Dear Secretary Sebelius: There is NO Common Ground.

I watched you on CSPAN this AM in the hearing with the HHS House Committee. One of the issues was a discussion of abortion. You made the statement that you wished to work on the "common ground" between the two points of view. I am paraphrasing, but that is in essence what you stated to the committee.

Sec. Sebelius, there is NO common ground. You, as others have done, mentioned the alleged common ground of the reduction for the need for abortion by reducing unwanted pregnancies. That is an issue of birth control, not an issue of abortion. Why do I say this? Because once there is an unwanted pregnancy, there is NO common ground. One side of the debate is pro-choice and the other side is anti-choice. They are directly opposed with NO agreement of any nature whatsoever.

Please do NOT allow yourself to be sucked in by the anti-choicer, forced-birth supporters who wish to draw you off side with this faux discussion. They are opposed to women having control over their bodies. Fight them and see that it is the RW women-hating faction of our society who is playing this game with you. They are not looking for any common ground ~~ they are seeking to outlaw safe, legal abortion so that society can return to the era of the coat hanger.

Thank you,

Hepburn from the DU

The obvious "common ground" is that both groups would like to see the need for abortion eliminated...or, at very least, reduced to an absolute minimum.

We may not agree on how to get there, but there IS a common goal.

...pro-choice and anti-choice people once there IS a pregnancy?

Birth control is NOT a common ground ~~ it takes place BEFORE there is an issue of an unwanted pregnancy.

I'd imagine that some single mothers might abort solely because they feel they couldn't handle a baby's needs.

A more comprehensive support system might marginally reduce abortion rates.

Tell me about the RWs that support more welfare for dependent children and single mothers, OK? I have never seen one that gives a shit about this.

The common ground in this case is giving the woman a more viable alternative.

It seems to me that you can't see the forest for the trees. You're so wrapped up in defending choice that you're missing the goal of BOTH sides...a reduction in abortions.

As I said elsewhere in this thread, the two sides might not agree on a path, but this is one goal that they both support...and there are both pre-conception and post-conception ways of helping that to happen.

prof in California who looked at every state to see if her thesis, that pro-life states would have more child and woman friendly laws (in several areas including help for adoption for special needs children, laws against abuse of women and support for poor children)than pro-choice states. She found EXACTLY the OPPOSITE was true: pro-choice states had more assistance to women, children and families than pro-life states. She was quoted as saying she was going to henceforth send money to Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

I have the name of this professor squirreled away somewhere (can't remember where at the moment) and will try to find it and post it here on DU.

This is why I LOVE empirical studies...

As a supporter of choice, I have no interest in eliminating the need for abortion. That need is always going to be there. I have no interest in reducing the number of abortions. I believe there should be just as many abortions as there needs to be. I put no value judgement on the reason why a woman would choose to have an abortion. That decision is ultimately hers, and hers alone.

I just want to make sure that it's safe, legal and easily available for the women who choose to go that route.

Sid

Something that makes the default state "non-fertile"?

Most people...on BOTH sides of the issue...would see a benefit for eliminating or reducing the need for abortion. It has nothing to do with making value judgments, it's a matter of (if nothing else) minimizing the need for an invasive medical procedure.

requiring abortion.

...and it's a step in the right direction for both sides.

There IS common ground for the majority of people who have an opinion on this issue. Sure, there are always going to be hard-liners (on both sides) but there is definitely common ground that can be reached with most people.

I will say that the focus of 80%-90% of the "anti-abortion" people I know is the perceived lack of respect for life. They realize that there's a difference between "the perfect" and "the practical" and, if pressed, they know that there are valid reasons to abort.

The steam behind most of the "anti-abortion" movement's fight with us is the idea that "pro-choice" people don't value the life of "unborn children"...just as the steam behind most of the "pro-choice" movement's fight with them is that they want to restrict a woman's right to choose. Neither reflects the heart of the conflict.

Most "anti-abortion" people believe that all life is to be valued and that life begins at conception.

Most "pro-choice" people believe that a woman has the right to make her own medical choices.

Those two views may have a lot of conflicting territory, but they're not mutually exclusive...because they're not even fighting diametrically opposing fights.

There IS some common ground we can reach...and I believe it will benefit us both.

(my only anti-choice friend).

and isn't interested in seeing them reduced and made unnecessary as much as possible.

between anti-choice and pro-choice groups?

Just curious...

she is referring to PREVENTING unwanted pregnancy and also support for women who choose to give birth.

That is a common ground on birth control.

if the woman in question wants to terminate, but there is common ground re reducing unwanted pregnancies, providing better healthcare to pregnant women, adoption, etc. Not all anti-choicers are rabid women hating freaks who oppose contraception.

To me, there is no common ground on the issue of abortion. That is why I am tired of hearing this term ~~ it appears to move us pro-choicers off issue and into an area where we lose sight of our goal: To make sure that abortion remains safe and legal.

