pro-abortion all the way. Safe, simple procedure and no going back to coat hangers and toxic chemical "fixes" for pregnancy

stop with the shame, it is a medical procedure

"Pro-abortion" smacks of pressuring a woman into a particular decision. Why not let the woman make her own decision?

For this reason, I don't expect even the most progressive election candidates to start calling themselves "pro-abortion" any time soon.

Since it clearly says, "not JUST pro-choice" then goes on to say, "As an aside, I’m also pro-choice. Choice is about who gets to make the decision. The question of whether and when we bring a new life into the world is, to my mind, one of the most important decisions a person can make. It is too big a decision for us to make for each other, and especially for perfect strangers."

kthxbai!

"pro-choice" without adding "pro-abortion" is just fine with me. And I suspect that not many DUers would, in real life as opposed to on an internet message board, loudly claim to be "pro-abortion".

as to imply I, the author or anyone else who supports abortion would ever NOT.

That's fucking shady.

Also, you're wrong about what I would or wouldn't do or don't do in real life.

in their speeches and interviews?

then I'm pretty sure you'll be voting for a "shady" presidential candidate next year.

In context, "shady" was meant "to be very sneaky, suspect, or to have an all around backstabbing personality"

good catch

Did you also miss the part where I said I am also pro-choice? Are you also implying that I don't think it's the woman's choice?

in real life

"I am pro-abortion". I agreed with peaceNikki on this one when she posted before - as did many others - and I agree with her now.

You're welcome to your opinion, but please don't assume you know what other DUers will or will not do in real life.

Your squeamishness is your problem.

If they don't, do you see their "squeamishness" as a problem?

How cute.

Because we all know that if Hillary, Bernie or any other Democratic candidate is asked if they are "pro-abortion" they will respond with "no, I'm pro-choice". In other words their stance on this issue is identical to mine. Any candidate who ever says that he or she is "pro-abortion" will be throwing away the election.

Last edited Mon Nov 30, 2015, 09:46 AM - Edit history (1)

I would love to live in a world where the stigma of a medical procedure were gone. But I get why they can't. It's because of the hang ups of people like you. Their words are reduced into sounds bytes. They don't get to go on and explain their positions like the author of this article or you and I. But I can feel that way. You can feel that way. You are literally the only one in this discussion who has trusted my words to mean something I didn't. And that says more about you than me. Educate yourself and read the linked article if you don't get it. My words are there for everyone to read.


We can change the narrative to help make the world a place where abortion is accessible by all and the shame and stigma removed by taking the time to really understand. If we want to. I do. I want society to understand and supporters to admit that abortion is not a "necessary evil", but a safe, legal, moral choice. Now, more than ever, we need to take this issue back. I am trying to create a safe place where we aren't reduced to sound bytes and deeply discuss our positions.

I am pro abortion. And pro choice.

If you're really pro choice, you are, too. You're just too scared to say the words.

In your quote you place abortion before choice. I find that interesting.

I am pro choice and anti abortion, and always will be no matter what you think. One, choice, is societal, the other, abortion, is personal. In other words society as a whole should give the individual the ability to choose for themselves. You imply you are making a choice for other people, I will not.

What is the same about pro abortion and anti abortion; both imply the choice is made for you. I will allow other people to make their own choices without dictates either way.

Good for you.



Also, good for you. As you can see throughout this thread, the discussion has been pretty great and hundreds of people understand what I said and meant and agree. You don't? Great, no skin off my back. I don't need your approval or agreement. I don't know you. And Nye is the resident contrarian so I expect nothing different from him.



No, I am not implying, you are presuming. Incorrectly, as the many many many other words I have written support.

No I'm not.

Everybody knows that Republicans are 'pro birth,' because they really don't care about the kid (or anything else about a humanbeing life ) once s/he gets here. Just let it be born, case closed as far as they are concerned.

And they don't give a damn about the woman at all, period!

We're on the same side here, you know.

while debating a major issue on a political discussion board, it's "stupid and asinine" to bring up the question of where our candidates would stand on this issue?

Don't hijack the conversation. If you don't like this one, start another one of your own. Your first response to the OP demonstrates that you didn't read the OP, get the point, or chose to ignore it for your own purposes.

