Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

anti-choice is woman-hating, pure and simple

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 01:42 PM
Original message
anti-choice is woman-hating, pure and simple
I have maintained for years that EVERY anti-choice argument has, at its heart, a profound hatred for women. EVERY anti-choice argument says that some THING, or some ONE, be it the church, the state, the sperm donor or the z/e/f, is more important than the woman.

In all the screaming and rejoicing amoung the anti-choice hate-mongers in the days since the assassination of Dr. Tiller, all that they talked about was the feti. NOT ONE of them had any comment, nor did the msm, about the women whose choice has been ripped away from them, the health care they will not be able to receive, the dangers they face whenever they approach a women's health clinic. To hear the msm and the anti-choicers, it would appear that the only thing Dr. Tiller did was perform late-term abortions. No mention was made of the fact that this was a clinic for women's health, in all its aspects. and nowhere does the anti-choice movement ever talk about the women and their health.

let us not just call them the terrorists they are, let us make it plain, and demand that the msm make it plain, that this is all about hatred for women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. or is it hatred for women who want a choice to make their own
decisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. women are expendable, you know
there's always another uterus to take a place and someone else can raise the "fetus". It's more important to advance the male's gene pool.

And besides, isn't the "tribulation" of childbirth part of "god's" punishment for Eve's transgression?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
514. That is exactly the view of the reight
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ejpoeta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. well, women are just baby factories. that's what they are here for.
And if they fool around, then they should suffer the consequences... and if they have a very ill child or there is a threat to them, then that is just some sort of punishment for something. I was thinking today that I would like to ask these people that if they get cancer, then obviously they wouldn't do anything to remove it. I mean, it must be some kind of punishment for something. And it is a part of their body... it is a bunch of cells, the building blocks of life. If it is meant to be, it is meant to be, right!! I know I know. But you are right. they don't care about me. They don't care about anything. It's about control. They want to be able to control women. In their eyes we should be chained to the stove, probably.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
4. Its woman hating, and "slut shaming"
Please do not get on my back for that term - I didn't invent it, but there are no other words to describe it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
5. Many women hate themselves then.
Calling Dr. Phil!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. Women have traditionally been complicit in their own slavery.

Who mostly performs female circumcision? Female practitioners. Who pounds it into the heads of young girls that their role in life is to submit to men? Women. Who stand right behind the young men who kill their sisters for "honor?" Their mothers. The list goes on, but women are often their own worst enemies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
33. Yes! With the aid of most religions. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. Suffer enough and go to heaven
My Grandmother said when her mother died she was told that all women who died in childbirth went to heaven, even in cases like her mother who lived way out in the country with a no-good husband and 5 other small children to look after, which limited her church attendance which of course would have otherwise resulted in her being doomed to Hell. If she hadn't been fortunate enough to die having her sixth baby that is.

What a fortunate young woman she was to have been spared eternal torment by a merciful GAWD that made this provision for women! :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #33
589. And all you anti-religious people do is whine and bleat about religions.
Stop being so fucking immature and prove your mettle. Show an alternative system that will work.

Words are as empty as a hell of a lot of people on this web site. And others.

So stop mewling.

All of you.

Already.

Sheesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. Of course they do. Many grow up in a culture that encourages them to.
When you are part of a religion that starts out telling you that your selfish, capricious nature caused all pain and suffering in the world, and ends by telling you that only unquestioning obedience to a male can help you atone for that sin, you either have to reject everything and everyone around you, or you wind up hating your gender. Some atone by trying even harder to be exactly what men want them to be and hating any woman who refuses to be that way.

And that's not just Christianity (and it's also not all forms and practices of Christianity)--many religions have that basic theme. Eve, Lillith, Pandora, Medea, Pharoah's wife... It's not even just religion, as many of the world's cultures simply use religion to reinforce their cultural beliefs, anyway.

Pretty standard psychology in a patriarchy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitty Herder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
418. In any oppressed group, certain members will toe the line and side with their oppressors.
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 02:28 PM by Kitty Herder
Those living under oppression can either fight back and surely be shot down, or they can go along and be rewarded for that in small ways that make their oppression more bearable. Obviously, some or most of those in any oppressed, relatively powerless group will make the easy choice and not buck the system.

In this case, women who go along with the anti-choice crowd are rewarded by increased standing in their churches, with the promise of heaven in the next life, and usually with approval from their husbands and families. That's easier than going against the popular opinion in their personal circles. For that they would be punished by being ostracized at church, condemned to hell, and would likely face consequences in their personal circle of family and friends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juno jones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
6. The families they really want:



Thanks, mari for the image. Scary as hell.

It was a comment on this thread:

What would America look like if the right wing insane had their way?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5824704
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
7. No it isn't.
Edited on Thu Jun-11-09 02:02 PM by HamdenRice
And this kind of fake syllogism is silly and convinces no one except those who already believe it.

Anti-choice is a lot of things, most of them dumb, but there is no proof that it is a priori anti-woman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
40. Take a look at the women in anti-choice churches
And you will figure out they are anti-woman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #40
380. Like Sister Helen Prejean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #380
429. Yeah, like Helen Prejean.
Or whomever else. You're using an Appeal to Authority fallacy there. A person can be wonderful in all other aspects but fucked-up and anti-woman where reproductive choice is concerned. And it's people like Helen Prejean (a celibate post-menopausal nun) who are often the worst about it. She has (probably) never been pregnant and has no fear of it but that won't stop her from piously imposing her beliefs on other women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
46. Of course it is and the consequences to women can't begin to be described
by "dumb".

