Listen to national Democrats and you’d think that when it comes to preserving legal abortion, the answer lies entirely in messaging, framing and spin. Since the Democrats’ defeat in 2004, liberals have invested a mountain of money and time on recasting their message on abortion (among other things). Hillary Clinton now uses her husband’s phrase about keeping abortion “safe, legal,… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (12)Page 1 of 1 pagesThe problem with abortion is that by its very nature, it terminates a life. While this may be a good trade in some eyes, since it frees the prospective mother to be, it is nonetheless a problem with the marketing of abortion. To equate abortion with a medical procedure like removing a tumor is too transparent for most people to really believe.
The already big advantage the pro life groups have will only grow stronger as medical techniques get more sophisticated. As this happens, the humanness of the fetus will continue to grow and the time a fetus needs to become viable will continue to shrink. Combine this with legislation that allows murderers to be held accountable not only for killing women but also their unborn children and the outcome of the debate seems almost preordained.
Posted by wolf on May 29, 2007 at 1:08 PM Really wolf?
Those who oppose access to legal, safe and free abortion are frauds of the highest order. They know full well that the frenzy to prevent abortion on those terms does nothing to stop abortion, it merely ensures that wealthy and well connnedcted women get access to safe, expensive and illegal abortions, and poor women get a 20% chance of being killed in their attempt to have the same rights that being rich give to wealthy and well connected women.
This is a farce of the highest order, and outlawing abortion is nothing more than state sanctioned punishement of poor women for the crimeof being poor. If these crazed and cruel fanatics really cared about the rights of women and children, they woud support paid maternity leave, child care centres and income support for women who are poor and who have children. But no, that would be too rational, and doesn’’t have the sweet fine edge of cruel and unusual punishment properly meted out to the poor, especially and especially when they are women who are both poor, and supposedly sexually irresponsible. It is sick making to anybody who is not themselves a sicko..
The US left spend far too much time naval gazing and being defensive, when they need to get straight to the point. Anti abortion laws don’t stop fetuses being aborted, they just ensure that poor women die in the attempt to exercise rights that rich women take for granted.
Posted by Jane Doe on May 30, 2007 at 2:36 AM Hi, Y’all!
May I offer an opinion?
Abortion is, as it always has been, a wedge issue to create disturbance when none is needed. The far- right uses abortion to create division.
Can anyone truly say that it is some form of birth-control in an age of condoms and pills ?
No, this is ridiculous.
The far-right introduces this farce when they’ve nothing else to talk about. Rather, they bring up this issue when they’d rather not talk about REAL issues involving labor and wages.
Remember this, the next time your child won’t eat: “There are starving children in Kentucky who’d be happy to have that.”
There are also children in Mississippi who’d benefit from social policies that don’t date back to the Old Testament.
Then again, right-wingers love to punish. Especially, they love to punish those who can’t defend themselves-- a hallmark of bullies and FASCISTS !!!
Ta-Ta!
Posted by Aunty Rightwing on May 30, 2007 at 3:01 AM Jane writes” “Those who oppose access to legal, safe and free abortion are frauds of the highest order.”
Wow. Do you think there should be **any** limits to abortion at all? Or are you in favor of the absolute position that it is merely a woman’s choice (and the man really does not even need to know)? (Free? Really?)
Given your very strong feelings on the subject, i rather doubt it is one that you can or even would care to discuss rationally. Nothing wrong with that, your mind is made up. However, you might wish to reconsider if it is really in the best interests of your arguments to vilify / caricature the other side (crazed and cruel fanatics?). One might believe that honorable people can hold different opinions even on an emotionally charged topic such as this. . .
Aunty writes: oh never mind, it is yet another off topic post, having little to do with anything, much less the topic at hand. At least she tries, i hope it makes her feel connected to things.
Posted by wolf on May 30, 2007 at 8:44 AM A few notions to consider in the abortion debate:
--The issue isn’t whether abortions will occur, but who does them, and where.
-- Women in evangelical, religious right, Catholic, and other traditionally anti-abortion groups end unwanted pregnancies with safe, legal abortions.
--Personhool under the Constitution and the law begins at birth. Fetuses and embryos are not persons and should not be treated as such.
--The abortion issue is largely about women’s roles, specifically their roles in life outside the home. Women with briefcases are anathema to those who hold traditional views of women as wives and mothers. Birth control and abortion permit women to participate in the social and economic life of the country.
--Women should not have be forced, by lack of options, to have children they don’t want and can’t love and care for adequately.
--Children have the right to be born wanted by their mother.
Posted by polpuffin on May 30, 2007 at 2:59 PM More notions to consider in the abortion debate:
--Activism on the part of abortion rights advocates is essential to keeping abortion legal and accessible.
--The battle today, at least for now, is for access to services that are legal. It’s up to us advocates to make our view known and ensure that all women can get care they want and need, in a timely fashion.
--All reproductive rights advocates should make it their business to know where candidates for state and federal office stand on the legality and access issues, and vote accordingly.
-- Advocates must understand the connection between the people we vote for and the laws we that are in place and affect our daily lives.
Posted by polpuffin on May 30, 2007 at 4:12 PM --Abortion and birth control are not matters for any legislature to decide. They are individual rights that are beyond the reach of government.
Posted by polpuffin on May 30, 2007 at 4:16 PM Hi, Y’all!
Wolf, here are some points to ponder.
