I am Pro-Abortion, Not Just Pro-Choice

[debatethis]

Where's a standing ovation gif when I need one??

www.alternet.org/i-am-pro-abortion-not-just-pro-choice-10-reasons-why-we-must-support-procedure-and-choice


I Am Pro-Abortion, Not Just Pro-Choice: 10 Reasons Why We Must Support the Procedure and the Choice
By Valerie Tarico [1] / Salon [2]
April 26, 2015

Recently, the Daily Kos published an article titled I Am Pro-Choice, Not Pro-Abortion [3]. “Has anyone ever truly been pro-abortion?” one commenter asked.



Uh. Yes. Me. That would be me.



I am pro-abortion like I’m pro-knee-replacement and pro-chemotherapy and pro-cataract surgery. 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.



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.



But independent of who owns the decision, I’m pro on the procedure, and I’ve decided that it’s time, for once and for all, to count it out on my 10 fingers.



1. I’m pro-abortion because being able to delay and limit childbearing is fundamental to female empowerment and equality. A woman who lacks the means to manage her fertility lacks the means to manage her life. Any plans, dreams, aspirations, responsibilities or commitments–no matter how important–have a great big contingency clause built: “until or unless I get pregnant, in which case all bets are off.”



Think of any professional woman you know. She wouldn’t be in that role if she hadn’t been able to time and limit her childbearing. Think of any girl you know who imagines becoming a professional woman. She won’t get there unless she has effective, reliable means to manage her fertility. In generations past, nursing care was provided by nuns and teachers were spinsters, because avoiding sexual intimacy was the only way women could avoid unpredictable childbearing and so be freed up to serve their communities in other capacities. But if you think that abstinence should be our model for modern fertility management, consider the mass graves [4]that get found every so often under old nunneries.



2. I’m pro-abortion because well-timed pregnancies give children a healthier start in life. We now have ample evidence that babies do best when women are able to space their pregnancies [5]and get both pre-natal and pre-conception care [6]. The specific nutrients [7]we ingest in the weeks before we get pregnant [8]can have a lifelong effect on the wellbeing of our offspring. Rapid repeat pregnancies [9]increase the risk of low birthweight babies and other complications. Wanted babies are more likely to get their toes kissed, to be welcomed into families that are financially and emotionally ready to receive them, to get preventive medical care during childhood and the kinds of loving engagement [10]that helps young brains to develop.



3. I’m pro-abortion because I take motherhood seriously. Most female bodies can incubate a baby, and thanks to antibiotics, cesareans and anti-hemorrhage drugs, most of us are able to survive pushing a baby out into the world. But parenting is a lot of work, and doing it well takes twenty dedicated years of focus, attention, patience, persistence, social support, mental health, money, and a whole lot more. This is the biggest, most life-transforming thing most of us will ever do. The idea that women should simply go with it when they find themselves pregnant after a one-night-stand, or a rape, or a broken condom completely trivialized motherhood.



4. I’m pro-abortion because intentional childbearing helps couples, families and communities to get out of poverty. Decades of research in countries ranging from the U.S. to Bangladesh [11]show that reproductive policy is economic policy [12]. It is no coincidence that the American middle class rose along with the ability of couples to plan their families, starting at the beginning of the last century. Having two or three kids instead of eight or ten was critical to prospering in the modern industrial economy. Early unsought childbearing nukes economic opportunity and contributes to multi-generational poverty. Today in the U.S., unsought pregnancy and childbearing is declining for everyone but the poorest families and communities [13], contributing to what some [14]call a growing “caste system [15]” in America. Strong, determined girls and women sometimes beat the odds, but their stories inspire us precisely because they are the exception to the rule. Justice dictates that the full range of fertility management tools including the best state-of-the-art contraceptive technologies [16]and, when that fails, abortion care be equally available to all [15], not just a privileged few.



5. I’m pro-abortion because reproduction is a highly imperfect process. Genetic recombination is a complicated progression with flaws and false starts at every step along the way. To compensate, in every known species including humans, reproduction operates as a big funnel. Many more eggs and sperm are produced than will ever meet; more combine into embryos than will ever implant; more implant than will grow into babies; and more babies are born than will grow up to have babies of their own. This systematic culling [17]makes God or nature the world’s biggest abortion provider: Nature’s way of producing healthy kids essentially requires every woman to have an abortion mill built into her own body.



In humans, an estimated 60-80 percent of fertilized eggs self-destruct before becoming babies, which is why the people who kill the most embryos are those like the Duggars [18] who try to maximize their number of pregnancies. But the weeding-out process is also highly imperfect. Sometimes perfectly viable combinations boot themselves out; sometimes horrible defects slip through. A woman’s body may be less fertile when she is stressed or ill or malnourished, but as pictures of skeletal moms and babies show, some women conceive even under devastating circumstances. Like any other medical procedure, therapeutic contraception and abortion complement natural processes designed to help us survive and thrive.



6. I’m pro-abortion because I think morality is about the well-being of sentient beings. I believe that morality is about the lived experience of sentient beings—beings who can feel pleasure and pain, preference and intention, who at their most complex can live in relation to other beings, love and be loved and value their own existence.



What are they capable of wanting? What are they capable of feeling? These are the questions my husband and I explored with our kids when they were figuring out their responsibility to their chickens and guinea pigs. It was a lesson that turned expensive, when the girls stopped drinking milk from cows that didn’t get to see the light of day or eat grass, but it’s not one I regret. Do unto others as they want you to do unto them. It’s called the Platinum Rule. In this moral universe, real people count more than potential people, hypothetical people or corporate people



7. I’m pro-abortion because contraceptives are imperfect, and people are too. 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 [19]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 [16], 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 [20], 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 [19]. And guess what. Teen pregnancies and abortions plummet [21]—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?