That is all. Have a nice day.

So, there's that.

I might have been juror #6

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Sun Nov 29, 2015, 08:54 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I, for one, do not give two shits about what's "fine" with you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7394114

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Another example of being rude to a fellow member just because they don't share your opinion. If this was a back and forth, I would ignore it. Unfortunately that's not the case here.

And yes, being rude is against TOS.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Nov 29, 2015, 09:06 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: just doesn't seem to to be that over the top to me
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: rude
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh, Nye, if being rude were worth a hide you would be on vacation all the time. In the off chance Nye didn't alert, alerter can stop acting like they don't know Nye's history. Oh, and the irony of the alert reason given the alert stalking isn't lost.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No need to be so nasty.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Right wing talking point much?

an abortion.

Have you really ever heard of a woman being forced to have an abortion? It's about be pro-procedure, having it available, not advocating everyone go out and get one cuz hey, they're great!

It's a legal medical procedure that saves lives in many ways. There is no reason not to be pro-abortion imo.

and then trying to pressure her into having an abortion because he doesn't want to pay child support? While that man may be "pro-abortion" for his own selfish reasons, the choice is of course entirely the woman's to make. Hence my preference for "pro-choice".

as an option for women. Hence it is a good thing to be pro-abortion, since again, it saves lives in many ways.


.

Because they don't want the responsibility, or they think it will mess up their carefree lives, or because babies and children cost money. I remember reading about Ava Gardner saying that when she was married to Frank Sinatra she had a couple of abortions that were not her idea. Now if I had a husband who forced me to abort a wanted child, I would go completely crazy.


TRUE STORY: I told my ex-husband I was pregnant. We had been married for several months. He IMMEDIATELY told me to get an abortion. And I said no. And then I sat there and cried for two hours because of his response. It was accidental. He was angry at me ever after, and stopped having sex with me, and we separated and got a divorce, a while after the baby was born. He told people that I "tricked" him into being a father. Like hell I did.


Having a healthy, happy baby was a bad thing to him. He's very negative. He had a good income and good insurance and it's not like we couldn't afford it. He was just being selfish. Then he gaslighted me by saying "We discussed this before we married, we agreed we weren't going to have any kids." That was not true. We just didn't discuss it and left all the birth control responsibility to me.


If I had known he didn't want kids when we married, I never would have married him. We didn't have those discussions because I was stupid and didn't know that I needed to have them. He just wanted a sugar momma.


Having a baby was a wonderful thing to me, and I loved being a mother, but he decided to make my life a living hell because I had a baby and he didn't want one. Control freak.


Went through a divorce from hell. He decided to sue my parents and attempt to get my father's professional license revoked, just for the hell of it. My parents were in their 70s at the time. My parents countersued him for fraud, constructive fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. I had to pay him child support for quite a few years, until the kid graduated from high school at 18. I live in a community property state where women are equal, and that includes paying child support.


Needless to say, he was emotionally abusive to me all the time. Which led to a serious health crisis that lasted many years. I eventually got my health back after countless hospital and ER visits. He said I was faking it all just to get attention. Yeah, like sitting in a hospital bed wondering if you're going to die or not, because your immune system has gone to hell, is just lots of fun.

Narcissists live in their own world.

The child is now fully grown and does not speak to me any more because I am apparently a horrible, terrible, abusive person.

I'm so sorry. I hope your relationship with your child changes for the better soon

Point taken that there are people that try to force someone to get an abortion. I don't think that negates that having abortion available as an option is not a good thing and therefore, I think it is fine to say "pro-abortion".

Did he use a dirty court steal custody from you???

This is why full custody, and child support, should automatically go to the mother unless State CPS can show abuse.

That's a pretty strong position...
Shouldn't a man have the same right to parent his child as a woman has? And doesn't a child have the right to have a close, positive relationship with both parents?

A man doesn't have to deal with carrying the child for 9 months, suffer through child birth, or watch his body be ravaged and suffer possibly debilitating/life altering damage as a result. A man does NOT deserve the same rights to a child, whatsoever! He does deserve the same responsibility though, as his actions directly led to the creation of the child.