I think the easiest way to understand it is via people like Palin and Rick Warren, two dominionists that wear their hatred like a badge of virtue and their white sheets on the inside: white supremacists, anti-Semitic, homophobic and gynephobic. When you tease out the connections of these "activists", you always find an association to another hatred.

I think that's difficult for some libs to get because we tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and tend to respect difference in all forms, including difference of opinion.

But, if you simply notice who the active anti-abortion crowd is, their true character is unmistakable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
163. Thank you.
I think that the religious bullshit is dumb. I agree with you on that. No one has ANY right to tell anyone what to do, or exert control over them, on the basis of religion.

However, I do not agree that most of the reasons to be anti-choice are "dumb."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #7
284. Perhaps it arises from more than one root cause...
...but all of it quacks like the duck of misogyny. It's de facto, if not a priori, woman-hating.

How does one completely exclude a woman's rights without being anti-woman?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugabear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #7
286. Nonsense. It absolutely is.
It's telling a woman that she cannot make a decision about her own body. Name ANY decision that these nutjobs want to take away from men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #286
287. Uhh...
How about a man's right to make a joint with his wife or partner about terminating a pregnancy and being relieved of a lifetime of child support obligations?

But the bigger point is that while there were certainly woman haters in the anti-choice movement, saying that all anti-choice is woman hating is irrational.

There are too many people who are opposed to abortion -- for whatever moral reasons they have -- who do not hate women. A liberal, Catholic anti-abortion, anti-death penalty woman, for example.

Fake syllogisms substitute sloganeering for reason and inquiry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugabear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #287
291. It's the woman's BODY. She is the one who should have the ultimate say - no matter what
That's the crux of the entire argument. Saying that a woman cannot have the final say over something that involves her own body is pretty much by definition anti-woman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #291
292. You can't prove something simply by asserting it.
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 09:12 AM by HamdenRice
There are, for example, students of the holocaust and members of the disability community who believe that abortion starts us on a slippery slope toward determining what is and isn't a life. I disagree with them, but I can certainly see the logic of their argument. These people are anti-choice, anti-death penalty, anti-euthanasia and anti-eugenics. They feel that humans and human institutions are simply too dangerous to be given life and death decision making power or more specifically decision making power over what is or isn't human life.

Nothing in their argument is based on hating women.

While there are certainly elements (loud ones) in the anti-choice movement who are woman haters, there are others that are not.

You would need to prove that the group I described above (anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-death penalty) are woman haters for the syllogism to be true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #292
293. Wow, finding myself in complete agreement with you...
...and having to say, "Well said!".

Will wonders never cease? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #293
299. Thanks!
Hey, ya never know, right?

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #292
307. Sister Helen Prejean, the "Angel of Death Row." is fiercely anti-abortion out of pacifist conviction
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 10:07 AM by Douglas Carpenter
The Berrigan Brothers for example, two priest prominent in the anti-war movement in the 1960's were both. fiercely anti-abortion out of pacifistic convictions.

Of course, I'm pro-choice. But can I imagine how someone motivated by a certain type of pacifistic conviction might see it differently?

One can argue that they are misguided, wrongheaded, naive or whatever. But to demonize everyone who genuinely believes that they might be particpating in ending a human life as a "woman hater" is irrational and simplistic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllieB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #307
318. The majority of these anti-choice zealots are pro-death penalty and pro-war
and want to outlaw birth control and cut sex education. I can see where a Catholic priest or nun would be anti-choice due to religious belief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #307
336. She is exactly the kind of person I was thinking about
Plus living in New York, I know many very liberal Catholics, mostly Hispanics, who simply are opposed to abortion, but who can't be described as anti-woman.

I'm not saying there aren't women haters in the broad anti-choice movement, but to assume everyone is, is simply wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #336
447. ANY anti-choice view is anti-woman and inherently violent.


There is no peaceful or respectful way to support the removal of one's rights over their own body.

Just as there is no peaceful respectful way to support slavery.

When anti-choicers say they don't hate women, they just want to take a woman's rights over her own body away from her... it is like someone saying they don't hate blacks, but they just peacefully and respectfully support slavery being reestablished
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #447
461. How nuanced and thoughtful
Not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #461
534. In third term abortions, would you deny women the right to self-defense?
Every human being has that right --

Every woman, naturally, has that right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #447
533. In the case of late term abortions, the are denying females the right to self-defense . . .
a right readily accorded to every human being but to be removed for women?

And that's not hatred of women?



:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #307
368. They've devoted their lives to the Catholic hierarchy -- what else would they say?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #368
432. Sister Helen Prejean is hardly an obedient automaton.
She is one of the great heroes of our time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #432
464. Certainly not. I didn't say that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #307
438. Well, good for her. She has elected to repress her sexuality; be "married"
to a guy who's been dead for 2000+ years; belong to a religious hierarchy that doesn't allow women
the same rights as men... and I could go on. Her position is easy and irrelevant to a sexually active
woman.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #438
469. You said it way better than I did.
Why this DUer continues to bring her name up as if we're all supposed to go "oooh Helen Prejean is against abortion so that changes the whole discussion!" is beyond me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #469
483. When someone tells me some nun is against abortion, I laugh. Well, duh.
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 03:29 PM by mnhtnbb
Tell me about the ones who've left their orders and are fighting for women's rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #307
531. So these people were against a woman's right to self-defense....???
Every human being has that right -- but it's to be denied to women when a pregnancy

endangers their life?