8. I’m pro-abortion because I believe in mercy, grace, compassion, and the power of fresh starts. Many years ago, my friend Chip was driving his family on vacation when his kids started squabbling. His wife Marla undid her seatbelt to help them, and as Chip looked over at her their top-heavy minivan veered onto the shoulder and then rolled, and Marla died. Sometimes people make mistakes or have accidents that they pay for the rest of their lives. But I myself have swerved onto the shoulder and simply swerved back. The price we pay for a lapse in attention or judgment, or an accident of any kind isn’t proportional to the error we made.



Who among us hasn’t had unprotected sex when the time or situation or partnership wasn’t quite right for bringing a new life into the world? Most of the time we get lucky; sometimes we don’t. And in those situations we rely on the mercy, compassion, and generosity of others.



In this regard, an unsought pregnancy is like any other accident. I can walk today only because surgeons reassembled my lower leg after it was crushed between the front of a car and a bicycle frame when I was a teen. And I can walk today (and run and jump) because another team of surgeons re-assembled my knee-joint after I fell off a ladder. And I can walk today (and bicycle with my family) because a third team of surgeons repaired my other knee after I pulled a whirring brush mower onto myself, cutting clear through bone. Three accidents, all my own doing, and three knee surgeries. Some women have three abortions.

9. I’m pro-abortion because the future is always in motion, and we have the power and responsibility to shape it well. As a college student, I read a Ray Bradbury story [22]about a man who travels back into prehistory on a “time safari.” The tourists have been coached about the importance of not disturbing anything lest they change the flow of history. When they return to the present, they realize that the outcome of an election has changed, and they discover that the protagonist who had gone off the trail, has a crushed butterfly on the bottom of his shoe.



In baby making, as in Bradbury’s story, the future is always in motion, and every little thing we do has consequences we have no way to predict. Any small change means a different child comes into the world. Which nights your mother had headaches, the sexual position of your parents when they conceived you, whether or not your mother rolled over in bed afterwards—if any of these things had been different, someone else would be here instead of you. Every day, men and women make small choices and potential people wink into and out of existence. We move, and our movements ripple through time in ways that are incomprehensible, and we can never know what the alternate futures might have been.



But some things we can know or predict, at least at the level of probability, and I think this knowledge provides a basis for guiding wise reproductive decisions. My friend Judy says that parenting begins before conception. I agree. How and when, we choose to carry forward a new life can stack the odds in favor of our children or against them, and to me that is a sacred trust.



10. I’m pro-abortion because I love my daughter. I first wrote the story of my own abortion when Dr. Tiller was murdered and I couldn’t bear the thought of abortion providers standing in the crosshairs alone. “My Abortion Baby [23]” was about my daughter, Brynn, who exists only because a kind doctor like George Tiller gave me and my husband the gift of a fresh start when we learned that our wanted pregnancy was unhealthy. Brynn literally embodies the ever changing flow of the future, because she could not exist in an alternate universe in which I would have carried that first pregnancy to term. She was conceived while I would still have been pregnant with a child we had begun to imagine, but who never came to be.



My husband and I felt very clear that carrying forward that pregnancy would have been a violation of our values, and neither of us ever second guessed our decision. Even so, I grieved. Even when I got pregnant again a few months later, I remember feeling petulant and thinking, I want that baby, not this one. And then Brynn came out into the world and I looked into her eyes, and I fell in love and never looked back.



All around us, living breathing and loving are the chosen children of mothers who waited—who ended an ill-timed or unhealthy pregnancy and then later chose to carry forward a new life. “I was only going to have two children,” my friend, Jane said as her daughters raced, screeching joyfully, across my lawn. Jane followed them with her eyes. “My abortions let me have these two when the time was right, with someone I loved.”



Those who see abortion as an unmitigated evil often talk about the “millions of missing people” who were not born into this world because a pregnant woman decided, not now. But they never talk about the millions of children and adults who are here today only because their mothers had abortions—real people who exist in this version of the future, people who are living out their lives all around us–loving and laughing and suffering and struggling and dancing and dreaming, and having babies of their own.



When those who oppose abortion lament the “missing people,” I hear an echo of my own petulant thought: I want that person, not this one. And I wish that they could simply experience what I did, that they could look into the beautiful eyes of the people in front of them, and fall in love.




Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington and the founder of Wisdom Commons [24]. She is the author of "Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light" and "Deas and Other Imaginings." Her articles can be found at Awaypoint.Wordpress.com.
Share on Facebook Share
Share on Twitter Tweet
Report typos and corrections to '[e-mail]'. [25]

[AJL]

I agree.

[heyjude]

Yes!!

[pixy0stix]

I struggle with saying that I am pro-abortion, yet I agree with every point in the article.

[asdfjkl]

I actually very much dislike articles like this one.  First of all, she has not established that she is pro-abortion.  Each of her examples is a demonstration of why the CHOICE is important.  It is not a pronouncement that she wants that person or a class of persons to have an abortion.  

The second reason is that the defense that prochoice people offer when they say they are not "pro-abortion" is a defense that is important to the credibility of the pro-choice side.  Pro-lifers rhetorically paint people who are pro-choice as having abortion as the default position.  So, being not really pro-choice at all, or being pro-choose-abortion.  The strength of the pro-choice side is that it allows for the complexity, disparity, individuality of unique human experiences.  The only way in practice to allow for that individuality is to allow for choice - some will choose motherhood, some will not.  Being pro-abortion as it is used by pro-lifers suggests that prochoice individuals believe a choice of motherhood is a lesser or inferior or even unfeminist choice.  Not true.  She can wish "pro-abortion" didn't mean this, but then her article should really be "let's redefine what it means to be pro-abortion." 