As far as the child's rights, when they are old enough to make that decision than that is something they can pursue.

In and out of the hospital for about 8 years, had to have 4 operations to make sure I wouldn't die, from my internist/pulmonary specialist, over the span of 5 years.


I was not abusive. He would bring her over for visitation sunburned, filthy and with diaper rash. I don't know why. I LET him have the responsibility of getting her up in the morning and getting her to school and picking her up after work.


I had to pay him child support because women are assumed to be equally able to support the child in community property states. I had a lot more education than he did but he was the one with the good job and the good insurance. I had a terrible time trying to get a job. He was convinced that I bribed my doctor to put me in the hospital and that I was faking it. He thought I was faking it to use up his insurance, to embarrass him at work. If he hadn't tried to literally nag me until I died, it would have cost him a lot less money. The way he went after me in the divorce, my lawyer estimated he spent $50,000 harassing me and my elderly parents in court. And this was in the late 80s--early 90s.


My parents had to take me to the hospital and ER many times. My parents lived with me for over a year because my sister and I were both critically ill while I was going through the divorce. I survived. My big sister died (brain cancer). He got mad at me because I didn't tell him my sister was dying, because he thought I was supposed to act like he gave a damn about her. I knew he didn't give a damn about her, although they dated in high school. He started this phony rant about how much he loved her, blah blah, and he doesn't love anyone.


Sometimes there was nobody around to take me, so I would drive myself and sit in the parking lot of the emergency room, puking out the door of my car, until I could get the strength to stumble into the ER. And there was nobody, no security guards or cops, outside the ER to see me.

More than once I would go to an ER and sit in a wheelchair puking loudly, sounding like I was dying, when they were absolutely not busy, and ignore me for two or three hours until I gave up and went to another ER where they would treat me.


My child decided not to speak to me any more so I feel like I wasted 31 years of my life raising her. Her father thought everything I did was wrong, and now she thinks everything I did was wrong, so there went a big chunk of my life because of my bad choices.

available to women as a government service, including abortion. They should be able to perform any procedure or distribute any birth control at local health departments. It's the humane thing to do, and it's a hell of a lot cheaper for everyone in the long run.

Aren't those little spermy things potential humans, too? I don't remember the discussion that said that sperm have a sense of smell and they should be treated as living things. Let's forbid those RW idjuts from killing zillions of potential humans every time...

while tubal ligations are.

So it is ironic that if a couple wants to ensure that they will never have another baby, with the current law there is a financial incentive for the woman to get a tubal ligation (which is covered by insurance under the ACA) compared to the man getting a vasectomy (which will cost a few hundred dollars out of pocket). If the law said that vasectomies had to be covered just as tubal ligations are, fewer women would be undergoing this procedure because more men would be getting vasectomies.

i think that safely ending a pregnancy is right up there with the other medical miracles of our age.

of my 5 kids, more than one was unplanned. i didnt make that choice for myself, but having it available meant I WAS NOT A SLAVE.

Full stop.

For whatever reason, some people are squeamish about saying this. I prefer to call a spade a spade, not a "Night-drenched excavator of the World's Mysteries." It's a flipping medical procedure that may be vital to a woman's continued health. Sign me up.

-- Mal

I remember the April post

Very important we don't let them, the ignorant and fanatics, change the conversation

In the past, I had often been baffled by the inability of some people to realize that abortion is, in almost every case, a last resort, and never anything but. Anti-choicers often talk about choice as if a woman might get an abortion thoughtlessly, casually, even whimsically, and this has led some of us on the left to ridicule the anti-choice position in the same language, only plus snark, as if they're just too stupid to realize what sort of desperation "last resort" really means. I just couldn't understand why some people didn't "get it". No more.

It's not a lack of understanding. They're not stupid. They know it's the last resort in most cases. They don't want women to have any resort except delivery, and that is really all it comes down to. To anti-choicers, or forced-birthers, or whatever you want to call them, having a baby isn't something a woman does. It is something that is done to her, by God's will. Her role is essentially passive -- as if growing a new life within her body had nothing to do with her, really. That's not a lack of understanding that can be educated away, that's a monumental lack of comprehension -- well, actually, a miscomprehension -- which not even the proverbial clue-by-four is likely to dispel.