"Unnecessary" is, perhaps, an unattainably lofty goal at this time...but it's something that would solve the issue for both sides.

Every step we can take toward that goal brings both camps closer to getting what they want. That's common ground.

Many pro-lifers think a woman whose fetus has died in the womb should carry it until their body goes into labor. In the meantime, there is a high risk of infection and the resulting damage can prevent any future pregnancies. So I adamantly oppose adding 'unnecessary'. Safe, Legal and Rare is what we need to be working towards. That's it.

The mother feels that an abortion is unnecessary.

And it is legal to abort an unnecessary (I would call it 'inconvenient') baby. It might be unpleasant but it is legal.

would be a good thing.

That's "common ground".

But once a woman is pregnant, I don't see any common ground. Sorry.

...in terms of better support, I believe it would, at least marginally, reduce the number of women who were already pregnant who chose to have an abortion.

screamer, fine.

You seem intent on lying about what Sebelius meant. That's YOUR problem.

Perhaps not, but the woman hating freaks are either in the majority or have effectively seized control of the movement.

because you have made a valid point and it is lost here.

Of course the common ground is birth control - but even that is marginalized by the neanderthals who pontificate about the only real birth control is abstinence b.s.. There are a lot of anti-choice people who are so wrapped up in their faux morality and outrage that even a discussion about the need for women to have easy access to birth control and education on the topic is beaten to death by "abstinence!!!" And of course, we all know how well this method works.

Common ground my ass. Either you are for allowing a woman the right to make a choice when it comes to her own body and her own future or you want to take that right away. Period.

Sid

Strong financial support for women who are forced against their will to become mothers..

Strong support for comprehensive sex education in the schools.

Strong support for easily availability of birth control.

Strong support for universal health care for mothers and children.

Oh, wait.

...thanks for getting the idea that I was expressing. This thread highlights exactly what I am speaking to ~~ how the anti-choicers tend to cloud the issues with the faux discussion of "common ground."

It is a sham of the RW anti-choicers to move the discussion to "common ground" issues while they intentionally destroy a Right to Choose.

JMHO

That is the whole point of this discussion. Forced birth should never be an option. It is bad for everyone and it is actually more dangerous than abortion (especially early on).

with the anti-choice people for "strong financial support who are forced against their will to become mothers"

WTF????

I keep reading your statement and am just blown away that you do not see the total disconnect --- FORCED TO GIVE BIRTH.

Just tell me how being forced to give birth and being allowed to have a safe abortion is somehow COMMON GROUND.

I was writing my response after being awake for only 10 minutes and the coffee was not even working yet...

My sarcasm gene had not been activated yet...

My bad.

:hi:

And thus an entire large group of people are divided and fighting against each other, rather than uniting to fight against the elites. Divide and conquer, it's how the few but powerful have remained in charge for so long. If it's not racism dividing people, then it's religion or some other such engineered outrage.

What is the common ground between pro choice and anti choice?

Strong support for comprehensive sex education in the schools?

Strong support for easy availability of birth control?

Strong support for universal health care so that children and their parents can get medical care regardless of income?

Strong support for welfare for single mothers forced to bear children they do not want and cannot afford?

Please, tell us of all this common ground..

Sadly, not enough people want listen to these, and thus we're continually divided, and thus more easily ruled by the elites.

If worse comes to worse, agree to disagree with these people, for now, in order to work towards the greater good.

What is the common ground?

The common ground is that we're being ground down into dust by the political and corporate elite. We're allowing wedge issues (and there is a good reason that they label them thus) like race and abortion to keep us at each others' throats, fighting like rabid dogs when the fact of the matter is that in the overall scope of things, those on the pro-life and those on the pro-choice sides have much, much more in common than what separate us. If we could put aside that one relatively narrow question and join together to pursue economic and political justice, this country would be a much better place and we could then solve our differences in a much less charged atmosphere.

Is that clear enough for you?

They will not give in on this issue.

And the elite and powerful laugh all the way home, having successfully introduced another divisive wedge issue to keep the masses diverted and at each others' throats while they continue to fleece us like the flock of sheep we are. Congratulations, you're doing just what they want you to.

How do you placate both camps?

I don't think it can be done.

You put this issue in it's proper context, as a wedge issue that the elite put into play when the wedge issue of race started to fail. You join together with your fellow human beings to deal with the elite, then you can democratically hash out what comes afterwards.

I think that if you take care of the elite, who control the media, you will find that the issue of abortion would become much less strident without the ongoing shit stirring that the media instigates. Without the ongoing funding of hate groups that the elite sponsor. When people talk to people as fellow human beings rather than the dreaded "other", which is where we're at now.

On this matter.

We already disagree, both sides are aware of that.

You are asking for something that isn't going to happen, the elites will always be with us and they will always be manipulating the lumpenproletariat.

If you get rid of one set of elites another set will immediately spring up to take their place, that is simply the way human societies operate, all of them.