 And the third reason I don't like articles like this one (or actually this specific one) is because her poetic description of morality is grossly incomplete and actually hurts the position of women in this debate.  One of the fundamental principles that demands women have choice is the argument that we are fully formed moral agents.  Not just "sentient beings."  A fully formed moral agent is capable of recognizing a morally dilemmatic scenario, sorting through its complexity, and reaching a conclusion that preserves moral integrity, OR alternatively, being a strong enough person to live with moral mistake.  Morality is not merely whatever is the preference of the more intellectually or physically formed agent.  That's a dangerous line of reasoning.  One of the best arguments women can make in response to the moral objections to abortion is that our lady brains can handle that shit; not that it doesn't exist.  

[omgzombies]

I also agree with her points, and I also struggle with saying I am pro-abortion, despite previously volunteering at a clinic on the regular. I feel it's disingenuous to say I'm pro-abortion, when I'm all about limiting the number of abortions out there, if for no other reason than both the pill and the procedure come with some small amount of risk. I want better sex education, better access to birth control for men as well as women, more help for those who decide they want to carry to term. I feel this way about most medical procedures, I wouldn't say I'm pro-c-section or pro heart surgery either, they are fabulous, and can absolutely save lives, but they carry risk, if you can find a way to avoid them, and reduce the number of them, go for it!

Basically saying I'm pro-something, to me denotes that I think the item is good for everyone to have, not just to have access to. It's semantics, but for me, an important difference.

[simpsongal]

May 5, 2015 11:58:03 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I struggle with saying that I am pro-abortion, yet I agree with every point in the article.

This.  I'm a practicing Baptist.  I started out firmly anti abortion.  I've slowly and hesitantly moved over to pro choice, but with a dash of hoping social programs and adoption can prevent abortion.  If I'm being honest with myself, most of the points in that thought provoking article coupled with my personal experience as a parent have further solidified my pro choice stance.  I used to hope adoption was the replacement for abortion, just like certain old white guys argue that abstinence is the solution for unwanted pregnancies.  As I've grown up, I think I've gained more compassion for the hopelessly flawed human condition the complexity underlying so many difficulties in life (I'm sure I don't completely understand the latter, but I understand life is fraught with complexities and advice like Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No Campaign" are BS).

There was a question a while back on MM Moms asking if being a parent had impacted your view on abortion.  I remember someone saying that becoming a parent made them *more* pro choice.  As seemingly unexpected response.  I know there's a disdain for personal experience informing empathy, but I admit I'm in the same boat re: abortion.  Parenting is so unbelievably life changing and demanding, no one should ever go into it lightly or simply because of a mistake/accident/slip/etc. 

Thank you for posting this.

[downtoearth]

May 5, 2015 12:00:24 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

...

The second reason is that the defense that prochoice people offer when they say they are not "pro-abortion" is a defense that is important to the credibility of the pro-choice side.  Pro-lifers rhetorically paint people who are pro-choice as having abortion as the default position.  So, being not really pro-choice at all, or being pro-choose-abortion.  The strength of the pro-choice side is that it allows for the complexity, disparity, individuality of unique human experiences.  The only way in practice to allow for that individuality is to allow for choice - some will choose motherhood, some will not.  Being pro-abortion as it is used by pro-lifers suggests that prochoice individuals believe a choice of motherhood is a lesser or inferior or even unfeminist choice.  Not true.  She can wish "pro-abortion" didn't mean this, but then her article should really be "let's redefine what it means to be pro-abortion." 

...

I think you are giving WAY too much credit to the pro-life side wit the bolded. Being pro-abortion = feminist, sure I agree that the connotation or association is there. But I think more so that for pro-life activists that framing someone as pro-abortion is that they are a killer of babies, not unfeminist or that being a mother is lesser, but a person who is okay killing babies.  

We're not going to redefine the word by assuming pro-life activists feel pushed out by feminism by using the work pro-choice/pro-abortino, we're going to redefine pro-abortion as claiming for ourselves and not being ashamed of it. I'm pro-abortion.  I think abortions should be as easily obtainable as Plan B and should be used as birth control without shame or guilt or legal hoops. If someone chooses Plan B or abortion as their form of birth control, they are fine by me.  They know the risks of a procedure, but it's not like hormonal BC doesn't also come with drawbacks and risks. 

[ringstrue]

I didn't read the whole darn thing, but I think her main/first point is that we have this guilt we lay upon the abortion that we, society-wise, have to remove. So say there were a thing such as pro-heart surgery - maybe we'd be pro-heart surgery? People aren't getting yelled at walking into a hospital to go get heart surgery done. It isn't common place to "hide" from your friends and family that you had heart surgery. But there IS a lot of backing a person often times gets when they tell family and friends that they have to go get heart surgery. Maybe neighbors bring a casserole over after someone has heart surgery. There are ways we support the person involved, and so support the decision. Definitely, little to no one asks if the heart surgery was *really* necessary or if there was some way they could just live without heart surgery for the sole purpose of making everyone else feel better. So I get her point. But I agree that really she's trying to "take back" the term pro-abortion and redefine it.

[heyjude]

The only reason this article exists at all is to counter the Democratic position that abortions should be "safe, legal, and rare." Which in itself was just a classic Clinton triangulation of the abortion issue to win an election during an era of culture wars. At the time Rs liked to accuse Ds of hating babies and such. This line was a way for Ds to maintain their pro choice bona fides and also say "but not too much choice." Playing both fields and all that.

