Oops, the post got duplicated. I deleted the earlier one.
Posted by eriposte at April 13, 2008 11:20 AMeriposte,
Do you realize you have posted this twice?
Posted by ghost2 at April 13, 2008 11:24 AMThe quote from Obama that's going to get repeated over and over on abortion is "I don't want them punished with a baby", referring to his girls should they get pregnant at 16. He can make all the speeches in the world on abortion, but that sentence will be the one that gets played should he be our nominee. It might not be offensive to some, but as a pro-choice female, it bothers me.
Posted by jmac at April 13, 2008 11:48 AMI found this sentence rather interesting right above the one you bolded.
"The mistake that pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past, and this is a generalization so it has not always been the case, has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in it," he said.
I'd like to know what pro-choice forces have done that and just who and/or what specifically he's referring to here?
Anyone have an idea?
Just Another Obama Pander. He panders to pro-lifers, gay-haters, race-baiters, republicans, and anyone else he needs to in order to get votes. I don't think he really stands for anything anymore. It infuriates me that he suggests that 'pro-choice forces' don't understand wrenching moral choices. Um... - that's why they're pro-choice idiot.
Posted by Anon at April 13, 2008 12:17 PMMan, I'm sure glad baby Barack wasn't sliced and diced.
Posted by onar at April 13, 2008 12:25 PMkate harding's piece is astonishingly good.
Posted by Turkana at April 13, 2008 12:32 PMSometimes abortion is the least-bad choice. So anti-choice is not an option. Besides, where does any man get off telling a woman whether or not she can have an abortion. "Safe, legal and rare" seems to be the best scenario.
Posted by jwrjr at April 13, 2008 01:01 PMWar is never a good thing. Sometimes it is the only option.
Abortion can be good?
Posted by Wilson Rivers at April 13, 2008 01:25 PMWay to parse those comments, Eriposte. What is there, like a piece of paper's width difference between Obama and Clinton on this. Like someone else suggested, SnarkyShark maybe?, why don't you tell us why we should vote for Clinton instead of throwing so much mud.
Your woman's down. It's past time for you to get with the program and support the future Democratic nominee for president, Barack Obama.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 13, 2008 03:00 PM"...the future Democratic nominee for president, Barack Obama."
Ok, I'll bite: if so, what will the (self-proclaimed)messiah do when he loses the (general) election?
Posted by Bagley at April 13, 2008 04:00 PM"but I don't believe that most Americans believe that "abortion is never a good thing". The latter view is that of those who consider themselves "pro-life"."
WHAT?! Are you demented? Yeah, apparently you think that getting an abortion is a picnic. A wonderfully pleasant experience. The simple fact that they aren't a particularly noninvasive procedure would indicate that that they aren't a good thing. Jackass.
Posted by at April 13, 2008 04:14 PMThanks, eriposte, for highlighting kate harding and BDBlue's posts, as well as the others you've linked to. We've been told over and over again that we should listen to African Americans if we want to know whether something the Hillary camp has said is horribly racist (of course it is! she'll say anything to win!), yet when women and other feminists say how they feel about something Obama has said, we're being divisive and should stfu, since "(y)our woman's down." Sorry, but I'm not a "feminist" because Hillary's in the race. I was a feminist before, and, even if she's not the nominee, I'm going to be one after. And I don't care who says that pro-choicers don't "acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in it," I'm going to call him on it, because it's just flat out wrong.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 13, 2008 04:43 PMBB,
Read Kate Harding's link, then multiply it by the hundreds of thousands of Dem supporters who say "Nice talk, BO, but where's the walk?", then factor in the fact that the nomination is only the beginning of an election battle that's going to make Gettysburg, Normandy, and the Marne look like a food fight, and then subtract all the hundreds of thousands of Clinton supporters who get tired of being told "you're racist, you're stupid, you're old, etc, because you doubt the latest, greatest thing." and decide to stay home on Election Day. See what the sum is.
Then you can come back and tell us to fall in the line behind the menz, just like good little girls.
Posted by Blue Jean at April 13, 2008 04:45 PMHaving abortion be an available service is kind of like seat belts. You hope to god that you never have to use it, but it is comforting to have it available, and it often saves the life of the person involved.
Posted by blogtopus at April 13, 2008 04:49 PMRight on, iamcoyote. The disgusting comments by onar and Wilson Rivers above are very revealing.
