The DCCC throws women under the bus

[Guinevere]

OFFS.

Not one human being I know wants abortion or likes abortion, and the anti-choicers who claim the opposite is true are full of shit. Women have the right to exercise autonomy over their own bodies. Period. Full stop. That autonomy is limited only by the contours of the Roe and Casey decisions. Plus, a woman's own choice, her morality, and her consequences.

I know plenty of women who are as hurt by having a child from an unplanned pregnancy and then giving it up for adoption, as those who have had an abortion and regret it. And lets not overlook the legions of women who were coerced into keeping their child, and suffering the consequences of poor health, or poor economic outcomes, because its just about the most difficult thing in the world to be a single mother (even when you have some resources at your disposal, but especially when you do not). We should support all of those women, equally, and without judgment.

What we need are policies that educate men and women about sex and birth control, without coyness and without moral judgment. We need to make any reasonably medically effective type of birth control accessible and covered by insurance. Then, we need to allow women to exercise their bodily autonomy in whatever way that works best for them, without judgment or coercion. Then we need policies that support that exercise of autonomy, whatever it is, i.e., medical services or adoption services or child care services, and more.

Feel free to characterize what I've written as "maximalist abortion on demand," but I believe its far more nuanced than that.

[Guinevere]

I'm with BSG: the answer to the polar views is to pursue policies that (1) reduce unwanted pregnancies and (2) encourage women to carry the pregnancy to full term. Any other policies that conflict with these are always of lesser importance than the overriding goal of reducing abortions; for example, one can make reasonable health policy arguments about whether the plans should cover birth control, or whether pregnancy should be excluded, but these pale in comparison to the national goal of reducing abortions.

If you seriously believe there are legitimate arguments to make about whether birth control and pregnancy should be covered by health insurance, you are a huge part of the problem.

[Jarlaxle]

I'm with BSG: the answer to the polar views is to pursue policies that (1) reduce unwanted pregnancies and (2) encourage women to carry the pregnancy to full term. Any other policies that conflict with these are always of lesser importance than the overriding goal of reducing abortions; for example, one can make reasonable health policy arguments about whether the plans should cover birth control, or whether pregnancy should be excluded, but these pale in comparison to the national goal of reducing abortions.

Contraceptives in the water supply.

[Lord Jim]

Not one human being I know wants abortion or likes abortion, and the anti-choicers who claim the opposite is true are full of shit.

I don't personally know any maximalist pro-lifers who espouse the view that people on the other side "want" or "like" abortion, but if there are such people, (and as I've said before, in a nation of 330 million people, you're likely to find folks who take every position on every issue, and believe any damn fool thing) let me join you in condemning that belief...


I don't believe that any rational, moral person "likes" abortion, no matter what their position on the issue is...

Feel free to characterize what I've written as "maximalist abortion on demand," but I believe its far more nuanced than that.

Women have the right to exercise autonomy over their own bodies. Period. Full stop.

Well, maybe I'm missing it, but "Period. Full stop." doesn't seem to indicate a whole lot of "nuance" to me; it would seem that characterizing your position as "maximalist abortion on demand," would be a fairly fair and accurate characterization...

Though you do add this caveat:

That autonomy is limited only by the contours of the Roe and Casey decisions.

Of course neither of those decisions guarantee a right to late third tri-mester abortions, so perhaps your position is more nuanced and less "Period. Full stop." then you've stated it... So perhaps there are some restrictions you are prepared to accept...

The fact is, my personal position on this issue, and your position are probably not all that far apart...(though the philosophical reasons for our positions are undoubtedly different.)

On the pro-choice/pro-life spectrum, (I don't like either the term "pro-life" or "pro-choice" in this context, but I use them just for the sake of convenience) I would probably be considered pretty far down towards the "pro-choice" end of the spectrum...

I believe that abortion should be legal and available in most circumstances...(with the possible exception of the afore mentioned third trimester abortions) and I'm opposed to the efforts by some state legislators to create "back door" de facto abortion bans through draconian laws that would make accessibility to abortion nearly impossible...

But I confess that I am not entirely morally comfortable with this position, because unlike some people (I'm lookin' at you rube) I do not consider a human fetus to be the moral equivalent of a cancerous tumor...

I've come to the position I take on this through pretty much the same reasoning process that has led me to the conclusion that currently illegal drugs should be legalized...

ie, making it illegal won't prevent it from happening, and in terms of the aggregate amount of human suffering, would only make the situation worse...

As I've said regarding the "War On Drugs" if it had been a stellar success, I'd probably be all for it...

If I believed that banning abortion would somehow stop abortions from happening, I could be persuaded to support that approach...

But I know it wont...

I'm not motivated in my views on that, (or a "War On Abortion") by some sort of highfalutin' libertarian principle about people having an absolute "right to exercise autonomy over their own bodies. Period. Full stop."...

My motivations are purely practical, and based entirely on the (well founded) belief that making abortion illegal (just like making drug usage illegal) will only make the situation worse...

So you and I are probably pretty close from a policy standpoint on this, (even though we may have come to these positions for entirely different reasons.)

All of that having been said, I have to say that what I have found most objectionable about your posting in this discussion is the implication ("mansplaining", "Probably because the question of choice doesn't involve the control of the bodies and the reproduction of most of those responding to this thread.") that my views are some how defined by gender...

As the polling data I posted here clearly shows, (and there are plenty of other polls showing similar results) there are millions of women in this country who hold far more restrictive attitudes about abortion than either you or I do...

The evidence does not support the idea that there's a huge dichotomy on this topic based on gender. (Perhaps you would like to believe that to be the case, but it's simply not supported by the available evidence)

Speaking for myself, my views on this issue are informed by practicality; not my gender.