The problem with "safe legal and rare" is that it implies that there is something wrong with abortions. From the perspective of a medical procedure, maybe it should be rare, because there is a medical "problem" and it needs "fixing",just like we should limit open heart surgeries and the like, because of a "problem." But unlike other medical procedures, abortions are also incredibly political. Forces on the right are actively trying, by all means possible, from the political to the terroristic, to prevent a woman from having one at all. And they will not stop until abortions are flat out illegal for all at all times. Calling for "rare" abortions just plays into the hand of these forces. Meanwhile no one is preventing anyone from having heart surgeries, appendectomies, or knee replacements (except for maybe your evil insurance company, but that's another matter).

It's very helpful that women like the OP come forward and say that abortions are not wrong because that's the political environment we live in. A woman's ability to choose her destiny is under assault and this message is necessary. When we reach a point where abortions are just like heart procedures, then we can talk about rarity. Until then, rarity is a red herring designed to win votes and the OP's message will continue to be needed to counter it.

[ESF]

May 5, 2015 11:58:03 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I struggle with saying that I am pro-abortion, yet I agree with every point in the article.

Yeah.

It's just imprecise for me.  Sure, I'm pro-knee replacement surgery if you need it.  But nobody starts out thinking "I want a knee replacement surgery."  There's an unwanted condition or event that precedes it.  It's great that that knee replacement surgery is available to treat that condition. The procedure is not shameful, it's a procedure to treat an unfortunate condition.

But if physical therapy is also an option, then I'm not "pro-knee replacement surgery."  I am "it's great you have several options available to you to treat your condition and you and your doctor can decide which one is best."

[Deleted]

IDK. I feel like being pro-abortion indicates that you think other people should have abortions. And I think that's a slippery slope. I think people who get pregnant and want to keep their children, should. Otherwise it would be too easy to say that a mother on welfare with 2 other kids should just have an abortion. I don't think that's my choice to make or my place to judge really.

But, I do think abortion is a wonderful option. It made a huge, positive difference in my own life. I prefer to prevent pregnancy in the future, but if my BC failed or I failed to protect myself properly, I'd have an abortion again. I'm pro-birth control I guess but with the recognition that sometimes shit happens anyway and abortion is a great option when it does.

I am very much anti- forcing a woman to become a mother (or birthmother) if that's not what's right for her. And I'm anti-guilt when it comes to making that choice too. I wish abortion wasn't so frequently discussed as a "difficult decision" or as something that haunts a woman for the rest of her life. But despite being very positive about abortion I just feel like saying I'm "pro" abortion doesn't quite fit.

[FloFTW]

May 5, 2015 12:45:43 GMT -5 heyjude said:

The only reason this article exists at all is to counter the Democratic position that abortions should be "safe, legal, and rare." Which in itself was just a classic Clinton triangulation of the abortion issue to win an election during an era of culture wars. At the time Rs liked to accuse Ds of hating babies and such. This line was a way for Ds to maintain their pro choice bona fides and also say "but not too much choice." Playing both fields and all that.

The problem with "safe legal and rare" is that it implies that there is something wrong with abortions. From the perspective of a medical procedure, maybe it should be rare, just like we should limit open heart surgeries and the like. But unlike other medical procedures, abortions are also incredibly political. Forces on the right are actively trying, by all means possible, from the political to the terroristic, to prevent a woman from having one at all. And they will not stop until abortions are flat out illegal for all at all times. Calling for "rare" abortions just plays into the hand of these forces. Meanwhile no one is preventing anyone from having heart surgeries, appendectomies, or knee replacements (except for maybe your evil insurance company, but that's another matter).

It's very helpful that women like the OP come forward and say that abortions are not wrong because that's the political environment we live in. A woman's ability to choose her destiny is under assault and this message is necessary. When we reach a point where abortions are just like heart procedures, then we can talk about rarity. Until then, rarity is a red herring designed to win votes and the OP's message will continue to be needed to counter it.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

I feel like we often have this discussion on this board. Or at least a very similar one where we talk about how women that have abortions should talk about them how they really feel about them - NOT ashamed. NO regrets. Happy about them.

Not everyone thinks of abortion as something terrible and sad...and that's just ONE of the reasons why we shouldn't legislate a woman's choice. There are many reasons why we shouldn't make abortion illegal. This is one that doesn't get talked about much, and I think it's because of this paternalistic shame that is put on women that have abortions.

[asdfjkl]

May 5, 2015 12:31:11 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

May 5, 2015 12:00:24 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

...

The second reason is that the defense that prochoice people offer when they say they are not "pro-abortion" is a defense that is important to the credibility of the pro-choice side.  Pro-lifers rhetorically paint people who are pro-choice as having abortion as the default position.  So, being not really pro-choice at all, or being pro-choose-abortion.  The strength of the pro-choice side is that it allows for the complexity, disparity, individuality of unique human experiences.  The only way in practice to allow for that individuality is to allow for choice - some will choose motherhood, some will not.  Being pro-abortion as it is used by pro-lifers suggests that prochoice individuals believe a choice of motherhood is a lesser or inferior or even unfeminist choice.  Not true.  She can wish "pro-abortion" didn't mean this, but then her article should really be "let's redefine what it means to be pro-abortion." 

...

I think you are giving WAY too much credit to the pro-life side wit the bolded. Being pro-abortion = feminist, sure I agree that the connotation or association is there. But I think more so that for pro-life activists that framing someone as pro-abortion is that they are a killer of babies, not unfeminist or that being a mother is lesser, but a person who is okay killing babies.  

We're not going to redefine the word by assuming pro-life activists feel pushed out by feminism by using the work pro-choice/pro-abortino, we're going to redefine pro-abortion as claiming for ourselves and not being ashamed of it. I'm pro-abortion.  I think abortions should be as easily obtainable as Plan B and should be used as birth control without shame or guilt or legal hoops. If someone chooses Plan B or abortion as their form of birth control, they are fine by me.  They know the risks of a procedure, but it's not like hormonal BC doesn't also come with drawbacks and risks. 