It took nearly three hundred years after Bacon's rebellion for the American public to overcome the racial divide, which was deliberately set in place after Bacon's rebellion. That's why the abortion wedge was set in place, will it take three hundred years to overcome that one? Wake up, look at what's going on, be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Sorry that I'm not perfection for you, after all, I've been fighting off a debilitating upper respiratory infection for the past week and only now the antibiotics are really starting to kick in. So knock off the kiddy crap about what published writers do and don't do, it's making you look like a petty, whining child. Try arguing the facts rather than being the grammar police, OK.

What a surprise..

The first characteristic of a writer is that they know how to communicate properly in the language in which they are writing.

And as for you being sick, deal with it and quite yer whinin'.

Goes for the quick snark, the personal insult, all in a desperate bid to cover up the fact that they really have a very limited knowledge base that they're operating off of.

Well, since this conversation has apparently strained the limits of your intellectual capability, I suppose that we're done here. Get in your last little childish insult, and we'll be done. Let me know when you actually what to discuss substantive issues rather than trade insults.

Peace

and I'm sick of the reactionary screaming on DU.

Not as far as I've seen.

Do they support welfare for women who have been forced to bear a child they do not want and cannot afford?

Not as far as I've seen.

I'm sick of people who are nominally liberals ceding ground to fanatics.

dismissing the concerns of women and minorities.

And who has absolutely no insight into what's really gone on in this country during the past four hundred years. Good job, the wealthy and elite congratulate you for continuing to fan the flames of hate and keeping attention diverted away from them.

Go educate yourself on matters like the Bacon Rebellion, and how the racial wedge was set. Educate yourself on why Malcolm X and M.L. King were murdered, because they were willing to set race aside and become all inclusive in order to take down the elite. Abortion is simply another powerful wedge issue that was put into place when the race tool started to fail. Wake up and see what's going on.

This is not dismissive, this is simply putting things into a larger context. Do you get that, or do you wish to keep the divisiveness going while the elite continue to rob the people of this country, turning us into their serfs and slaves?

simple minded tool you. you live in a world of spoon fed dogma and see only one strand of a complex history- just like all fools do. It's ignorant as a pile of dog shit to think that it's all so simple.

And yeah, you're speaking from a priviliged white male perspective. Disgusting as well as ignorant and imperious.

Showing that when your ability argue a point runs out, you continue with the only weapon you've got left, the personal insult.

Hate to tell you this, but I've probably forgotten more history than you ever learned, considering that I've been reading, writing(and published) and studying history for the past thirty years.

But hey, that's OK, don't listen to me, don't listen to somebody who's done the legwork. You've got your own ideas, and you're going to pursue them. Just ignore that laughter in the background, it's just a sign of the elite approving of your tool-like actions.

An important point to keep in mind.

But she is personally pro-life.

"If the pro-life people in the late 1960's and the early 1970's had been
willing to compromise with the pro-choice people, we could have had an
abortion law that provided for abortion only for the life of the mother,
incest, rape, and defective child; that would have cut the abortions down
to three percent of what they are today. But they had an all-or-nothing
mentality. They wanted it all and they got nothing."

in the Faith Based Initiatives Office at the Whitehouse?

and that's the bottom line.

Everything else is just window dressing. Either a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy, for her own reasons, or she doesn't. There's no grey area here.

Sid

determine what happens with her body.

Plain and simple.

It also gives creedence to the loonies who want NO abortions in this country, and want abstinence only education.

People have got to wake up to this fact.

There is no common ground to be reached with people who believe that abortion is baby killing. They do NOT want to reduce pregnancies. They want to force pregnancy and their goal is abortion banned entirely, no exceptions.

You cannot reason, make concessions, or anything else with these people.

If one tries they are only doing harm to their one cause.

I get SO SICK of this "common ground" BS. There is no common ground and cannot be, because one side seeks to apply its viewpoint to people with a different viewpoint. I would say that the common ground is that if you don't believe in abortion don't have one, but lifers won't go for that, they seek to legislate.

I get somewhat offended when this whole "common ground" baloney starts being bandied about, because it implies that a woman's right to control her own body is somehow compromisable, for sale for the sake of peace, or somehow can be made to intersect with the people who would deny that right. F*ck common ground. I'll stay on my ground if the lifers will stay on theirs. That really is all that is asked. It is they who are trying to stake out my ground, and "common ground" just legitamizes their attempt.

Someone responds with example of common ground.
You respond, well, here's an example of something that's not common ground.

So, we're supposed to believe there is NO COMMON GROUND? NONE? You don't respond to the example of common ground.

Pull. Head. out. of. Your. Butt.

There's enough common ground that still keeps choice with support of those anti-abortioners.

You just want to divide and destroy inroads to those people's votes either to stroke your fight-mongering ego or your corrupt desire to make Republicans viable.

N/T.