No one should ever interfere with what a woman chooses to do with her own body - it is the most basic human right of all. And no man, in particular, has any right to say anything about it, ever. Men don't have to deal with the consequences of parenthood the way women do, nor do they have to worry about physical dangers.
And, now that I am so angry, I will say something very un-PC but true: lots of AAs have a terrible attitude about women's reproductive rights and abortion in particular. They can just stfu when it comes to MY body and reproductive rights.
Let's not even get into the horrible hypocrisy of men who are anti-choice while being blithely sexually irresponsible.
Makes my blood boil!
Posted by Anon at April 13, 2008 04:50 PMAnon, why did was Clinton supporting the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, where pharmacists who were morally offended by filling out prescriptions for birth control pills could refuse a woman contraceptives without getting fired?
Parse as you will. Obama's position is pretty much identical to Bill Clinton's. Hillary's is halfway to Santorum's.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at April 13, 2008 05:14 PMYou're the parser, Boob. Or, more accurately, you're simply a pathological liar as usual.
Hillary's position is nothing close to "halfway to Santorum's" - you're a liar.
And no one on this site would take anything you say about women's rights seriously anyway at this point after all the vile things you've said here.
Nothing you say can change the fact that Obama pandered to pro-lifers by implying that pro-choicers don't understand the moral anguish of abortion.
You're a lying idiot. Go back under your rock.
Posted by Anon at April 13, 2008 05:23 PMWhy so angry when you have license to do mayhem to another human's body while repudiating its hold on yours? Oh, those wrenching immoral choices.
Posted by onar at April 13, 2008 05:31 PMI see the "you just can't understand because you're not a woman" brigade is here.
Its the sisterhood of the perpetual victim club.
You can scream about how sexist I am all you want, I don't care. Remember, all that word means anymore is "doesn't support Hillary", and we all ready know that. Thats what constant over use gets you. It's like saving a good cuss word for when you really need it instead of constantly using it and just making yourself look like a potty mouth.
These are difficult choices but framing abortion as "never a good thing" is not particularly helpful to the pro-choice movement.
Way to play into the rights little "Liberals just luv them some abortion" frame. The fact is, it aint a good thing, its just that the alternative is much much worse. Failure to recognize reality will help you not.
The thing to do is frame the frame.
Like this abortion is "never a good thing,
therefore we must do all we can to reduce the socioeconomic causes and lack of education that leads to the situation where abortion becomes necessary.
Thus leading to all sorts of liberal solutions and possibilities. Its called using their own words against them, and is comparable to judo.
But this requires sophistication instead of being the usual blunt instrument.
Oh there I go being elitist again!
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 13, 2008 05:32 PMUm, what part of 'you don't have the right to judge a women's right to choose if you're not a woman' don't you understand, moron?
Perpetual victimhood, right. This blog is full of vile misogynists masquerading as progressives.
Posted by at April 13, 2008 05:49 PMPerpetual victimhood, right. This blog is full of vile misogynists masquerading as progressives.
No..what it is full of is Status Quo loving DLC throwbacks and closet racists who are DINOs and like to hide behind worthless terms like vile misogynists, which is the TLC equivalent of "because...shut up".
Um, what part of 'you don't have the right to judge a women's right to choose if you're not a woman' don't you understand, moron?
What part of "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same results is the very definition of insanity" concept don't you get, moron?
Since I do support in every way a womans right to choose, the very premise you choose to get indignit over is incorrect therefore making you look like a simpleton and an idiot.
Making your whole post an exercise in ad hoc bullshit and accomplishing exactly nothing.
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 13, 2008 06:09 PMAnd, right now, Obama is on CNN's Faith Forum (yuck) discussing why abstinence education is a great thing for teens. OMG. That's really it - the last straw. He can take is creepy jeezus talk and his pro-life pandering and his reverend and his abstinence views and you know what. I'm done with him.
More faux progressivism.
Posted by at April 13, 2008 06:11 PM,doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same results is the very definition of insanity"
I meant to say expecting different results...
I beg for mercy to the grammer and usage police!
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 13, 2008 06:14 PMOh, and one more thing....
Obama just said on CNN that he would welcome collaboration with CREATIONISTS.
Now, cue up all the apologists for this one here - please start explaining how this is OK for the reality-based progressive community.