I don't think we actually disagree on your first point.  I think pro-lifers use the term pro-abortion and they use it in a neener-neener way to suggest that pro-choice women are ultra-liberal baby-killing feminist who abhor motherhood and think abortion is a perfectly good situation for just any old woman who finds herself pregnant.  I think it's very important that it's a phrase already in use.  If this author wants to change the meaning of that word, she needs to announce that as her project; not say she's pro-abortion and then go on to explain why choice is important, which is what she has done.  

I disagree with your second paragraph.  You have to change the meaning of the phrase before you can say, "I'm pro-abortion because I want people to be able to choose abortion."  That's not what that phrase means.  This is just the inverse of the folks who say they're "personally pro-life."  Okay, then, you're prochoice.  At least until you change the meaning of pro-life.  I wouldn't get so bent out of shape about semantics (is it a coup or a sports care?  I really don't give a shit).  But in the context of abortion, these words are really, really important.  They have established meanings - even though those meanings may need to be readjusted or revisited or reexamined.  There's not a whole lot of room here for people to play around.  Painting pro-choice people as "pro-abortion" has been an effective tool of the pro-life crowd.  Articles from pro-choice individuals appearing to agree with this depiction hurt the cause.  

I also disagree that abortion "should" be used as birth control without shame or guilt.  I think it should be widely available, accessible, safe, and legal as a method of giving a woman reproductive autonomy.  That's a legal issue.  If you are using it as "birth control", I would say you are deeply morally flawed.  

[heyjude]

No one is using abortion as birth control, at least not in any statistically significant way. That's another right wing lie designed to inflame. Like "welfare queen" or "election fraud." It just doesn't exist.

[FloFTW]

May 5, 2015 13:02:01 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

May 5, 2015 12:31:11 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

I think you are giving WAY too much credit to the pro-life side wit the bolded. Being pro-abortion = feminist, sure I agree that the connotation or association is there. But I think more so that for pro-life activists that framing someone as pro-abortion is that they are a killer of babies, not unfeminist or that being a mother is lesser, but a person who is okay killing babies.  

We're not going to redefine the word by assuming pro-life activists feel pushed out by feminism by using the work pro-choice/pro-abortino, we're going to redefine pro-abortion as claiming for ourselves and not being ashamed of it. I'm pro-abortion.  I think abortions should be as easily obtainable as Plan B and should be used as birth control without shame or guilt or legal hoops. If someone chooses Plan B or abortion as their form of birth control, they are fine by me.  They know the risks of a procedure, but it's not like hormonal BC doesn't also come with drawbacks and risks. 

I also disagree that abortion "should" be used as birth control without shame or guilt.  I think it should be widely available, accessible, safe, and legal as a method of giving a woman reproductive autonomy.  That's a legal issue.  If you are using it as "birth control", I would say you are deeply morally flawed.  

What do you mean by as "Birth control"? If you are not ashamed or feel guilty about an abortion you are deeply morally flawed?

[downtoearth]

May 5, 2015 13:02:01 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

May 5, 2015 12:31:11 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

I don't think we actually disagree on your first point.  I think pro-lifers use the term pro-abortion and they use it in a neener-neener way to suggest that pro-choice women are ultra-liberal baby-killing feminist who abhor motherhood and think abortion is a perfectly good situation for just any old woman who finds herself pregnant.  I think it's very important that it's a phrase already in use.  If this author wants to change the meaning of that word, she needs to announce that as her project; not say she's pro-abortion and then go on to explain why choice is important, which is what she has done.  

I disagree with your second paragraph.  You have to change the meaning of the phrase before you can say, "I'm pro-abortion because I want people to be able to choose abortion."  That's not what that phrase means.  This is just the inverse of the folks who say they're "personally pro-life."  Okay, then, you're prochoice.  At least until you change the meaning of pro-life.  I wouldn't get so bent out of shape about semantics (is it a coup or a sports care?  I really don't give a shit).  But in the context of abortion, these words are really, really important.  They have established meanings - even though those meanings may need to be readjusted or revisited or reexamined.  There's not a whole lot of room here for people to play around.  Painting pro-choice people as "pro-abortion" has been an effective tool of the pro-life crowd.  Articles from pro-choice individuals appearing to agree with this depiction hurt the cause.  

I also disagree that abortion "should" be used as birth control without shame or guilt.  I think it should be widely available, accessible, safe, and legal as a method of giving a woman reproductive autonomy.  That's a legal issue.  If you are using it as "birth control", I would say you are deeply morally flawed.  

Yes, we are both mixing the connotation with the words pro-abortion and trying to understand why someone would use it as an insult - be it a jib at feminism or baby killers or motherhood. 

But I will disagree on abortion as birth control, which if fine b/c there are variations of pro-choice, so I see no problem in disagreeing.  I just need it to be legal and the courts to agree, so if a woman goes to her doctor and asks to use it as birth control, that her doctor will explain the implications and risks and let her make that choice without telling her that she is "deeply morally flawed." 

heyjude, I think the "as birth control" is overused by the pro-lifers.  Technically it's a form or way to control NOT giving birth, but you're right that it's not widely used as such, but my point is we, the public, don't really get a say in how it's used by individuals and their doctors.

[asdfjkl]

May 5, 2015 13:05:52 GMT -5 heyjude said:

No one is using abortion as birth control, at least not in any statistically significant way. That's another right wing lie designed to inflame. Like "welfare queen" or "election fraud." It just doesn't exist.

I agree with this.  Abortion is expensive and difficult to access.  And you're also right that the abortion-as-birth-control-myth is a right-wing tool used to inflame.  However, I think we pour fuel on that flame when we as pro-choicers say, "Well, but even though we're NOT using it as birth control, we should be able to, and it wouldn't be wrong if we were, and there's no qualitative moral difference between having 8 first trimester abortions and using hormonal birth control pills."  I think those situations are different and women gain credibility in acknowledging that that is so.