They get all sanctimonious with statements like, "as long as it's not used as a form of birth control" and stuff.

People don't really realize that women are fertile for nearly four decades. That's why 1 in 3 women have had at least one. Shit happens. Contraceptives fail, poor decisions are made in the heat of passion, etc.

She was also mentally I'll. She was incapable of holding down a job and incapable of using birth control. She had 3 children by 3 men. The first was given up for adoption, but the other 2 have lead lives of instability and violence.

She's also had 13 abortions. I am thankful that she did, because she is incapable of taking care of herself or her children. After all those abortions, she had to have a hysterectomy before she was 40 and I'm thankful for that too.

For many women it is a traumatic event that lasts a lifetime.

I hope that she had an open adoption. If not, then I hope she is in reunion with her son or daughter.

I think her mental illness (borderline personality disorder) stems from physical and sexual abuse as a child.

difficult situation and with the help of the Abortion Provider and staff, she managed to get away from the pimp, have a living wage job and get on with life.

Everyone has a story and it is best to be non judgemental and helpful in many different ways.

I can't understand why,especially with the world bursting at the seams, there are people hellbent on forcing women into bringing unwanted children into it. It makes no sense.

Why Fund Abortion Now? Because the right to abortion is meaningless if you don't have the resources to pay.

Give generously.

http://fundabortionnow.org/

and I whole heartedly agree. I get annoyed when any discussion about abortion constantly falls to "in the case of the life of the mother or rape". Those are important to the late term abortions argument but it seems to be the go-to for any and all discussions I see on the news or in news articles over the last 8 to 10 years.
I find myself thinking why the hell can't any woman have an abortion for her personal reasons whatever they may be and why is no one saying anything about this in the media?! This needs to be driven home to remind people why they should be more vocal and support PP, Roe vs. Wade and women's issues when it concerns their health. Nitpicking is doing a real disservice to the arguments, it should encompass so much more, which the salon article covers beautifully.

It's such a hard decision for women and if it's not a hard decision for some (which I'm sure would be extremely rare... due to mental health issues, drug issues or some other issue where the woman is not or is unable to be empathetic) then it is best that the woman is not having any children any way.
I have a cousin I don't really know, she's in a different state and I haven't see her since I was a pre-teen and she was a tot. She is severely addicted to drugs and she has had several abortions and several children. All the children were taken in by her brother who has his own kids, and they are not wealthy by any measure, I believe they are working poor. He's a wonderful person for doing this but wishes/hopes she would get tubal-ligation from what my grandmother once said.

It's our right by law to have them if we so chose; for reasons that are personal to us, whether it be bad-timing or poor planning, failure of prophylactics, financial concerns, parenting concerns, rape, health issues and even irresponsibility I am pro-abortion.....and if a woman decides to go forward and have a child then that is their decision and is why I'm pro-choice.
That article helped me put into words what I couldn't do before, at least not elegantly enough for a debate or to better defend my position.

This is one of the best articulations I've ever seen about this. Thank you x 10!

I do wish that those (few) who say they are are pro-choice but are so afraid of saying they are pro-abortion would read all of it. Really read it. But I think that they don't want to and I think they are reluctant "soft" supporters who are helping restrict access through complacency.

I don't want this to sink into oblivion.

But mostly just because I hate babies...

top parasite upon this planet. It would be great if much more planning and thought could come into play before adding more into the pool and to what benefit.

A woman's choice and wide access to address that choice is in part and imperative for a healthy world

contraception

Contraception is a process by which a pregnancy is kept from occurring. The choice of abstinence is just as much contraception as taking a pill to keep a fertilized egg from implanting and start the actual conception process...
The OP makes it clear that Abortion is a birth control procedure that is specifically "after the fact" for an unwanted or unviable pregnancy. Basically, abortion can be used for family planning as well as a strictly medical (health of mother or fetus). The few times abortion used as retro-active contraception is basically inconsequential when compared to the times majority of the time abortion is the difficult choice made for the best-outcome health and well-being of a woman or the woman's family (including the raising of current and future children).