Does anyone seriously doubt anymore that this is a bible-thumping wolf in sheep's clothing? Don't anyone ever again dangle SCOTUS as a threat in front of me regarding the GE. Obama doesn't care one whit about womens rights, science, or anything else as long as he gets elected. He will literally pander to any audience.
Posted by at April 13, 2008 06:38 PMTry to follow this. I will break it down into real small pieces for you.
And, right now, Obama is on CNN's Faith Forum (yuck) discussing why abstinence education is a great thing for teens.
So you would advocate that he, should he choose to attend such a forum, should instead say what? That parents should have little Sally's boyfriend over for some hot underage sex? Do you think this will make the soccer moms(tm) fall in love with the Democrats? Abstinance can be a good option, if not very realistic. But Birth Control must be taught also. There is no option on this in my mind.
Since you leave out everything else he said except this one thing, can I assume that he said this and also some other stuff as well? Like maybe we should also teach Birth Control to avoid situations where abortions become necessary?
This is another Judo move. It takes a right wing frame and re-frames it. See post above.
I didn't like Obama at first because I Hate the right wing. I thought he was pandering to much.
But then I realized I was being childish, and putting this country on the right road was much more important then catering to my wants and desires.
Obama does this beautifully, drawing in disgruntled conservatives and making it OK to support what ends up being a progressive idea.
I wanted Gore in the worst way...but when I realized that wasn't going to happen, I learned to play the game with the hand that got dealt.
Thats the crossroad you are at now. Grow up and learn to deal with it.
As for being the last straw, I doubt it. That would mean you have kept an open mind to this point, and we both know that isn't true.
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 13, 2008 06:40 PMFrom one of the pro-Clinton links in the eriposte front page post above.
I know a lot of Hillary supporters refer to her speech at the UN Women’s conference in Beijing in 1995. So, today, I decided to take a closer look at the whole speech, especially in the context of Senator Obama’s remark on abortion and the need to respect the anti-choice position (just like we should respect and understand anti-LGBT positions).
And this is different from what Obama is saying how?
Open your eyes and your ears. Learn things, open your mind.
Quit being an Authoritarian DINO.
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 13, 2008 07:01 PMOOOppps........
Regarding my post at 07:01
I was wrong....disregard.
I need to see what Obama did say to contrast fully. All I have is the one snippet from no name above.
I will shut up on this post and wait for something different or until I can read his transcripts when I can find them.
If anybody comes by a link..I would appreciate it, or I will post one if I find it.
Engaging Google now.
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 13, 2008 07:07 PMBob in Pacifica,
Your infinite capacity to lie and smear HRC never ceases to amaze me. Frankly, I know Republicans who have more honesty than you have.
--------------
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh032408.shtml
THE WIT AND WISDOM OF PROGRESSIVE “ELITES:” Do you enjoy being played for fools? If so, let us give you a few more reasons to appreciate Barbara Ehrenreich. Last week, Ehrenreich warned you about Hillary Clinton’s “ever-shifting hairstyles” (and distant affiliation with Hitler) in a deeply unfortunate piece at The Huffington Post. (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/21/08.)
In our view, progressive, liberal and Democratic Party interests have long been harmed by the hapless ways of liberal and progressive “intellectual leaders.” Ehrenreich’s piece helped show us again: Until our movement is cleaned of certain corrosive elements, liberal and progressive interests will be at a disadvantage in our electoral politics.
Back to that unfortunate, but revealing, piece at The Huffington Post:
In her piece, Ehrenreich was helpfully letting readers know that Clinton is a right-wing tool—that she’s been drawn “into the sinister heart of the international right.” Her evidence for such a remarkable statement? For starters, Clinton attends the Senate Prayer Breakfast, thereby allying herself with Hitler—and then, there’s all the right-wing legislation which the solon has pimped. In the following passage (we’ll quote at some length), Ehrenreich turns readers into a play-toy. In substantial part, this is how Democrats lose elections—and conservative interests prosper:
EHRENREICH (3/19/08): Clinton fell in with the Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family's "most elite cell," the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia's notoriously racist Senator George Allen.
This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, the Family's publicity-averse leader, that he is "a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."
Furthermore, the Family takes credit for some of Clinton's rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing "religious freedom" in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics.
What drew Clinton into the sinister heart of the international right? Maybe it was just a phase in her tormented search for identity, marked by ever-changing hairstyles and names...
Let’s understand the extent to which “progressive intellectual leaders” are willing to play you for fools.