So we get back to the starting point.  We should be rejecting these invitations: to call ourselves pro-abortion, to pretend there's no moral element in abortion; to suggest that abortion is just like birth control; to suggest that moral duties can be tiered according to intellectual, cognitive, or physical development.  We should RSVP no to that invite.

[downtoearth]

May 5, 2015 13:12:41 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

May 5, 2015 13:05:52 GMT -5 heyjude said:

No one is using abortion as birth control, at least not in any statistically significant way. That's another right wing lie designed to inflame. Like "welfare queen" or "election fraud." It just doesn't exist.

I agree with this.  Abortion is expensive and difficult to access.  And you're also right that the abortion-as-birth-control-myth is a right-wing tool used to inflame.  However, I think we pour fuel on that flame when we as pro-choicers say, "Well, but even though we're NOT using it as birth control, we should be able to, and it wouldn't be wrong if we were, and there's no qualitative moral difference between having 8 first trimester abortions and using hormonal birth control pills."  I think those situations are different and women gain credibility in acknowledging that that is so.

So we get back to the starting point.  We should be rejecting these invitations: to call ourselves pro-abortion, to pretend there's no moral element in abortion; to suggest that abortion is just like birth control; to suggest that moral duties can be tiered according to intellectual, cognitive, or physical development.  We should RSVP no to that invite.

You're the one who was all about semantics... abortion gives you control over not giving birth, it is a birth control. How is it not if it's just semantics? 

ETA: editec

[tacosforlife]

May 5, 2015 12:45:54 GMT -5 ESF said:

May 5, 2015 11:58:03 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I struggle with saying that I am pro-abortion, yet I agree with every point in the article.

Yeah.

It's just imprecise for me.  Sure, I'm pro-knee replacement surgery if you need it.  But nobody starts out thinking "I want a knee replacement surgery."  There's an unwanted condition or event that precedes it.  It's great that that knee replacement surgery is available to treat that condition. The procedure is not shameful, it's a procedure to treat an unfortunate condition.

But if physical therapy is also an option, then I'm not "pro-knee replacement surgery."  I am "it's great you have several options available to you to treat your condition and you and your doctor can decide which one is best."

As always, well-said.

To use the chemotherapy example, I am "pro-chemotherapy" in the sense that if someone gets cancer, I am glad she has the option of undergoing chemo to treat it. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer if we could figure out the causes of cancer and prevent it before it starts, meaning nobody would need chemo. Same with pregnancy - I would prefer that we improve the effectiveness of and access to contraceptive methods so that abortions are not as necessary. And not even because of some moral qualm, but because, as another poster mentioned, there are risks that go along with abortion. It seems that things would be simpler if we prevent the situation in the first place.

The other problem is that when contrasted to "pro-life," "pro-abortion" can sound like it means you want to push abortions on everyone. I don't. I want each pregnant woman to make the CHOICE that is right for her. I am glad the technology to perform the procedure exists, but I don't want to convince anyone to have an abortion who doesn't want to have one. But "pro-life" advocates do want to convince everyone not to have an abortion. So using "pro-abortion" in competition with "pro-life" can be misleading about what the position is. And yes, we can say that they should be called "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life," but that semantic ship has sailed.

So given all that, I really prefer the term "pro-choice" even if I agree with all her actual points.

[asdfjkl]

May 5, 2015 13:05:58 GMT -5 FloFTW said:

May 5, 2015 13:02:01 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

I also disagree that abortion "should" be used as birth control without shame or guilt.  I think it should be widely available, accessible, safe, and legal as a method of giving a woman reproductive autonomy.  That's a legal issue.  If you are using it as "birth control", I would say you are deeply morally flawed.  

What do you mean by as "Birth control"? If you are not ashamed or feel guilty about an abortion you are deeply morally flawed?

Birth control is a way to prevent pregnancy.  Abortion is not.  Abortion is a way to end a pregnancy.  They are different right from the get-go.  I do not think it is a small matter that abortion ends an existent life.  It ends a trajectory of potential.  It is no small undertaking.  The legal analysis of whether abortion should be legal, accessible, obtainable - that's the easy part of the argument.  The OP article affirmatively raised the issue of morality and that is what I'm responding to.   The morality of abortion is quite another matter from whether it should be legal.  Because I believe women are fully formed moral agents, I believe women are capable of making good moral decisions and living with bad ones.  Sometimes abortion is immoral.  Using it as birth control (e.g. repeatedly and in place of actual birth control) is morally wrong.  

[asdfjkl]

May 5, 2015 13:16:54 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

May 5, 2015 13:12:41 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

I agree with this.  Abortion is expensive and difficult to access.  And you're also right that the abortion-as-birth-control-myth is a right-wing tool used to inflame.  However, I think we pour fuel on that flame when we as pro-choicers say, "Well, but even though we're NOT using it as birth control, we should be able to, and it wouldn't be wrong if we were, and there's no qualitative moral difference between having 8 first trimester abortions and using hormonal birth control pills."  I think those situations are different and women gain credibility in acknowledging that that is so.

So we get back to the starting point.  We should be rejecting these invitations: to call ourselves pro-abortion, to pretend there's no moral element in abortion; to suggest that abortion is just like birth control; to suggest that moral duties can be tiered according to intellectual, cognitive, or physical development.  We should RSVP no to that invite.

You're the one who was all about semantics... abortion gives you control over not giving birth, it is a birth control. How is it not if it's just semantics? 

ETA: editec

Birth control prevents pregnant.  Abortion ends pregnancy.  They are not the same thing.