Prejean and the Berrigans have their right to their own choices --

so do all women!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #292
358. I have to agree with you HR
I know that must be disturbing but true. I am pro choice but recognize that abortion is hardly a black and white issue. Unrestricted state abortions sound too much to me like a Brave New World.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #292
467. Because they place the status of a fetus over that of a woman
And slippery slopes work both ways, you know. Women with life-threatening ectopic pregnancies are denied abortions in El Salvador because their government has taken the "life" ethic to an absurd extreme.

But getting back to your implication that anti-choicers who are also anti-euthanasia and anti-DP cannot be woman haters: They absolutely can. They believe that women should be compelled by law to incubate fetuses. At the same time they are not advocating for people being, say, compelled to care for terminally ill relatives in their homes. They are not advocating for people being compelled to donate kidneys, or blood, or bone marrow to save the lives of others. It is only in the case of pregnant women that this group believes that the law should step in and deprive certain individuals of their liberty and bodily autonomy in order to preserve what they perceive to be a "human life".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #292
530. Too often, organized patriarchal religious "values" influence public opinion . .
Our slippery slope is fascism . . . and when fascists are in power anything can happen --

and usually does -- TO WOMEN!

The homosexual community would also join in I'm sure in the concerns that the disabled may

have since homosexuality is clearly genetically linked and there would be fanatical governments

and fanatical religious ideas that could trigger a demand for aborting homosexuals.

Right now we have females disappearing all over the globle and very often due to early readings

on gender, followed by forced-abortions when a female is involved.

So there are legitimate concerns on BOTH sides.

Unfortunately, tens of thousands of years of patriarchal violence have created opinions based

on hatred for and lack of trust for women. Tens of thousands of years of organized patriarchal

religious "values" have taught the subservience of women and hatred for women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #291
355. No matter what
until it involves somone else's body. Which at some point during a pregnancy it does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
392. of course there is proof
people who elevate the potential life of a fetus over an actual viable woman are misogynists...plain and simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #392
535. Our past history of Catholic hospitals shows females lives sacrificed to a fetus . . .
Stunned families would be told that they "saved the baby"!!!

Meanwhile, the existing life of their loved one -- daughter, mother, sister, wife --

had been "not saved."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
423. It places the status of a fetus above that of a woman
It holds that a woman should be compelled to sustain the life of that fetus whether she wants to or not.

A priori anti-woman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitty Herder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
425. It doesn't matter whether individuals in that movement feel hatred towards women,
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 02:40 PM by Kitty Herder
the movement itself is hateful to women. This movement would force women to host something in their bodies, whether they want to or not, even if it will kill them. They value the fetus, not even a person yet, more than they value the woman. That's pretty blatant woman-hating, whether all of those involved are aware of it or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #425
436. "THE movement itself is hateful to women" (???)
The whole point is, there is not one single movement. I doubt the anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-euthansia, anti-eugenics types consider themselves to be in the same movement as Pat Robertson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitty Herder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #436
442. They are all working toward the same end.
That end is hateful. It doesn't matter what their individual motivations are. The end they seek is hateful to women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #436
537. In it's basic valuing of a fetus over an existing human life it is woman hating . . ..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #7
617. Strongly agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
8. I don't believe things are that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rebubula Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
9. though....
..I know most of these assholes have a hierarchy when it comes to the genders - but I think the issue is a bit more complicated that you are making it.

However, I will call the ones that protest and post names\addresses of clinic workers what they are; terrorists. They should be dealt with accordingly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
11 Bravo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
10. I've generally seen it as more of a need to control rather than an expression of hatred.
Look at all of the old, white, men at any forced-birth rally. Very few of them appear to have enough sack to control another man, but they're not above slapping the little woman around, literally and legally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
24. Seeking to intimately control another person is a negation of their humanity, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #10
204. " slapping the little woman around" is misogyny.
It is sending the message that it's o.k. to treat her as less.

The men who do this don't think it's o.k. for their boss to slap them around at work for not doing what they're told, but it's fine to do it to their wives. IOW, men desrve better, more respectable treament.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #204
224. It's a denial of personhood. And very similar to what we recoil from
when we see those women in Afghanistan who are forced to wear shrouds in public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitty Herder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #224
444. Absolutely. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitty Herder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:46 PM
Original message
Indeed, blatant misogyny. Those who think otherwise are kidding themselves.
I don't even understand how someone could think for a moment that "slapping the little woman around" isn't misogyny. Good Lord, that's Basic Misogyny 101 for Dummies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
11. That's how I see it, too. Well said. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reflection Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
12. Ridiculous. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #12
56. Was Dr. Tiller's murder just a silly misunderstanding
Oh why don't we all get along???? Those anti-choicers are just misunderstood teddy-bears, what's wrong with us hateful liberals? What's a little hate and assassination between friends?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reflection Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #56
73. Dr. Tiller's murder was reprehensible.
Just like any other murder. Pretty simple. I agree that liberals are not by and large hateful. In fact, I think most people, pro-life or pro-choice, are not hateful. Dr. Tiller's murderer though? Very hateful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #56
538. I don't see TV news except in passing . . . but I have the sense that
"pro-life" religious groups have not voiced support for this latest murder?