The (proposed) law at issue is fairly complex. But let’s keep things fairly simple:
The (proposed) law to which Ehrenreich refers is the Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA). Variants of the bill have been presented in Congress for years; it may be a bit of a Potemkin measure, repeatedly offered as a way of pandering to certain groups. But the WRFA is a bipartisan bill, with somewhat unusual blends of sponsors and opponents. In 2005, for example, the bill was introduced in the Senate by Rick Santorum—and by John Kerry, a Democrat from Massachusetts. (In 2004, Kerry was the Democratic Party’s nominee for president.) In the House, the bill was introduced by Rick Souder, the Indiana Republican—and by Carolyn McCarthy and Anthony Weiner, two Democrats from New York.
Has Clinton been drawn “into the sinister heart of the international right?” If so, Kerry (and McCarthy) seem to be there too—a point Ehrenreich absent-mindedly forgot to mention in her unfortunate rant. For the record, Kerry has introduced some variant of this bill every year since 1999, after two of his constituents got fired for refusing to work on Christmas Day. Ehrenreich omitted that too.
Our question: Will liberals and progressives (and Democrats) ever tell “intellectual leaders” like Ehrenreich that they can’t play the game in this manner?
Is the Workplace Religious Freedom Act a good idea? We don’t have the slightest idea. (For a bit more detail on the bill, see below.) But as we watch another White House election sliding into a place of some peril, we think this: There ought to be a special circle in hell for hustlers like Barbara Ehrenreich.
And make no mistake—Ehrenreich understands how to lose. She knows how to misjudge major politicians—big-time. How gruesome is her political judgment? Just consider her brilliant work during Campaign 2000.
By now, we’ll guess that everyone understands—Campaign 2000 was a turning point in world history. Candidate Bush ended up in the White House, and the U.S. Army ended up in Iraq—even though Al Gore, Bush’s opponent, warned against the folly. (As you may know, Gore now holds the Nobel Peace Prize for his subsequent work.)
By now, we’ll assume that everyone sees how badly many pundits misjudged when they insisted, during Campaign 2000, that Bush and Gore were two peas in a pod. Needless to say, Ehrenreich was one of those brainiacs. Indeed, in the November 20, 2000 Time (published on November 13), she was happily boasting about her bad judgment. “Don't Blame Me,” the long headline proclaimed. “I voted for Nader as a genuine protest. If Gore loses, he did it all on his own.” And then, the dim-witted joking began, right there in Ehrenreich’s opening paragraph. This is your brain on stupidity:
EHRENREICH (11/20/00): The death threats keep pouring in. There are rumors that Gloria Steinem wants me to turn in my SISTERHOOD IS POWERFUL T shirt, that Jesse Jackson says my soul is toast. They didn't even notice us Naderites for months—until, of course, their candidate decided to prove he isn't "wooden" by demonstrating how fast he could sink. Then, quicker than you could say, "Florida's Electoral College votes," that great, flabby, inchoate entity, the Democratic Party, morphed into a disciplined Leninist organization, dispatching its leading cadre with the message, "Vote for Nader, and you'll never eat lunch in this country again."Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Gore tried to prove that he wasn’t wooden! Ehrenreich was indulging herself in the brain-dead imagery of the Maureen Dowds of the world, even as history was being decided in Florida. Of course, for brilliant analysts of Ehrenreich’s caliber, the jokin’ was easy as world history changed. In the opening sentence of her column in the November 1 Progressive, for example, Ehrenreich had mockingly referred to Gore as “the inventor of the Internet,” thereby giving her readers another good solid, enjoyable laugh. Today, the dead of Iraq enjoy her humor—as they look up from the ground.
By now, you’d almost think that people like Ehrenreich might have spent a moment or two pondering their gruesome past judgment. But no! Eight years after that reign of brain-dead political porn, she’s out there complaining about Clinton’s hairstyles—and she’s deceiving her readers about the bill which shows that Clinton has been drawn “into the sinister heart of the international right.”
Of course, it isn’t surprising to see such work thrown at the rubes by the Huffington Post. But at some point, liberals have to come to terms with the gruesome “intellectual elites” who treat them like complete total fools—and who keep electing Republicans. (No one trashed Gore as a liar and clown more than Huffington did.) Eight years ago, Ehrenreich was getting good solid laughs with her comments about how wooden Gore was. Today, Gore holds the Nobel Peace Prize, and the dead of Iraq stare up from the ground. And Ehrenreich has moved on—to talk about Clinton’s vile haircuts.
