coming from the pro-life/abstinence-only/let's-legislate-sex-until-you-can-only-have-it-
after-5-years-of-marriage-with-the-doors-locked-and-the-lights-off-
under-the-covers-with-the-woman's-nightgown-over-her-head lobby. You act as though Nutjob, as you call him, is an isolated case, AND HE'S NOT. He's representive of a very large lobby, and you seem to not understand that it's not just the far left driving the moderates toward the right. In fact, I daresay that's the minority of situations. It's the Nutjobs out there that are driving people (like me) who would want to be moderate into a far-left defensive posture.
Quote:
We can't do that by taking an absolute moral stance in a position that is at best a matter of relative morality.
Then quit playing f'ucking devil's advocate and tell that to your Republican buddies who are courting the Nutjobs of the world for their campaign dollars by promising to make their "absolute moral stance" into law.
I'm not the one taking the "absolute moral stance." I'm just trying to make sure that THEIR "absolute moral stance" doesn't destroy the lives of countless women.
Quote:
That's really all I'm trying to say. The more the current abortion laws are seen to be being "abused", the more pressure there will be to change them. And when that change does come, it'll be in the form of the laws advocated by Mr. Nutjob. Is that what we want?
Then what do you propose? I've given a bazillion arguments on this board for sex ed as a means to reduce abortion, for wider availability of contraception to reduce abortion. Nutjob doesn't want to hear it. So what the hell are we SUPPOSED to do? Just keep being "moderate" until the world is overrun by Nutjob enforcing his brand of moral absolutism upon us all? Thanks, but no.
Quote:
Why *not* require that those going in for abortions sit through a counseling session advocating options other then abortion first? Many pro-choice proponents seem to think that even suggesting to a woman that she not get an abortion is somehow a violation of "choice"
If it were simply a matter of counselling, I doubt many pro-choice advocates would object. But it's not. The definition of "counselling" being advocated by the pro-life lobby is not "counselling" so much as it is an attempt to psychologically coerce women into not aborting. There are "crisis pregnancy centers" springing up all over the country in which, if you go there, they browbeat you into getting an ultrasound and tell you how wonderful your pregnancy is, and REFUSE to give you information on abortion as an alternative, until you either don't decide to abort, or when you do so, you are completely traumatized over how bad they've made you feel about the decision.
Quote:
(which I find absurd unless you're assuming that the woman has no will of her own upon which to make the choice). Guess what? Those who feel strongly about wanting an abortion will get one (like those who've been raped or are victims of incest).
Guess what? You're not a pregnant woman, and you have just completely demonstrated your ignorance of the state of mind experienced by pregnant women. You have no idea how hard the decision is to make, how much guilt and uncertainty is ALREADY attached to it. When you add in a "counselor" essentially browbeating you and forcing even MORE guilt into the decision, then yes, these women CAN be swayed, or they will be punitively traumatized.
That's what the pro-choice lobby is fighting against. If it were simply a matter of having a counselor lay out ALL options without passing judgement, or at the very least asking the woman, "before you make your decision, would you like information about other alternatives" then you would find most pro-choice advocates wouldn't object. Believe it or not, we don't feel this is a decision which should be made lightly or uninformedly. But that's NOT what is being advocated by the "informed consent" laws that are being passed. What is being advocated by those laws is a means by which women are required to be lectured at and preached to in the middle of the hardest decision of their lives.
Quote:
But if it makes some women think twice and maybe change their minds about getting one, and that lowers that 98/.5 statistic a bit, and that reduces the pressure out there to enforce more draconian requirements, then isn't that a better route?
Again, IF it were done in a non-judgemental way, then yes. But it's not. What pro-life advocates are shooting for here is a way to browbeat women out of making the choice to abort. And do you know why?
Because to pro-lifers, "informed consent" counselling sessions, and mandatory waiting periods, and parental notification laws aren't seen as being "compromise" measures. They are see as being
chinks in the wall. Let's say that tomorrow, every state in the union instituted an informed consent law. Do you think the pro-life lobby would rest upon their laurels and say, "hey, good job, this will help reduce the numbers of abortions, we've reached a good compromise." Of course not. Their next step would be waiting periods following those "informed consent" counselling sessions. And then there would be another step, and another after that. They would lobby to chip away at the right to choose until there was no right to choose. They're not trying to reach a compromise...they're trying to restrict a woman's right to choose by taking a "baby steps" approach. And if you believe otherwise, you're incredibly uninformed as to what the pro-life lobby is shooting for.
Quote:
There are a ton of legal options that can help reduce the numbers of abortions for convenience without removing a womans ability to choose at all. Pro-choice is about choice. It's not "pro-abortion". Choosing not to have one is *also* a choice. But to hear some pro-choice advocates talk, they don't seem to grasp that...
I agree, there are a ton of options out there to reduce the number of abortions. There's sex ed that deals with the facts about sex, not pie-in-the-sky myths. There's making contraception available even to impovershed women. There's the morning-after pill. But you don't hear pro-lifers speaking out in favor of them, because those aren't measures which will ultimately lead to the complete abolition of abortion, and that's what they want.
As for your claim that decisions are made by the moderates...what, did you
completely miss the 2004 elections? You know how Bush got his 51% majority? By mobilizing the extreme right on the subject of gay marriage and stem-cell research and late-term abortion. Don't try to pretend that it's the moderates making the decisions in this country. I wish to God it were, but it's not. It's the extremists. If it weren't, then hot-button topics wouldn't become such a huge rallying point in election years.
Edited, Thu Mar 9 04:01:21 2006 by Ambrya