I always laugh at the moral hypocrisy when anti-choice people lump contraception with their pro-birth/protecting the baby reasons.
Doing so has always ended up proving that the anti-choice argument is about control of a woman's sexual activity and keeping the family planning as a man's choice.
Any concern for a fetus or "precious life" is secondary to ensuring that punishment the original sin of being a woman is maintained.
It's always a morality argument, never a health or child well-being argument.

Haele

contraceptive methods were used, from birth control pills, condoms, to even vasectomies, and it is far more cost effective

The Pill is 1960’s technology, now half a century old. For decades, women were told the Pill was 99 percent effective, and they blamed themselves when they got pregnant anyways. But that 99 percent is a “perfect use” statistics, and in the real world, where most of us live, people aren’t perfect. In the real world, 1 in 11 women relying on the Pill gets pregnant each year. For a couple relying on condoms, that’s 1 in 6. Young and poor women—those whose lives are least predictable and most vulnerable to being thrown off course—are also those who have the most difficulty taking pills consistently. Pill technology most fails those who need it most, which makes abortion access a matter not only of compassion but of justice.

State-of-the-art IUDs and Implants radically change this equation, largely because they take human error out of the picture for years on end, or until a woman wants a baby. And despite the deliberate misinformation being spread by opponents, these methods are genuine contraceptives, not abortifacients. Depending on the method chosen, they disable sperm or block their path, or prevent an egg from being released. Once settled into place, an IUD or implant drops the annual pregnancy rate below 1 in 500. And guess what. Teen pregnancies and abortions plummet—which makes me happy, because even though I’m pro-abortion, I’d love the need for abortion to go away. Why mitigate harm when you can prevent it?

with her body

But there are the rare cases where even vasectomies and tubal ligations have failed (especially with hack surgeons who don't pay attention to what they're doing- or don't believe in family planning even if they are ob-gyns).
Straight out removal of sex organs or abstinence is the only sure contraceptive method.

Haele

when used correctly are about 98% effective. That of course does not factor in people who don't use it correctly.

I am not against abortion. I am just saying that proper use of contraception can reduce the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.

For a couple relying on condoms, that’s 1 in 6. Young and poor women—those whose lives are least predictable and most vulnerable to being thrown off course—are also those who have the most difficulty taking pills consistently. Pill technology most fails those who need it most, which makes abortion access a matter not only of compassion but of justice.

is prudent to utilize birth control methods as much as possible to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

The pill is 99% effective if taken properly:

http://www.fpnsw.org.au/992085_13.html

What I choose personally, in my own life, has no bearing on the choices of others, and I needed to see that. I need to look beyond my personal and private life and think of the greater good.

Thanks to posts like yours, I now do.

[font color="red" size="5"]So I'm an enthusiastic pro-abortion and pro-choice advocate - all the way. [/font]

Thank you. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for opening your heart and mind and really "getting it".

Your post has made my day.

not want them. Abuse and neglect by the mother are often experienced by the unwanted child, leading to a lifetime of inability to connect with the world.

As well as harmful to society in general.

anti-abortion and anti-pp crap is a thin disguise for a well-planned effort to regain control over women and children.

To anyone. But I would advise people to do whatever you can to not need one.

They are expensive and stressful and painful and it takes time to get over it. It's not a walk in the park.

And like any medical procedure there can be complications.

It's best to avoid it if you can.

And there can be severe complications, like death.

It's not for everyone. But you don't hear women being warned about the grave dangers of pregnancy and childbirth and being cautioned against it all the time.

Abortion is a very safe procedure, especially when performed early in the pregnancy, as the vast majority of abortions are. Far, far safer than carrying a pregnancy to term and childbirth.

I will do everything I can to avoid the need for either one.

I am pro-healthcare. If I need any medical procedures, including abortion, then I want them to be available, affordable, and performed by doctors.

It makes no sense, unless you want to shame people who need these procedures because you think they could have been prevented.

Or is it just women who should be ashamed?

And available.

To me, it is not about a procedure, it is about women's rights.

Attacking the procedure is just a way of attacking women's rights over their own bodies.

