|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:56 pm
Not directed at anyone here, just a statement in general prompted by a recent ED discussion. One thing that drives me nuts about this entire issue is the negativity and just plain name-calling that comes from both sides directed towards the other, when I think there is some thing that both sides can agree on. As I said recently in a thread: Quote: I think ultimately what both sides need to do is find common ground, no one likes why abortions have to happen, and no woman really wants to have one (as one article put it "A woman doesn't want an abortion the way she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche, she wants it the way an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg") and I really hope we can find some common ground and drop the antagonism coming from both sides. What most arguments these days seem to come down to is the idea that one side or another is "anti-woman" "anti-life" etc. I think this misses the point, and just leads to internal wheel spinning while abortions are still happening outside. No one likes abortions. I feel pretty confident making that statement. As I quoted above, it's not something that women want casually, it's a choice made in times of desperation. While it is true that there are some who use it as a casual form of birth control the vast majority simply are in a bad situation that would only get worse with a child. Most people who identify as pro-life support the idea of a woman having an abortion if she has been raped. I fear that continual arguing could deny those women that right if both sides lose sight of the real issues here: Much of the pro-life argument centers around not having abortions after a pregnancy has begun, and hypocritically many pro-life organizations do not support contraception or sex education, if then usually only abstinence education that has been shown to not have much (if any) of an effect, a reactive approach when it seems clear a proactive one is needed. What both sides really need to focus on is why abortions have to occur in the first place in order to prevent them. I see many threads on Gaia on the subject of abortion become "us vs. them" as well as this same thing in the wider world. That solves nothing. I think as pro-choicer we need to focus on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies but advocate abortion as a last resort, while the pro-life movement needs to get to the root of the problem. Lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand" and that applies here too.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:11 pm
No woman really wants an abortion? No one really likes abortion? Who are you to dictate what a woman really wants in her life? That's a pretty big sexist assumption to make... to believe that you know that no woman could ever really want to have an abortion!
I will concede that many women feel pressure to abort when they may not want to because of financial reasons or other social reasons... but I would NEVER stoop so low as to say no woman ever really wants one... to believe that I somehow am better able to make decisions for women than they, themselves, are.
If I get pregnant, I WANT AN ABORTION - not because I cannot afford it, not because of social stigma, but because I do not want to be a parent. There are MANY childfree women out there that do not want to have children and that will WANT to abort regardless of ANY social stigmas or pressures. You are quite sexist to think that all women would just LOVE to be mommies if only society weren't so gosh darn anti-pregnant-women (which it most definately is).
I also hate that quote about how women want abortions like an animal in a trap - it creates the WRONG connotations. Women DO want abortions in a much more serious way than they want icecream - but to say they want it like an animal in a trap is to insinuate that women fear their pregnancy and must get rid of it because of the same social pressures you referred to - and not because it's something they actually want to do.
I also like abortion. Abortion is a service that means I, as a woman, am guaranteed equal protection of my very being. Saying that pro-life is anti-women in NO WAY misses the point. I've explained COUNTLESS times how you cannot remove a woman's choice to abort without being anti-women's rights. I agree that we need to solve the social problems surrounding how we treat pregnant women - but banning abortion as pro-"lifers" want will NOT solve these social problems. Instead they will only exacerbate them - because REMOVING MORE RIGHTS from women (such as the right to decide who uses their body and when as well as a right to defend their bodies from harm with lethal force) will NOT MAGICALLY give them the rights society already denies. Two minus one does not equal three.
The reason it is Us verus Them is because THEY want to remove my right to decide who uses my body (which protects me from Rape, unwanted organ removal, unwanted surgery, unwanted torture) as well as the right to defend my body when someone is causing grievous bodily harm (my right to stop and if necessary kill someone who is in the process of raping, torturing, kidnapping, or otherwise causing great harm to my body). I will NOT give up my opposition to anti-women adherents because they share some common goals about fixing other social problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:20 pm
Umm, despite my avatar, I am biologically female, I have a uterus, and I plan on having children. The quote from above was from a doctor who performed abortions since Roe v. Wade was decided.