MORE BRILLIANT HUMOR: Ehrenreich gave her readers many good solid laughs as history hung in the balance. Again from Time, the brilliant work of a “progressive” “intellectual leader:”
Bush and Gore? No—Gush and Bore! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, the dead of Iraq are now telling themselves. And of course, they enjoy a good solid laugh when Ehrenreich moves on to those thoughts about hair-styles.
EHRENREICH (11/20/00): One of the major charges leveled against Nader voters is that we pretended—in some perverse kind of optical malingering—that we couldn't see the difference between the major candidates. Well, I'm capable of making fine visual distinctions. But a lot of people who probably never wandered near the Nader camp kept muttering, "Bush, Gore? Gush, Bore?" right up to election eve...
HOW TO RUN THE RUBES: People like Ehrenreich will do and say anything in order to drive the rubes to market. Case in point:
In her piece, Ehrenreich says that the Workplace Religious Freedom Act—the (proposed) bill which shows Clinton’s “sinister” ways—guarantees religious freedom to “pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics.” From her post, you might think that this is the actual aim of the bill. But in fact, this is a concern about the possible effects of the bill—a concern which has been expressed by groups which oppose the measure. Proponents of the WRFA say the bill wouldn’t have those effects. Honest brokers continue working—or pretending to work—to address these points of concern.
As noted, this bill is proposed year after year—and it never passes. We’ll guess that it may be one of those measures which gets introduced to placate certain groups, though no one really means to enact it. (We don’t know if that is the case.) On balance, is the bill a good idea? We don’t have the slightest idea. Why not ask John Kerry or Carolyn McCarthy, two others who have found themselves drawn “into the sinister heart of the international right?”
At some point, liberals and Dems will have to decide: How long do we tolerate rube-running conduct of this type from our “intellectual leadership?” How long do we plan to be insulted by “leaders” who mainly love running us rubes?
Anon, google "Workplace Religious Freedom Act." It's a lousy piece of legislation introduced by Santorum and co-sponsored by Clinton (not that she's the only Dem). Read the ACLU take on it: "The ACLU supports a "narrowly tailored" bill "focused on strengthening the federal requirements imposed on employers to accommodate workplace scheduling changes for the observation of religious holidays and the wearing of religious clothing or a beard or hairstyle." They object to the WRFA on the grounds that it is overly broad, and could potentially erode civil rights by permitting workplace religious-freedom claims that have been previously rejected by the courts. For example, the courts have rejected refusals by employee counselers to counsel gay and lesbian workers, refusals by police officers to protect abortion clinics, and a social worker's decision to use Bible readings and exorcism to treat mental-health problems in prison inmates. Because the WRFA changes the legal criteria for allowed restrictions on workplace religious activities to "primarily financial" grounds in which "temporary or tangential" religious behavior is allowed, the ACLU argues that such cases may be allowed by future courts under WRFA."
Maybe Clinton doesn't see the problems of letting security guards allow abortion clinic bombings because of their faith. Or maybe she supported the bill as a favor to Santorum, her prayermate under Reverend Coe.
Point being, there's not a bit of difference between Obama's stance on abortion rights and Bill Clinton's. Not sure if Hillary Clinton's position is informed by evangelicalism or politics.
But what does it matter? She's lost the primaries.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at April 13, 2008 07:22 PMOK.....first thing No Name forgot to mention in above post was that Clinton was at the same forum...
and in fact by virtue of a coin toss went first.
I guess this little tidbit wasn't important huh?
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 13, 2008 07:22 PM
How is that relevant at all? So, Clinton was at the same forum, yeah, so what? She's not the one who said the dumbass anti-choice, anti-science, creepy jeezus things that Obama said.
Wow - you're smart.
Posted by at April 13, 2008 07:28 PMHow is that relevant at all?
I got the feeling that you were put off by the fact that he was even at the forum. In that context, the fact that you left that out is telling.
But the actual truth is fungible with you guys, I get that. To the rest of it is called lying by omission.
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 13, 2008 07:36 PMYep...in that context you are now catapulting the propaganda.
Does Hillary.com send you a blood chit for that?
How about an I love McCain t-shirt?
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 13, 2008 07:39 PM"I got the feeling that you were put off by the fact that he was even at the forum. In that context, the fact that you left that out is telling."