Is that right?

In other words, I think the "pro-life" murders back a while ago made clear to them

that there was NO -- ZERO, ZILCH, NADDA -- support for such violence, and despite

the insanity of Randall Terry, they haven't forgotten that message?

I hope this is true...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #12
89. Whadda shock....
...you're a man.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reflection Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #89
97. And I suppose the converse is true for you.
You are a woman, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #89
390. Can the sexist bullshit...


The abortion debate is not a women's only issue... it is an issue of personal liberty and control over one's body, which is a universal and genderless issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #390
539. How many men want to give up the right to self-defense . . . ???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blonndee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #12
168. What a cogent argument! I'm convinced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reflection Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #168
282. Garbage in, garbage out.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ismnotwasm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
15. They think a fetus has more inherent value than a woman
The forced birth movement has very deep roots, and encompasses some of the most heinous human societal ills. Look hard enough and you'll find not only misogyny but racism for instance, with this insistence that woman's bodies need to be controlled. Women are and have been condemned for having children. Women are and have been condemned for aborting fetuses. Women are and have been condemned for using birth control. Women are and have been condemned for having no children. For having sex. For not having sex-- on and on it goes.


All that smoke and mirrors about the value of life is not only bullshit, but meaningless if one takes the time to parse out the historical and mostly successful campaigns both religious and legal, to control women's bodies, their reproduction and their sexuality.

I agree-- it's a very real hatred, a very deep sickness and absolute terrorism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backtoblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #15
300. In agreement...
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 09:51 AM by backtoblue
It doesn't matter what a woman chooses to do or chooses not to do -

It comes down to control and women have one thing that they CAN control (for now anyways) - their reproductive systems. If that power is taken away from a woman, she is nothing more than a breeding/sperm bank for men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #300
540. Also, it's life and death for Vatican if they lose the abortion issue, birth control also goes --!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #15
362. This is very wrongheaded
What you are talking to you are state mandated impregnation, and state enforced abortions based on genetics. That type are thing is what I fear.

An adult who has consentual sex and gets impregnated has begun a process where the rights of a second human being increase every day the pregancy is viable. If a full term fetus is 100% human, then what is one the day before? 0%?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitty Herder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #362
463. It doesn't matter when a fetus becomes human.
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 03:08 PM by Kitty Herder
The fetus is residing inside the body of a human being. That person has the ultimate right whether or not to carry them inside their very body even if one believes they are fully human from the moment of conception. One's body is sovereign.

I know that's harsh, and I don't want anyone to think I hate fetuses. I've never been pregnant, and likely never will be since I have fertility problems, so it's not a choice I've ever had to make. I don't think I would want to have an abortion unless I was carrying a deformed fetus or my life or health was threatened. I, personally, would be thrilled to have another life within me. I adore babies and sometimes get very "baby-hungry." But I cannot tell any other woman what her choice should be as it relates to what or whom she allows within her body to make her ill and put her life at risk (Every pregnancy is a risk.). It sucks, I know. But that's what it ultimately comes down to.

P.S. Just to be clear, I do believe that life begins at birth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #463
501. One's body is sovereign
If one's body is sovereign, then human life is sovereign.

I respect your opinion, but there is nothing magical regarding the fetus when it comes to the day prior to birth vs the day after birth.

To the woman certainly.

By 4 months, the growing fetus weights 7 ounces - just about ½ a pound - and 5 inches from head to rump. The fetus can suck, swallow and make early breathing movements. The arms and legs are completely developed. At 18 weeks, all body and facial features are recognizable. The eyes begin to blink. The fetus moves quite a lot now, though the mother may not feel it. At 5 months, or 20 weeks, the halfway point in gestation is reached. Although the primitive lungs cannot breathe air, early respiratory movements begin. The fetus can be seen sucking its thumb on an ultrasound. Soon the fetus begins to hear the mother's heartbeat and voice. The fetus wakes and sleeps.

By 28 weeks, the beginning of the third trimester, the fetus can survive outside of the uterus if the lungs are developed enough. The fetus is usually breech (butt or legs) coming into the pelvis first. From 32 weeks onward, the fetus is in a growth phase. The muscles become stronger and the fetus can turn with greater ease. By 36 weeks, 97% of the fetus has turned and become cephalic or head first. At 38 weeks, the fetus is finally term and the lungs are usually mature. The fetus can easily survive outside of the womb. Forty weeks is full term and the average fetus is 20 inches long and weighs 7 pounds. These days, most obstetricians would not let the pregnancy go beyond 42 weeks.

http://www.expectantmothersguide.com/library/chicago/fetalgrowth.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitty Herder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #501
507. I'm going to put this bluntly.
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 06:24 PM by Kitty Herder
A woman has the right to keep her body free from an unwanted invader. If you, as a grown human male, try to put yourself inside my body against my wishes, or otherwise try to harm me, I will defend myself, using lethal force if necessary. Pregnancy is not rape, obviously, but the right to host only welcome visitors within one's body is the same. Yes, the fetus is innocent, but that does not change the a woman's right to defend herself against an unwanted, potentially harmful intruder in her body. One could certainly argue that a severely mentally retarded person is innocent even when they commit a crime because they lack the judgement to know they're doing wrong. But if a severely retarded person is raping you, will you not defend yourself nonetheless? Most of the time a fetus is not an intruder, but a welcome, or at least tolerated guest, but that is a distinction only the person whose body is host to it can determine.