I also didn't say anything about taking away rights, I'm making an appeal to both sides to stop bickering and attacking each other, and this is exactly the type of antagonism I was talking about. And frankly right now I'm seeing why some people on the pro-life side consider pro-choicers to be overly antagonistic.
I am repsonding to an ever widening divide that threatens to cause only harmful effects, as the recent elections in this country seem to have a shown now's a time for cooperation, not conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:24 pm
I was going to post my feelings, but Talon pretty much said it all.
The problem with lifers is that they want everyone to live by their morals. They want to make women continue a pregnancy against her wishes, and force her to seek out harmful methods of aborting. A lot of them will find her at fault should she get pregnant, and degrade her for making the choice to have sex, which shows it's not about the fetus at all.
You simply can't find common ground on this issue. Either you want a woman to be able to decide for herself, or you don't.
Just going to add that if I ever found out I was pregnant, abortion would be my first and only option. It will never be a last resort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:29 pm
*sigh*
I've found that many pro-lifers are not the die hard and clinic-bombing, but simply don't like the idea. That's fine with me. I have a problem with other peoples morals dictating my life but the fact is that's not how the majority of the pro-life argument thinks, they are just the most vocal members. In almost everyting the most die-hard are the most visible.
Anyone watch Star Trek Enterprise? The actress for Captain Janeway, Kate Mulgrew, said that abortion "didn't compute with my philosophy" but said nothing about keeping all women from it. The vast majority of pro-lifers are like her.
But why am I suddenly being treated like I've personally violated a woman's right simply by suggesting that we need to work together, and made an appeal for people to find common ground? This I don't understand. I am not an enemy, but I can see this issue being divided sharply and I don't like where it will probably end up if this continues.
Let's get this straight: I am a woman. I am for a woman's right to have an abortion, I do not want to see it illegalized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:35 pm
Then do something. Saying we need to find common ground isn't going to work. You can not find a common ground when one side wants to take away the rights of others. I'm not talking about the ones who wouldn't abort, and wouldn't scream at a woman. I'm talking about the ones who would vote against abortions rights, who would call a woman a 'whore' or a 'slut' if she chose to abort.
It's all well and good that you made this thread, but you need to suggest something instead of trying to act like you're being attacked. You're not, so get over it. No one has attacked you, we're just telling you how we feel, how we've been treated and how it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:38 pm
MipsyKitten It's all well and good that you made this thread, but you need to suggest something instead of trying to act like you're being attacked. You're not, so get over it. No one has attacked you, we're just telling you how we feel, how we've been treated and how it is. You have a good point, but by God it felt like an attack. I'm still trying to calm my heartrate here. Having it implied that you are a "anti-women adherent" and "sexist" by your own gender for trying to find a middle stance has an effect, you know. I know both sides of this issue. Straight up, I don't know what we should do, besides more sex education and more access to contraceptives to prevent pregnancies in the first place, but I'm sure the other side has ideas too that can be beneficial to both sides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:40 pm
And now for the infamous (and slightly disliked) Kata to respond.
I disagree. I completely, and utterly disagree. This is not, cannot, and will NOT be an issue two sides can come to common ground for several reasons.
1. There are three sides. Life, Abortion, Choice. Choice is neutral, though forced to lean in response to the pro-life arguments. We support the freedom of choice, the ability, and even the means of obtaining either a healthy pregnancy, or a harasssment-free and safe abortion BY THE WOMAN'S CHOICE.
2. I have reasoned, been calm with, and understanding of the pro-life side. The people whom I speak to about this get any one, some, or all of the following reactions:
Anger
Insulted
Insulting
Superior
Inferiority-complex
Whiny
Angsty
Unreasonable
Hateful
Loud
Dangerously calm
Embarrassed
Preachy
3. I am not afraid to help a person follow through with their choice, and I am supportive of them. My business is not the woman's unless she makes it to be, and then it is STILL personal. Pro-life..want people to stop being having sex, being young and horny, or butt sex.