ETA:  I want to be clear that the only reason I'm even talking about the morality of abortion (which I see as entirely irrelevant to the question of legality of abortion) is because the OP article raised it as an issue.  Morality requires the needs of "sentient beings" to prevail.  That's a bad definition.  Also, abortion does implicate morality and I have no interest in pretending it does not.  

[MarmeeNoir]

Who among us hasn’t had unprotected sex when the time or situation or partnership wasn’t quite right for bringing a new life into the world? Most of the time we get lucky; sometimes we don’t. And in those situations we rely on the mercy, compassion, and generosity of others.

Umm, me. That's more about STD's than pregnancy prevention. This still kinda pisses me off.

[heyjude]

We are getting stuck on a tree and not looking at the forest (that the right is trying to burn the fuck down as we muse over this glorious sequoia).

She's not trying to say we should rename the pro choice movement to the pro abortion movement. She's responding to a political environment that is outright hostile to abortions.

And it's NOT like chemo. No one is trying to prevent anyone from having chemo, shooting up or closing infusion centers and murdering oncologists. No has to face a protest when getting chemo. No state legislature is making you view the corpse of cancer patient or forcing you hear lies abut chemo before getting chemo. SCOTUS is not one seat away from banning chemo, and no presidential candidate is campaigning on an anti chemo platform.

Stop comparing abortions to other medical treatments. Because yes, it's a medical procedure, but the similarity ends there.

[ESF]

May 5, 2015 12:45:43 GMT -5 heyjude said:

The only reason this article exists at all is to counter the Democratic position that abortions should be "safe, legal, and rare." Which in itself was just a classic Clinton triangulation of the abortion issue to win an election during an era of culture wars. At the time Rs liked to accuse Ds of hating babies and such. This line was a way for Ds to maintain their pro choice bona fides and also say "but not too much choice." Playing both fields and all that.

The problem with "safe legal and rare" is that it implies that there is something wrong with abortions. From the perspective of a medical procedure, maybe it should be rare, because there is a medical "problem" and it needs "fixing",just like we should limit open heart surgeries and the like, because of a "problem." But unlike other medical procedures, abortions are also incredibly political. Forces on the right are actively trying, by all means possible, from the political to the terroristic, to prevent a woman from having one at all. And they will not stop until abortions are flat out illegal for all at all times. Calling for "rare" abortions just plays into the hand of these forces. Meanwhile no one is preventing anyone from having heart surgeries, appendectomies, or knee replacements (except for maybe your evil insurance company, but that's another matter).

It's very helpful that women like the OP come forward and say that abortions are not wrong because that's the political environment we live in. A woman's ability to choose her destiny is under assault and this message is necessary. When we reach a point where abortions are just like heart procedures, then we can talk about rarity. Until then, rarity is a red herring designed to win votes and the OP's message will continue to be needed to counter it.

It's not that there's something wrong with abortion. But there's something wrong with our society when abortion is not rare.   It means we've failed to provide them enough good, reliable, affordable, and easy to use birth control options. We haven't done enough sex ed.  We haven't instilled in them the confidence to turn down sex. We don't take rape seriously.  We haven't provided adequate prenatal care. We haven't provided enough resources to new mothers, in terms of family leave, health insurance, good jobs, job protection, etc.

Prevention is better than the cure and all that.

Reducing abortions should be a goal, not because abortion is bad but because needing lots of them means that America has in some way failed these women.   It should not be through waiting periods and other "pro-life" bullshit.  It should be through the kinds of policies that actually promote meaningful choices and the ability to control your reproductive health.

[tacosforlife]

May 5, 2015 13:28:59 GMT -5 heyjude said:

We are getting stuck on a tree and not looking at the forest (that the right is trying to burn the fuck down as we muse over this glorious sequoia).

She's not trying to say we should rename the pro choice movement to the pro abortion movement. She's responding to a political environment that is outright hostile to abortions.

And it's NOT like chemo. No one is trying to prevent anyone from having chemo, shooting up or closing infusion centers and murdering oncologists. No has to face a protest when getting chemo. No state legislature is making you view the corpse of cancer patient or forcing you hear lies abut chemo before getting chemo. SCOTUS is not one seat away from banning chemo, and no presidential candidate is campaigning on an anti chemo platform.

Stop comparing abortions to other medical treatments. Because yes, it's a medical procedure, but the similarity ends there.

I am pro-abortion like I’m pro-knee-replacement and pro-chemotherapy and pro-cataract surgery.

That is why people are making the analogy. It's at the very beginning of her piece.

[asdfjkl]

May 5, 2015 13:28:59 GMT -5 heyjude said:

We are getting stuck on a tree and not looking at the forest (that the right is trying to burn the fuck down as we muse over this glorious sequoia).

She's not trying to say we should rename the pro choice movement to the pro abortion movement. She's responding to a political environment that is outright hostile to abortions.

And it's NOT like chemo. No one is trying to prevent anyone from having chemo, shooting up or closing infusion centers and murdering oncologists. No has to face a protest when getting chemo. No state legislature is making you view the corpse of cancer patient or forcing you hear lies abut chemo before getting chemo. SCOTUS is not one seat away from banning chemo, and no presidential candidate is campaigning on an anti chemo platform.

Stop comparing abortions to other medical treatments. Because yes, it's a medical procedure, but the similarity ends there.

Agree.  I think these kinds of articles move the conversation away from issues that matter.  Like whether abortion should be legal and accessible.  All of her arguments support that thesis.  But they don't support the thesis that we should all just be "pro-abortion" or even that she is.