Yes, abortion is ugly. But who can decide for any other person what they will allow to happen to their body? No one.

To be honest, I feel that as long as a fetus is inside a woman, attached to her and living through that attachment, it is part of her body, not a human being in its own right, and that she has the right to remove it. But I make the case that even if you see a fetus as a full human being, she still has that right because ultimately, if you and others see it that way, it does come down to that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #507
513. Thank you for being blunt
A woman has the right to keep her body free from an unwanted invader. If you, as a grown human male, try to put yourself inside my body against my wishes, or otherwise try to harm me, I will defend myself, using lethal force if necessary.


Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. Rape is a crime of violence.

Pregnancy is not rape, obviously, but the right to host only welcome visitors within one's body is the same. Yes, the fetus is innocent, but that does not change the a woman's right to defend herself against an unwanted, potentially harmful intruder in her body. One could certainly argue that a severely mentally retarded person is innocent even when they commit a crime because they lack the judgement to know they're doing wrong. But if a severely retarded person is raping you, will you not defend yourself nonetheless? Most of the time a fetus is not an intruder, but a welcome, or at least tolerated guest, but that is a distinction only the person whose body is host to it can determine.


I understand this in the case of nonconsentual rape. But that doesn't fully explain it in the case of consensual intercourse where the woman understands the risk of an unwanted pregancy.

Yes, abortion is ugly. But who can decide for any other person what they will allow to happen to their body? No one.


I agree. What if a fetus could be extracted alive from the womb with a proceedure as obtrusive as an abortion, and not killed? Would that change things?

To be honest, I feel that as long as a fetus is inside a woman, attached to her and living through that attachment, it is part of her body, not a human being in its own right, and that she has the right to remove it. But I make the case that even if you see a fetus as a full human being, she still has that right because ultimately, if you and others see it that way, it does come down to that.


I agree that at early stages a fetus is not yet "human" life. But to say the fetus goes from 0% human to 100% human thru birth has never seen an realtime ultrasound, especially the 3D images they have now adays, and I doubt is being completely honest with themselves. There HAS to be a cut off where society must place some value on the unborn child, other wise we are not ourselves human.

In the end the little life inside a woman doesn't consider itself an unwanted guest. It feels it's mother's heartbeat and is comforted, it get's hicups, it plays, it sucks it's thumb, it startles when there is a loud noise, It goes still to better listen to voices, and recognizes its mother.

If the critera for an abortion is an unwanted, parasitic intruder, I would have aborted my 18 yearold son months ago! ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitty Herder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #513
522. LOL @ aborting 18-year-old son
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 09:41 PM by Kitty Herder
But your 18-year-old son does not reside within your body, so it's not the same thing at all.

I understand where you're coming from on this issue. I really do and I respect your opinion. On a visceral level, abortion disturbs me, so I had to think the issue of abortion through pretty thoroughly, deliberately leaving my own emotions out of it, and you've read the results of that process. And yes, late term abortion disturbs me even more emotionally. But it is seldom done unless the life or health of the mother is seriously threatened or the fetus is deformed or otherwise not viable.

You say, "I understand this in the case of nonconsensual rape. But that doesn't fully explain it in the case of consensual intercourse where the woman understands the risk of an unwanted pregancy."

First, I'm not sure you getting my point. A man, a fully developed human being no doubt, is an intruder in the case of rape. A fetus, though innocent and doesn't feel itself to be an intruder, is nonetheless an intruder, and a woman has the right to remove it.

Second, if you do understand what I'm saying, are you saying women should be punished for consensual sex by being forced to carry an unwanted fetus? A fetus that will make her ill, cause extreme pain, and in some rare cases, unexpected death?

If so, I suppose we will have to amicably agree to disagree.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 05:56 AM
Response to Reply #522
568. Glad we can have some common ground
First off, I DO NOT think abortion should be illegial. But I do think it is more complex than some pro-choice people make it, and needs careful ethical consideration.

Regarding the unwanted intruder. Does that give a woman and thru her - society to kill the fetus? I'm not sure. What if there was a proceedure to remove the "intruder" without killing it? Of course now you have a potential ward of the state, but isnt that the most basic purpose of Government, to protect the most vulnerable in our society? If not then what kind of society do we espose to have?

I hope you can see my concern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #507
544. Exactly . . . let me know when males are willing to give up right to self-defense??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitty Herder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #15
451. Well said. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thesquanderer Donating Member (647 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
16. another disagreement
You mean no one genuinely believes that abortion is the taking of a human life?

I'm pro choice, but I think it is a morally complicated question and it is unfair to categorize anti-choice people as you describe.

And to paraphrase a quote I heard long ago, when someone says something is pure and simple, it usually isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Still putting the worth of the fetus to more than the woman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TCJ70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. That's how you see it.
A fetus vs. a woman.

Perhaps there are anti-choice people who view it as a person vs. a person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. They are fools
And they do believe the fetus is more important than the mother, recall how McCain scoffed at the words "life of the mother".