Is a two day old zygote a human being?
Are you aware that a human fetus, at eight weeks old, is virtually identical to that of most other mammals and a few reptiles?
Did you know that the Catholic Church has a little known doctrine that the soul does not enter a fetus until the fortieth day of pregnancy?
Interesting, yes?
I am pro-life. I do not believe in taking human life except in very specific circumstances.( See our earlier discussion involving hollow-points) Were a pregnancy to enter my life, I will call my mother and see if she still has the crib in the basement. Yet, I am also pro-choice. If someone else wishes to have an abortion for whatever reason, then that is their affair. to interfere is, at best, arrogant.
I think what bothers me most about the far right and their arguments is not the fact that they wish to eliminate abortion. Rather, it’s that they also wish to take away effective forms of birth control as well. In addition, they also spread LIES (LIES!LIES!LIES!) about those methods as well.
One should hear their propaganda about RU-486.
As usual, a bunch of obnoxiously arrogant bullies wish to tell everyone else what to do.
Why? Because they believe they’re right.
Who tells them this? They do.
Where do they get their argument? The Bible.
Why do they believe this? It suits their argument.
Fabrication of nonsense with one half of the brain is believed by the other half. Talk about a mental disorder! Quick, Charlie, get the net!
Ta-Ta!
P.S.
My first post here may be inaccurate. Is abortion, and the forbiddance of such actually mentioned in The Bible? Book, chapter, and verse please; preferably from the King James Version and not “The Re-writing Of The Bible My Church Devised To Reinforce Our Argument” edition.
Posted by Aunty Rightwing on May 30, 2007 at 11:41 PM I am pro-life (but am pro-choice for much the same reasons Aunty mentioned).
I am a believer (I will believe what I will to believe) too and the Bible does not specifically forbid abortion and does not treat the loss of a fetus the same as the death of a living person (ie. tooth for tooth and eye for eye).
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Exodus 21:22
And yet there are opposing views:
Posted by David in Canuckistan on May 31, 2007 at 12:03 PM Aunty, you said The far- right uses abortion to create division and I agree but isn’t it also true that the far-left uses similar tactics?
And isn’t the whole left versus right mindset that so many people subscribe to creating division as well?
As well you say right-wingers love to punish. Especially, they love to punish those who can’t defend themselves and once again I would agree but with the caveat that unborn children can’t defend themselves (as many people on the pro-life side of the abortion debate are so fond of pointing out).
Anyways ... wanted to make a point about the war of left versus right . In my opinion it’s about as contrived a conflict as the war on terror is.
Off topic, I know I know, but just stirring the pot.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on May 31, 2007 at 3:37 PM After having an abortion, my bofdy had to readjust all of the hormones combined with the fact I never believed in abourtion and it was an act of desperation, my self esteem plummeted and I dealt with much guilt and sadness. A tragic event? At the time, statistically 75% of women who had abortions would become pregnant again within the first year. I was one of those statistics. This time, I opted for adoption. That was very apinful and depression would always set in around the anniversary of that child’s birth. This put a great damper on our holidays as I married and had children with my husband.
THere is great emotional and psychological pain associated with both avenues. What the hell? Condoms combined with the pill does help to prevent unwanted abortions quite adequately. Now there is Plan B.
If you are not in a monogamous relationship and sexually active, you should require a condom regardless. It’s not fool proof in preventing all pregnancies so I sometimes wonder its effectiveness in preventing all diseases.
In any event, woman do have the right to keep their legs closed and not denegrate the dignity of womanhood and their ability to bring forth new life.
Posted by kimberlyausten on Jun 1, 2007 at 12:12 PM Denial of a woman’s decisions to end a pregnancy is simply denial of personal agency to women, on the grounds that a fetus is a human being. They are not, and once more, they never have had the status of a person, even in conservative theological reasoning. Otherwise, why not baptise msicarriages? But in any case, once again, outlawing abortion does nothing to save fetuses, it merely serves to ensure poor women die, together with their fetuses. And no, I wouldn’t decide when and in what circumstances a woman ‘may’ have an abortion. Since I have no intention of dealing with the economic social and emotional consequences of preventing someone from ending a pregnancy, I reckon I have no right whatsoever to be interfering in that decision. In the event that a woman has an abortion and regrets it, if it is a safe an legal one, she can have another child. In the event it is not a safe and legal one her regret will be compounded by the punishment of lifelong sterility, if not death.
This debate is not about the right to life of a fetus at all. It is about the control of women’s bodies. I will believe the sincerity of anti abortionists, when I see one who is adamantly opposed to civilian deaths in wars, and who takes as much energy and venom in opposing bombing innocent women and children, as they do in opposing women’s rights to end a pregnancy by bringing about the death of the fetus they are carrying. Until then, the issue is straight forward and obvious to the rest of the civilised world. But not it seems, to the mad warriors of the Right, who would rather a thousand women died, than one woman get away with making a choice they disapprove of. Hypocrites and murderers by proxy, all.
Posted by Jane Doe on Jun 2, 2007 at 11:40 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Laura Flanders
- Not By Spin Alone
In the battle over reproductive rights, on-the-ground organizing is far more effective than massaging the message - Reality Check
From ending the Equal Pay Initiative to championing the Partial Birth Abortion Act, Bush’s record speaks for itself. - Taxes for Terrorists?
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2007 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