Enough with the stigma and shame associated with a safe, legal medical procedure.

If men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.

- Gloria Steinem

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024004413

Thanks PeaceNikki! K&R!

We as humans intervene to prolong life. We do it constantly now that we have the knowledge of medicine to do it. And in that way we relieve human suffering and physical imperfection.

Yet some think it is terrible when we use that same knowledge of medicine to intervene in other ways including abortion.

May I mention with regard to the point about what mothers-to-be ingest in the weeks prior to pregnancy that some of the medications we take can have terrible effects on an unborn child. If a woman knows that she has taken a medication that can affect the fetus, who can blame her for choosing to try again when she is not taking that medication.

I had a friend when I was about 20. She was 21 and became pregnant. She died of a heart attack during her pregnancy. There was at that time no way to foresee her heart attack and no way to help her and protect the baby. Life is not as simple as the abortion foes think.

Why should we bring babies into the world to suffer. This is a woman's decision, a couples decision in some cases, but ultimately the decision of the woman who will carry the baby and have ultimate responsibility for its well-being for a long time.

As a gardener, I understand that not all seedlings become full grown, healthy plants. The failure rate is phenomenal. Read history and learn of all the potential kings and queens who died at birth or as children.

We are so fortunate today. Most of our children survive their childhood. We are more responsible than ever to make sure that every child is a wanted child.

Abortion is a woman's right.

Excellent article.

Punished for original sin with painful childbirth.

Thanks for your support, reply and insight.

“Whatever is my right as a man is also the right of another; and it becomes my duty to guarantee as well as to possess.” Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

I understand you're pro-abortion and the importance of wanting people to know the difference. I was wondering though, is there a cut-off in your mind as to when abortion is no longer an option?

I trust women.

So it would be like a hands-off approach. No-ones business but the person doing it and the person receiving it.

I don't understand your confusion about that.

etopic pregnancies, anacephalic babies, etc.

Here's the thing. There are circumstances under which I might find myself pregnant, and I'd be okay to have the baby, but some other women would say, "NO WAY!!. I'm not having that kid!" And it's not that one of us is wrong and one of us is right. But choice comes down to this: We (meaning women, and sometimes the men in our lives) need to be able to choose what's going to happen after conception occurs. NO ONE ELSE is remotely entitled to an opinion. No one. Ever.

Just because you (a very hypothetical you) would be willing to bring to term a child that won't survive, or will be horribly handicapped for her entire life, doesn't mean everyone else in that situation should also do so. Just because you (again a very hypothetical you) is not willing to bear and raise a child in inconvenient circumstances does not mean you should be forced to do so just because other women have been obligated to bear and raise a child in just those circumstances.

In short, choice is the operative word.

I'll return to my original statement: if men could get pregnant . . . .

"As the last protection against ill-conceived childbearing when all else fails, abortion is part of a set of tools that help women and men to form the families of their choosing. I believe that abortion care is a positive social good. I suspect that a lot of other people secretly believe the same thing. And I think it’s time we said so. "

At what point do men come into this? Men do NOT get any say in what a woman does with her body- reproduction is a *woman's* choice, not a man's.

Thank you for taking the time to understand. Truly.

I've always understood the need for abortion and never been against it.

but after reading that I'm more cemented in my opinion of it.

Very well presented.

Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen it before.

I don't know any people that proudly champion they are pro abortion. That position would imply somehow that the goal is not to try and have a reduction in the amount of abortion procedures. I am all for every type manner and issuance of every form of birth control and I firmly remain pro choice, with the hope that one day the choice will not have to be made.

The right loves to throw it in our faces as an insult. I am taking it back. I am proudly 'owning' it. Abortion is not shameful. It's good for women and society. Abortion, despite your Utopian dream, will ALWAYS be needed.

Did you read the linked article?

I would love to live in a world where the stigma of a medical procedure were gone. But I get why politicians cannot and will not at this point make such a bold statement. It's because of the hang ups of society. Their words are reduced into sounds bytes. They don't get to go on and explain their positions like the author of this article or you and I. But I can feel that way. You can feel that way. Sure, a few people will twist my words to mean something they don't. And that says more about them than me. Adults here will educate themselves and read the linked article if they don't quite get it don't get it. My words are there for everyone to read. Any implications that contraception and education are not first and foremost are ignorant and wrong.