These people are against women's rights and must be opposed. I do not believe in making Kumbaya with these low-IQ, glaze-faced, stringy-haired, Bible-thumping ass-wipes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. So you think a fetus has more rights than a woman.
A woman who may have other children to raise, even. Bottom line: the host must be willing or else you are talking of forced pregnancy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TCJ70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #30
45. Why do you project that view on me?
I'm offering an alternative viewpoint that isn't necessarily my own. If anti-choice people consider each party to be a person, then each one comes with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #45
128. No, the cells>>>fetus is dependent on the host/woman's willingness
and ability to continue to host it. An unborn fetus does not have more rights than the woman carrying it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #23
92. A fetus is NOT a person. N/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueMTexpat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 04:40 AM
Response to Reply #23
280. "Pro-choice" does not necessarily mean anti-anything.
It certainly does not follow that pro-choice favors abortion. Pro-choice means simply that abortion should be available if needed, as well as legal, and performed by a competent medical professional.

I am a firm pro-choice individual, always have been and always will be. It boggles my mind that any thinking human being can call an anti-choice individual pro-life. Pro-life, as practiced by those who are anti-choice, is truly only pro-fetus. Once that fetus is born, all bets are off on his/her "life" chances, especially if the fetus turns out to be female and lives in an anti-choice governed world.

Pro-choice to me means that the individual most concerned, in consultation with a competent medical practitioner, can make the choice as to whether she will carry the fetus to term. In fact, the overwhelming majority of women actually do choose to carry a fetus to term even when the choice is a life-threatening one, witness the fact that a lot of us are here debating "choice."

While pro-choice does not necessarily mean that one always chooses to terminate a pregancy, anti-choice means that one NEVER has the right to make such a wrenching choice and have access to good medical care as a result. So yes, I do see anti-choice as anti-woman. It's also patronizing and controlling as hell. Pro-choice is pretty bright-line to me and yes, I am a woman. I am also a woman who "chose" to bring two children into the world and who never "chose" to terminate a pregnancy. I probably never would have exercised that particular "choice." But I was fortunate enough never to have circumstances that might have warranted such.

After all, what IS life without choice?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #280
378. Clear, excellent post. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #23
375. IT'S NOT "A FETUS VS. A WOMAN" OR "A PERSON VS. A PERSON" --- what kind of ignorance is THAT?!!!!!
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 01:55 PM by omega minimo
A woman is not an incubator for a "person" that magically appears like a meal out of a microwave.


THERE IS NO "VERSUS" GODAMMIT :evilfrown: THAT's the POINT.

Women are left out of the equation -- as the OP stated -- devalued and ignored as incidental and then there's THIS lunacy
not only are they overlooked but you say it's as if there is a CONFLICT between two PERSONS..................



:freak: :crazy:



"Perhaps there are anti-choice people who view it as a person vs. a person."

Good gawd, thanks for articulating the insanity of the anti-choice attitude so clearly and so clearly out of touch with women and reality -- INCLUDING THE BIOLOGICAL REALITIES OF GESTATION.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TCJ70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #375
553. Wow...caps for the win, right?
Anyway, there are people out there who don't understand the "insanity of the anti-choice attitude" as you put it. When a person views pregnancy as involving 2 people (3 counting the father), it makes things significantly more difficult.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thesquanderer Donating Member (647 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. worth
re: "Still putting the worth of the fetus to more than the woman"

Relatively few abortions are done to save the life of the mother.

So more specifically, it is putting the worth of the *life* of the fetus ahead of what is often the "convenience" of the woman, who sometimes chooses an abortion because a child doesn't fit into her plans right now.

And that's fine for people who don't consider the fetus to be a human life. But there are people who do. I don't think they necessarily hate women. Honestly, I think the generalization is ridiculous. But hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. If they are so anti-abortion
Why are they almost universally opposed to birth control? Ending access to birth control leads to more abortions. But I guess you are pro-woman if you would rather someone die by being bled out in a back alley abortion. Cost of being pious right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thesquanderer Donating Member (647 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #31
88. changing the argument
I have no idea what percentage of people who oppose abortion also oppose birth control. I know that's the position of the Catholic Church, but beyond that, I just don't know. And I do find moral objection to birth control to be much harder to understand than moral objection to abortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #88
142. All the same argument
Control! When discussing this group all reproductive rights are the same argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #25
37. It is their choice to have the child or not....trying to deny other women
that same choice is unacceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #37
364. So when does the child have a voice in the matter?
Who protects the fetus' right to life?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #364
384. A fetus is not a child and a fetus has no right to life....

No more so than a virus has a right to life within my blood.

If the continuation of your "life" depends on you residing within my body... you are not a viable sentient being. You are by definition a parasite.

An individuals right to control their own body is inalienable and absolute. A fetus is not an individual, it resides within an individual. If that individual wants that fetus removed from their body, that is their right.

At the point when the fetus has the ability to live outside the womb, only then can you even begin to discuss personhood and the rights that come with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #384
394. That's pretty extreme


A fetus has the ability to live outside the womb, or becomes "viable" at 36-38 weeks. Most pregnancys go to 40-42 weeks.

What if the fetus can be "removed from their body" and be kept alive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #384
602. And that is pretty much the argument made in second- and third-trimester
restrictions on abortion access: At the point of viability outside the womb, the state/government DOES have an interest in protecting the life of the unborn, BUT NOT BEFORE. Again, this is the argument (not necessarily the viewpoint of Tansy Gold) used in legislating limits/restrictions on later term abortions.

What irritates me -- and what has generally kept me out of these discussions -- is that many of the arguers seem to be focused on determining when the fetus becomes viable and thereby establishing a line between abortion on demand on one hand and "Sorry, honey, you're no longer the owner of your own body."