I have personally had people get into MY face, as I am a male, and SCREAM at me that I am wrong and a murderer when I simply said: I disagree.
How should I attempt a common ground when one is NOT being sought, and they force their beliefs on others? How can I lay back and let others walk over people to impose and ENFORCE THEIR BELIEFS. I will NOT allow a person's freedom to be limited or stripped because some a*****e or b***h is offended by abortion.
I DISAGREE!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:44 pm
Kata Samoes How should I attempt a common ground when one is NOT being sought, and they force their beliefs on others? How can I lay back and let others walk over people to impose and ENFORCE THEIR BELIEFS. I will NOT allow a person's freedom to be limited or stripped because some a*****e or b***h is offended by abortion. There are people on both sides who want to find common ground, who are unfortunately in the minority. I'm trying to find one here, and haven't found it yet. I honestly believe that there is one that can be found if there is ever going to be cessation of arguing. It might be hopeless for all I know, but perhaps one exists if we look for it. From your description most people are Choice, an we can use this to our advantage. However, it requires being open to possibility. The pro-choice argument already agrees it should be a choice, that is common ground even for people who do not like abortion. But, as political trends seem to be indicating, it's not enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:46 pm
Katsuhagi There are people on both sides who want to find common ground, who are unfortunately in the minority. I'm trying to find one here, and haven't found it yet. I honestly believe that there is one that can be found if there is ever going to be cessation of arguing. It might be hopeless for all I know, but perhaps one exists if we look for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:48 pm
^ Added a bit to last post that explains a bit more what I mean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:48 pm
Katsuhagi I know both sides of this issue. Straight up, I don't know what we should do, besides more sex education and more access to contraceptives to prevent pregnancies in the first place, but I'm sure the other side has ideas too that can be beneficial to both sides. I think we can agree that the vast majority (I'm thinking everyone, but you know nothing is 100%) of pro-choicers have nothing against contraception, and try to teach the importance of it. However we have a limited amount of things we can do when (in the US) women are restricted in obtaining their birth control. I know a lot of lifers advocate the use of contraception, but a lot are also voting against Plan B, against making pharmasists fill perscriptions, and the teaching of comprehensive sex ed in schools. However, this isn't the kind of commong ground which will keep people happy, because in the end pro-lifers want to take away the right for a woman to be able to control what happens in her uterus. There will be no compromise from the pro-choice side on that issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:52 pm
Quote: However, this isn't the kind of commong ground which will keep people happy, because in the end pro-lifers want to take away the right for a woman to be able to control what happens in her uterus. There will be no compromise from the pro-choice side on that issue. I think what we need to do is get the reasonable pro-lifers (what's left of them) to side with us through some sort of agreement, that's how the pro-choice movement as we know it came into being, and historically how many things are sucesses. We can't convince even a vast majority of pro-lifers to side with us, but if we can get just enough to agree that can drastically change the outcome. The recent elections seem to show that it's the people who are either undecided or on the edge who make a difference when it comes down to it, but I feel like the movement as a whole is alienating those people for even slight dissent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:55 pm
Katsuhagi From your description most people are Choice, an we can use this to our advantage. However, it requires being open to possibility. The pro-choice argument already agrees it should be a choice, that is common ground even for people who do not like abortion. But, as political trends seem to be indicating, it's not enough.
However, when a person believes they should control or limit what women do, this cannot be a common ground within. As long as there is the threat of an imposing belief/person, we can't find one.
All because those people are offended by abortion, and whatever else they're trying to strip away from people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:10 pm
Just in case nobody caught this one, I think the original poster meant no woman wants to NEED an abortion. No woman really wants to be put in the situation to have to choose, BUT if they find themselves in that situation, we want them to have the RIGHT to choose.
EDIT: As soon as I posted that, the fire alarm went off in my complex and I was in a towel...damnit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