We can change the narrative to help make the world a place where abortion is accessible by all and the shame and stigma removed by taking the time to really understand. If we want to. I do. I want society to understand and supporters to admit that abortion is not a "necessary evil", but a safe, legal, moral choice. Now, more than ever, we need to take this issue back. I am trying to create a safe place where we aren't reduced to sound bytes and deeply discuss our positions.

I am pro abortion. And pro choice.

and I understand your personal desire to remove stigma and define the issue as normal and acceptable. I think you would have an easier fight on your hands if we lived in a truly secular society but we don't, so good luck convincing people that God thinks abortion is hunky dory. Allowing the decision to be based on a personal Choice always means that an individual had the ability to weigh their own personal, moral, religious, societal, etc thoughts before making the CHOICE. their choice than is theirs alone.

I want it available to every woman who needs it.

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.

easy as it is to make that claim under a pseudonym on an internet message board.

It's no coincidence that probably that two of the most gifted politicians of this generation, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, have gone with "safe, legal, and rare" over "pro-abortion".

Try to keep up.

Proving...

We can change the stigma. We can remove the shame. If we're brave enough to talk about it like adults and stop being afraid of what assholes might think of us and how fuckfaces will twist our words to mean things they don't. Fuck them.

at almost any level. Like the diametric opposite position, that abortion should never or only very very rarely be allowed, it is a position that the majority of people would be unable to accept.

Roe vs Wade has existed for as long as it has because it - in its very definition - attempts to balance the rights of the woman and the (fetus, unborn child, baby - as various people would call it). At the beginning, the rights are 100% to the woman. She can abort the child. At the end, it takes extraordinary circumstance involving the mother's health or the baby's health to make it legal.

As is, neither extreme is happy with what in essence a compromise. Yet, preserving it and MAKING IT EXIST IN REALITY - by insuring real availability (not having to travel 100s of miles or even to another state) and making an abortion affordable when it is allowed are more important than inflaming the situation by asking that others state that they are pro abortion. Part of the problem is that it is obvious how those words "I am pro abortion" would be immediately spun. In addition, many people - otherwise your ally in keeping things legal - do not agree with you on this, but are willing to stand up for the woman as the person who is entitled to make the decision - often knowing that they will pay a price with their own church.

I question what would be gained if many took your challenge and spoke of themselves as pro abortion. The first question is whether people doing that will respect that there are people 100% pro choice backing Roe vs Wade, but unwilling to go that next step to consider abortion just another medical procedure. Is enough gained by defining a movement as pro abortion that losing almost everyone in the middle is worth it? A simple look at any polling on abortion, shows that extreme positions - on either end - lose to more moderate positions.

Why not fight for making Roe vs Wade legal abortions available and affordable?

And I repeat and insist that if you're really pro choice, you are pro-abortion, too. You're just too scared to say the words.

The right loves to throw it in our faces as an insult. I am taking it back. I am proudly 'owning' it. Abortion is not shameful. It's good for women and society. Abortion, despite your Utopian dream, will ALWAYS be needed.

Did you read the linked article?

I would love to live in a world where the stigma of a medical procedure were gone. But I get why politicians cannot and will not at this point make such a bold statement. It's because of the hang ups of society. Their words are reduced into sounds bytes. They don't get to go on and explain their positions like the author of this article or you and I. But I can feel that way. You can feel that way. Sure, a few people will twist my words to mean something they don't. And that says more about them than me. Adults here will educate themselves and read the linked article if they don't quite get it don't get it. My words are there for everyone to read. Any implications that contraception and education are not first and foremost are ignorant and wrong.

We can change the narrative to help make the world a place where abortion is accessible by all and the shame and stigma removed by taking the time to really understand. If we want to. I do. I want society to understand and supporters to admit that abortion is not a "necessary evil", but a safe, legal, moral choice. Now, more than ever, we need to take this issue back. I am trying to create a safe place where we aren't reduced to sound bytes and deeply discuss our positions.

I am pro abortion. And pro choice.