That the DNC should waffle on such a key issue is no surprise to me. If you had me figured for a Democrat, you should note the icon ("CNT FAI" may help with googling.)
Nobody needs to "work to keep it rare", and supporting capitalism/business at one end and "reducing poverty" (if we're to take the most charitable interpretation of that poor choice of phrasing) is deeply hypocritical.
If real work to reduce poverty has the consequence that there are fewer abortions... and rest assured, rich white women have their share of abortions... so be it, but it should be an end unto itself.
As far as I'm concerned, so long as it has a brain less complex than a cat I need feel no more sorry for it than a stray cat which is put down in a shelter due to overcrowding. The conditions which might motivate one to have one's own pet (or child) put down for wont of the ability to care for it, on the other hand, is different.
Thank you for clarifying your P.O.V.; though I didn't figure you particularly were a Democrat, I did assume that others here might be (or at least be sympathetic to the position), so they may still find it appropriate.
I fear that my previous comments about why we may view the article in a certain way just confused the point I was trying to make (if so, please feel free to ignore previous comments and only consider the following). The point I want to make is this: According to the doctor's article, the reason the patient sought his services was due to the violent, economic, and emotional coercion of others (i.e. threats of the brothers killing the patent's boyfriend & the father disowning the patient). I thought that focus on this aspect of the story (feeling forced to undergo a medical procedure due to the threats of others) was not expressed and might concern others from a social justice P.O.V., regardless of one's positions on abortion.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Agency in the Story
Nobody needs to "work to keep it rare", and supporting capitalism/business at one end and "reducing poverty" (if we're to take the most charitable interpretation of that poor choice of phrasing) is deeply hypocritical.
If real work to reduce poverty has the consequence that there are fewer abortions... and rest assured, rich white women have their share of abortions... so be it, but it should be an end unto itself.
As far as I'm concerned, so long as it has a brain less complex than a cat I need feel no more sorry for it than a stray cat which is put down in a shelter due to overcrowding. The conditions which might motivate one to have one's own pet (or child) put down for wont of the ability to care for it, on the other hand, is different.
Re: Agency in the Story
I fear that my previous comments about why we may view the article in a certain way just confused the point I was trying to make (if so, please feel free to ignore previous comments and only consider the following). The point I want to make is this:
According to the doctor's article, the reason the patient sought his services was due to the violent, economic, and emotional coercion of others (i.e. threats of the brothers killing the patent's boyfriend & the father disowning the patient). I thought that focus on this aspect of the story (feeling forced to undergo a medical procedure due to the threats of others) was not expressed and might concern others from a social justice P.O.V., regardless of one's positions on abortion.