"Choice" means just that. If it's restricted, it's no longer choice.

Most anti-choicers are also anti-birth-control. Many of them see birth control as a form of abortion because it prevents the implantation of an already fertilized egg.

There is, as far as I'm concerned, no middle/common ground with them.


Tansy Gold
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #25
63. and from where do you get the idea that most abortions are a matter of convenience?
Edited on Thu Jun-11-09 04:06 PM by niyad
ever had one? ever tried to get one in the EIGHTY_SEVEN percent of counties in the US that have not a single abortion provider? ever had to travel hundreds of miles to the only clinic in your state that has one? ever had to wait three days for one, having gotten to that clinic, because the idiots in the state legislature decided that women are too stupid to be able to make decisions on their own, and have to have things spelled out for them, complete with BS films made by the religious reich.

ph yeah, most women get them as a "matter of convenience." how utterly patronizing and insulting.

but, for those of us who believe in a woman's right to choose, WHATEVER her reason for the abortion is HER business.

one of the things that pissed me off about some of Obama's comments about choice was the comment that "she should make the decision prayerfully". I guess a woman who doesn't pray is out of luck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. "Convenience" as in "luxury". Only a profoundly misogynistic culture
could view such a basic decision as a luxury. Who said that if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smokey nj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #65
136. Gloria Steinem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #136
239. Thank you. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bumblebee1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #65
270. If men could get pregnant,
abortion clinics will be as plentiful as fast food restaurants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #270
619. But they cannot, and so the argument is moot. They are, however,
"sperm donors," to use the OP's phrase, in a pregnancy. Roe v. Wade argues for the right of women to choose; it does not argue that women must choose to terminate a pregnancy.

The OP broadly paints anyone who is anti-choice as anti-woman. Which is a ridiculous and unfounded claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thesquanderer Donating Member (647 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #63
108. I never said "most" are for convenience
I do not know what the proportion is. But relatively few abortions are to save the life of the mother, and even many on the other side of this issue do allow that that should be a permissible abortion.

No, I have never had an abortion, but I know a number of women who have had them. (I'm glad to say, I was not the father in any of those cases.)

Personally, I think it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to have an abortion for convenience (i.e. "this isn't a good time for me to have a baby"). I don't think acknowledging that many abortions occur for this reason is patronizing or insulting.

And I do agree that a woman's reasons are her own business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #108
123. you said relatively few were to save the life of the mother, and then you immediately talked
about "convenience". nice side-stepping there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thesquanderer Donating Member (647 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #123
285. side-stepping?
re: "you said relatively few were to save the life of the mother, and then you immediately talked about "convenience". nice side-stepping there."

The word "convenience" was even *more* immediately surrounded by the words "often" and "sometimes" -- not "usually" or "most." Nice selective quoting there.

I made no claim to "percentages" since I really don't know, and I even put the word "convenience" in quotes to indicate I was using the term as not entirely literal. The answer to percentage of abortions done for "convenience" will depend, in part, on how loosely you define the word.

But as someone else said, so what if most abortions *are* a matter of convenience? You and I both feel that it is perfectly okay for a woman to have an abortion for any reason, it's her own business. So the irony is that you and I are basically on the same side. We are both firmly pro-choice. I just don't agree that anyone on the other side necessarily hates women. I think people come to their decisions on this from a variety of perspectives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blonndee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #63
170. and so what if they are?
I agree with you: "for those of us who believe in a woman's right to choose, WHATEVER her reason for the abortion is HER business."

Indeed. It's up to me, and I'll make my own decisions no matter what anyone else says. Why I do so is none of anybody else's effing business. My life and my body are my own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #170
370. My life and my body are my own.
I understand that. But at what point does the fetus get a vote? At what point does the state have a responsibility to protect it's life?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ismnotwasm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #25
69. It's human life
Human DNA, little fingers and toes at a certain point. Yes, we know. So what? Every pregnancy is borne by a human female, who has the right to choose not to subject herself to a continued pregnancy.
Consider; Male humans who don't have this biological function, never have to worry about personal pregnancy. Restrictive abortion laws have half of the human race subjugated to a inferior reproductive status simply by the accident of being born female. A violation of human rights at best. Misogyny? Hell yes it is.

What a fetus is or is not, is also up to the female enduring pregnancy. She may choose to think of it as a baby. She may choose to think of it as a parasite. Not my business.

Pregnancy is dangerous. It's life-altering. It's bloody. It's barbaric, really. Whether it's convenient or not to any particular woman is also not my business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #25
93. I frankly do not care WHY any female has an abortion...
...it NONE of my business. PERIOD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #25
165. I agree with you. The generalization is ridiculous.
And as misguided as those who would murder to "save lives."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stellabella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #25
180. And those 'people who think a fetus is a person' can mind their own business.
It's none of their god damned business WHAT another woman chooses to do with her life and her body. Your opinion means squat when it comes to my life.

The very fact that you think abortions are done out of 'convenience' shows that you know nothing about the issue. You probably also think that these women skip happily off to the doctor, thinking 'oh boy, today I get to have an abortion so my life is better!!!'

Get lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thesquanderer Donating Member (647 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #180
290. extremes
re: "The very fact that you think abortions are done out of 'convenience' shows that you know nothing about the issue."