[asdfjkl]

May 5, 2015 13:32:21 GMT -5 ESF said:

May 5, 2015 12:45:43 GMT -5 heyjude said:

The only reason this article exists at all is to counter the Democratic position that abortions should be "safe, legal, and rare." Which in itself was just a classic Clinton triangulation of the abortion issue to win an election during an era of culture wars. At the time Rs liked to accuse Ds of hating babies and such. This line was a way for Ds to maintain their pro choice bona fides and also say "but not too much choice." Playing both fields and all that.

The problem with "safe legal and rare" is that it implies that there is something wrong with abortions. From the perspective of a medical procedure, maybe it should be rare, because there is a medical "problem" and it needs "fixing",just like we should limit open heart surgeries and the like, because of a "problem." But unlike other medical procedures, abortions are also incredibly political. Forces on the right are actively trying, by all means possible, from the political to the terroristic, to prevent a woman from having one at all. And they will not stop until abortions are flat out illegal for all at all times. Calling for "rare" abortions just plays into the hand of these forces. Meanwhile no one is preventing anyone from having heart surgeries, appendectomies, or knee replacements (except for maybe your evil insurance company, but that's another matter).

It's very helpful that women like the OP come forward and say that abortions are not wrong because that's the political environment we live in. A woman's ability to choose her destiny is under assault and this message is necessary. When we reach a point where abortions are just like heart procedures, then we can talk about rarity. Until then, rarity is a red herring designed to win votes and the OP's message will continue to be needed to counter it.

It's not that there's something wrong with abortion. But there's something wrong with our society when abortion is not rare.   It means we've failed to provide them enough good, reliable, affordable, and easy to use birth control options. We haven't done enough sex ed.  We haven't instilled in them the confidence to turn down sex. We don't take rape seriously.  We haven't provided adequate prenatal care. We haven't provided enough resources to new mothers, in terms of family leave, health insurance, good jobs, job protection, etc.

Prevention is better than the cure and all that.

Reducing abortions should be a goal, not because abortion is bad but because needing lots of them means that America has in some way failed these women.   It should not be through waiting periods and other "pro-life" bullshit.  It should be through the kinds of policies that actually promote meaningful choices and the ability to control your reproductive health.

A million times yes.  I don't see the "Safe legal and rare" thing as a view that women should rarely choose abortion.  I see it as a hope (and a worthy one) that we should live in a society where women are rarely confronted with that choice.  We can accomplish that with [insert 5000 different social reforms] that would reduce the incidence of abortion because it reduced the incidence of unintended pregnancy.  

[kadams767]

May 5, 2015 13:02:01 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

May 5, 2015 12:31:11 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

I think you are giving WAY too much credit to the pro-life side wit the bolded. Being pro-abortion = feminist, sure I agree that the connotation or association is there. But I think more so that for pro-life activists that framing someone as pro-abortion is that they are a killer of babies, not unfeminist or that being a mother is lesser, but a person who is okay killing babies.  

We're not going to redefine the word by assuming pro-life activists feel pushed out by feminism by using the work pro-choice/pro-abortino, we're going to redefine pro-abortion as claiming for ourselves and not being ashamed of it. I'm pro-abortion.  I think abortions should be as easily obtainable as Plan B and should be used as birth control without shame or guilt or legal hoops. If someone chooses Plan B or abortion as their form of birth control, they are fine by me.  They know the risks of a procedure, but it's not like hormonal BC doesn't also come with drawbacks and risks. 

I don't think we actually disagree on your first point.  I think pro-lifers use the term pro-abortion and they use it in a neener-neener way to suggest that pro-choice women are ultra-liberal baby-killing feminist who abhor motherhood and think abortion is a perfectly good situation for just any old woman who finds herself pregnant.  I think it's very important that it's a phrase already in use.  If this author wants to change the meaning of that word, she needs to announce that as her project; not say she's pro-abortion and then go on to explain why choice is important, which is what she has done.  

I disagree with your second paragraph.  You have to change the meaning of the phrase before you can say, "I'm pro-abortion because I want people to be able to choose abortion."  That's not what that phrase means.  This is just the inverse of the folks who say they're "personally pro-life."  Okay, then, you're prochoice.  At least until you change the meaning of pro-life.  I wouldn't get so bent out of shape about semantics (is it a coup or a sports care?  I really don't give a shit).  But in the context of abortion, these words are really, really important.  They have established meanings - even though those meanings may need to be readjusted or revisited or reexamined.  There's not a whole lot of room here for people to play around.  Painting pro-choice people as "pro-abortion" has been an effective tool of the pro-life crowd.  Articles from pro-choice individuals appearing to agree with this depiction hurt the cause.  

I also disagree that abortion "should" be used as birth control without shame or guilt.  I think it should be widely available, accessible, safe, and legal as a method of giving a woman reproductive autonomy.  That's a legal issue.  If you are using it as "birth control", I would say you are deeply morally flawed.  

But for people who would label themselves "pro-abortion", the bolded is total BS.  That's nice that you see abortion as a moral issue.  Let me be the first in this thread to say that I don't.  I will also own to being pro-abortion.  I am certainly all for every woman being able to make an individual choice, whatever it may be, but like it or not, there are a lot of circumstances in which abortion would be the best choice.  The stigma, the religious tenets and the morality arguments continue to bring unwanted children into the world to parents that are unable or unwilling to provide care for them.  Abortion does not need to be rare, shamed or vilified in any circumstance.   

[kristie]

The political environment is always going to be hostile to abortions. The other side thinks it's murder (well some do, for others it's about punishing women for being sexually active). To go around saying we actually are pro abortion only deepens the divide.

I do want them to be rare. I have no moral issues with abortion, but I do think it's important to minimize invasive medical procedures for anyone. I live in East Tennessee and was raised church of God, I was once prolife myself. So by saying I am not pro abortion I have a way to continue the conversation, even though my views have changed. I am swimming in a sea of red down here, rhetoric matters.