___________________
Well, sorry, your assumptions are wrong as usual but don't let that stop you. If I'm put off at all, it's that either of them participated in some stupid faith forum, which shouldn't be part of politics at all.
Nevertheless, Obama is the one who talked about the benefits of abstinence education (remember fighting GWB on that one?) and cooperating with creationists (holy shit!) and the moral anguish of abortion that pro-choicers don't acknowledge (asshat!). Can't change those apples.
Posted by at April 13, 2008 07:48 PMf I'm put off at all, it's that either of them participated in some stupid faith forum, which shouldn't be part of politics at all.
You couldn't have said this? I would have had a lot more inclination to be receptive to your point if you would have included this in your original post.
Once again, the fact that you didn't is telling.
As to the rest, if they are both going to attend, then I would expect them to try to pull ass many votes out of that as possible.
Thats how the game is played. End results are what matters here. Clinton panders, and you know she does. So does Obama. What Obama never says, and this is important, is that he intends to enact legislation in this regard.
Wake me up when he says something like that.
Till then, look into Zoloft or Prozac. They can help.
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 13, 2008 08:06 PMNot entirely sure I get the point: is the idea that anti-abortion Democrats should be drummed out of the party? That would include not only some elected officials but a number of voters. My brother comes to mind, for example: about as die-hard a Democrat as one can find, but he just thinks abortion is a bad thing.
"Safe, legal and rare" has been a line put forward for some time now. The concept is hardly unique to Barack Obama. More important, I would suggest, is this: has Obama ever suggested that he would continue BushCo policy of creeping criminalization of abortion? Of coddling domestic anti-abortion terrorists? Of promoting screwball abstinence-only sex education? I think not.
Posted by joel dan walls at April 13, 2008 08:37 PMI pretty much agree with Joel Dan here. Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. There are complications that many (and certainly no man) can imagine. My friend had two abortions and it ruined her ability to have children. It doesn't happen all the time but it can bc of the nature of the procedure. I don't think any body likes abortion. I just think as Democrats we all agree that its a woman's choice to have one or not and that its not the government's business.
If you want to know how Obama is on abortion, just look at his record. Project vote smart has his voting record on the issue.
Posted by kacey at April 13, 2008 09:50 PMI have my own personal religious views on abortion but I am pro-choice and want to be an ally to women who are confronted with that choice. To me, this means that abortion should be safe and legal, full stop. Adding "and rare" to the phrase embraces the notion that there is something inherently morally wrong with abortion and condemns women who have had abortions to morally flawed status.
Posted by Christina at April 13, 2008 10:21 PMYes, sometimes abortion is a VERY good thing. After being raped, abortion was my first choice upon discovering I was pregnant. My question to anyone else, is why shouldn't that particular surgery have been my first choice? I will not accept any so-called options that placed a greater priority on a blob of cells existing inside my body over my own already existing person. Why would or should I? Pro-choice or forced pregnancy are the options available.
So, yes certain statements do offend. And I hope that every woman from here forward has heard of Plan B.
Posted by Anon for good reason at April 13, 2008 10:47 PMYes, sometimes abortion is a VERY good thing. After being raped, abortion was my first choice upon discovering I was pregnant.
The fact that you had to have an abortion is a bad thing. The fact that you had that option was a good thing.
But really, in the end all that matters is whether that option exists or not. Minutia about language is a distraction at best. I have made many a winger scratch their heads by pointing out that the abortion rate went up under GWB (it did), then asking them what is more important 1.)reducing the actual rate of abortion or 2.) Beating your chest and talking shit?
The never seem to know what to say.
So I ask you as a rape survivor. Would it be so bad to say abortion should be rare if that results in a whole host of effort to cut down on the causes of abortion, including rape prevention while still guaranteeing abortion will be safe and legal?
Don't get caught up in what the meaning of is is.
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 13, 2008 11:52 PMGreat post as usual, eriposte. The intelligent, honest, thoughtful responses are all great.
Posted by jeter at April 14, 2008 01:47 AMJust as I suspected: Obama lauds pro-lifers, creationists, and abstinence education and everyone here applauds. Unbelievable. I guess when George W. Bush did the same, it was "horrors!", but anything Obama says is just fine. Or at least understandable. Because Obama can do no wrong!
Hypocrisy writ large here as usual.
Posted by at April 14, 2008 04:01 AMHmm, hypcorisy. Right, anonymous.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 18, 2008 09:48 PM