Any organization supportive of utterly nonexistent propagandistic "syndromes" like the (gag) "post abortion stress syndrome"- a term pulled out of thin air, by no means a medical reality, is anything but neutral.

(See Exhale's blatherings on the mythical "PASS" here- http://www.4exhale.org/resources.htm).

As for the "conversation project", any group unwilling to let womyn self select terminology like "unintended" to describe THEIR OWN pregnancies, as stated in the CP's "conversation pieces"-
http://www.abortionconversation.com/conpiece.php is again about putting words in our mouths and silencing womyn's authentic experiences.

Or that makes a point of asking leading questions like "2."WHAT ABOUT ABORTION MAKES YOU UNCOMFORTABLE?" Which never allows for even the POSSIBILITY that one might NOT be "uncomfortable about abortion, well it's a leading question- hardly neutral.

Also note the lack of any 'fair and balanced' question concerning anything about abortion ever being positive.

It's not a 'neutral' space. Nor is it even a space affirming of womyn's own voices and the words they choose, instead telling womyn the language you use is wrong, and that there clearly by implications, must be parts about abortion that make you "uncomfortable" (again putting words in one's mouth.)

Furthermore, if "CP" wants womyn to avoid "battle bound language", then how in the heck to do they intend to address genuine aspects of what clinics and providers are going through? When providers are being shot and killed, when clinics are torched in the dead of night, and when the violence IS a one sided 'war'- one we who just care about getting womyn access to health care never wanted, but found ourselves in the middle of, how with their language constraints, do they intend to deal with REALITIES that providers ARE under attack? And that only one side is doing the shooting?

It's not "neutrality" to forbid calling that which quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and has a yellow bill and white feathers a DUCK!

Are we now, in some mythic name of 'neutrality' only going to tsk tsk and go on 'conversationing' with self identified 'pro-lifers' (see point 8 here- http://www.publicconversations.org/pcp/uploadDocs/SampleGroundrules.pdf
(certainly NOT 'anti-abortion' people, as that would be 'you' language not "I" language)?

This has all the derailing elements of the 'seamless garment' nonsense from a few years back, which for those you who might remember, had folks like Monica Miller as signatories. (Shake hands one day, blockcade clinics the proverbial next).

The entire page is chock full of leading questions followed by accepting the false premises, then going on to answer such after accepting the false premise, take for example from FAQ (http://www.abortionconversation.com/faq.php)-

"7. Isn't abortion murder?
"... Certainly providers, and the women they serve, know that something is alive and then isn't after an abortion...."

Randall Terry would be so proud.

Focus on the fetus- little spacemen floating around in space, never mind that womyn whose body you're talking about- or walking over.

If this is current state of 'neutrality', well, then maybe all those of you so DESPERATE for some 'middle ground' need to come to cold hard realization, when it comes to abortion you're not going to find one. You may find people who call themselves 'pro-choice' who begin projects like these, but both of these have accepted a fundamental projections onto womyn who have had abortions, that after an abortion they are 'unhealthy' or need of 'counseling' or 'processing' or other such crap.

Womyn who have had abortions are not sick, they do not 'need help to be restored (to health, to god, to whatever). The primary reason womyn might think such is purely due to the fact that the anti-abortion industry has been telling them such lies for more than 30 years now- and they're so far along, they've even got clinics and providers buying into their paradigm.

Now even clinics and programs like these point to complete loads of crap like the dreadful "pregnancy options workbook" (you can see CP linking to it here- http://www.abortionconversation.com/faq.php) . The workbook like so many programs mushes all times into one and all decisions into one such that abortion/ adoption/ and birth all end up as 'alternatives' to one another.

Adoption is not an 'alternative' to abortion. That's compulsory pregnancy propaganda. These are actually two SEQUENTIAL decisions being mushed into the same time and space- the decision as to whether or not to bear (i.e. abortion or maintain the pregnancy to the extent nature allows) followed chronologically by the SECOND decision, should I parent or should I give birth THEN legally relinquish custody to the state and then HOPE the child gets adopted, of course, once relinquished, the kid may also face a life of foster care etc, but once legally relinquished, that's beyond the natural parent's control.

The only 'alternative' to abortion is continued pregnancy (or potentially miscarriage). To call POSSIBLE adoption (what they're really selling is permanent relinquishment of all parental rights) an 'alternative' is propaganda- period. It's not "Adoption" from the natural parent's point of view, it's legal relinquishment. All these cute notions of 'picking the parents' and 'open adoptions' while cute, are usually legally unenforceable. And as for post relinquishment 'counseling' don't worry, churches are working that market too- they gotcha coming and going.

As for those of us who are actually supportive of access to abortion services, and who support providers giving medical care (not propaganda referrals) when we're finished being revolted that is, we will, deep sigh, YET AGAIN, sit here and point out just how much you've bought their lies if for one instant you dare call any of this nonsense "neutral".  

by Lauren Sabina Kneisly on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 03:22:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

... if the church continues to preach how evil people are to have abortions, the women in their congregations who have had them are going to need therapy and counselling!

is too true!  It's funny, but when you think about it, no joke.

by cyncooper on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 04:14:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If abortion is legal, that still allows you to not get an abortion because you believe it to be morally wrong. If abortion is illegal, then I do not have access to one, even if I do not believe it to be morally wrong.

That's exactly the essence of the pro-choice position.  So I can't agree with you that the Democrats are wrong to support it.  It's not an "extreme position," as you say, it's a mainstream position -- and the majority opinion -- and supports all perspectives on this issue.  

It's the Republican Party, which has a platform opposing abortion under all circumstances, that is extreme.  In fact, less than 20% of the population supports that position, and that's been consistent for 30 years.

Also, just want to point out that based on current abortion rates , one in three women in the US will have an abortion in her lifetime.  That's changed in the past two or three  years -- it used to be the 43% figure you cite, but changed when the number of abortions in the US dropped.

Also, 70 percent of the women who get abortions describe themselves as Christian (Catholic -- 28 percent; Protestant -- 43%).  

That's fairly comparable to all women of childbearing years (who are 28% Catholic, 51% Protestant) -- all according to stats of the Guttmacher Institute

by cyncooper on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 09:58:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]