You don't think any abortions are ever done because the woman feels it is simply not a good time for her to have a child? I *know* people who have made that choice. And I defend it.

re: "You probably also think that these women skip happily off to the doctor, thinking 'oh boy, today I get to have an abortion so my life is better!!!' "

Right, uh huh.

Discourse is generally more civil if you respond to what people say, instead of trying to put words in their mouths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. No, they truly don't.

If they did, these people would be advocating life in prison or the death penalty for women who get abortions. But they never do, because they know full well that having an abortion isn't even remotely in the same universe as a mother drowning her kids in a bathtub or shaking one of them to death. That's why they go after the doctors instead. If they were truly honest, with themselves and others, they wouldn't even make allowances for rape, incest, or health risk for the mother. Murder is murder. You wouldn't kill a living child because his father was a criminal, so how can you excuse the homicide of an unborn conceived by a rapist. How can you make the choice to save the mother over the child. That would be playing God. That whole chiffon-laced, unicorns in the clouds all life is precious nonsense they spout, is just that, and they know it. It's ALL about controlling women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #21
54. if you seriously believe that none of the reichwing anti-choice hate groups is advocating
this, you are sadly mistaken. take a good look at some of them, including the army of god.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #54
61. Am I behind the times?

It's very possible. If they are advocating the death penalty for women having abortions then they're definitely being more honest, but I'm surprised they'd actually be so forthright. More people need to know this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #61
66. most definitely behind the times. google "death penalty for women having abortions"
and prepare to be sickened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #21
207. You have to understand, the women are considered too stupid
to "know better" much of the time. So the men; husbands, fathers etc fight the docotrs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #207
339. Err...
I walk by a PP office every day when school is in session, and about once a week or so there's a protest of some sort. The vast majority of the protesters are women.

For the thread as a whole, I don't see what projecting misogynistic motives onto these people accomplishes. There's a difference between intent and effect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #339
509. Ask them a perfectly reasonable thing and they'll say...

I'm not qualified to answer. Please direct your question to our Pastor/Priest/Rabbi/Imam
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #339
525. It's not impossible that they are self-loathing busy bodies
who feel their own "happily married not using birth control" way of life should be forced on all women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #21
338. Incidentally, some Catholics, Quakers, UUs, etc. believe that
they wouldn't even make allowances for rape, incest, or health risk for the mother. Murder is murder. You wouldn't kill a living child because his father was a criminal, so how can you excuse the homicide of an unborn conceived by a rapist.

There are people who are consistent in their view of this as an issue about the sanctity of life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #338
492. They're fucking nuts, too.
If they want to carry their own pregnancy to term, come hell or high water, no matter what the situation is, let them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #21
428. Exactly.... well said.
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 02:36 PM by TLM
"It's ALL about controlling women."


I would take it a step further and say it is about controlling men too. Controlling men by controlling women... particularly as it relates to sex and sexuality.

That's what it all boils down to... harnessing sexuality and sexual drives, by establishing a system where the only permissible sexuality is within the defined constructs of the religious/conservative authority.

In other words you can only have sex if you do X... X being whatever social or behavioral structure they seek to impose. That's why the most strident anti-choicers are also anti-birth control. Because it is not about preventing or reducing abortions, it is about controlling sexual behavior.

Just like the 72 virgins if you blow yourself up for Allah... western religious fanaticism says you can only get laid if you abide by the rules and regulations they set forth.

And if you operate outside of that construct, they want you knocked up, infected with disease, and relegated to poverty. So they vehemently hate birth control and abortion because they see those things as loopholes... ways to avoid the consequences they want to see imposed on those who dare to disobey them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #16
298. I think there's a great difference
between those who don't agree with abortion, and therefore don't have one, and those who believe that no one should be allowed to do so.

It would not have been my choice, either. But that's MY choice, no one else's, and I cannot make that choice for anyone else.

Sure there are all sorts of colorations in the moral department about abortion. That's not really the point.

The point is, do you think YOU (or the gov't, or any other outside entity) have the right to make that decision for anyone else? If you do, then you are anti-choice, and yes, I believe that view comes from a view of women that is at the least patronizing, and at the worse enslaving.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #16
545. And you probably recognize that our Constituion/Bill of Rights are
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 12:29 AM by defendandprotect
fairly "pure and simple" yet medical side effect lists and credit card company lending

agreements are quite intended to be not so.

In other words, too often those who suggest abortion is "morally complicated" are people

basing their opinion on organized patriarchal religious theories and/or non-experience with

pregnancy. Remember the Vatican used to permit abortion up to the time of animation.


Millions of women have made this decision . . . I don't see them buckling over from the

weight of it all!

And, yes, I certainly think it would be an extremist view to equate a fetus with a human life

of an existing person!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Yes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
18. Banning choice is the first stepping stone towards the ultimate goal
Edited on Thu Jun-11-09 02:23 PM by Union Yes
Banning birth control and driving women back into the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

Authoritarians can't stand women having any form of independence.

Choice IS a woman's human right and needs to be protected.

This gay man proudly stands with women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. exactly, and thank you for your support
days of the theocracy

Days of the Theocracy
(Kristin Lems)
2007-07-15
words and music by Kristin Lems c 2007 Kleine Ding Music (BMI)...
1. First they fight abortion, birth control is next,
Then comes sex if you’re not married, finally, out goes sex
Put the prayers back in the schools, install parochiaid
Allow for corporal punishment, and then you got it made!

Chorus:

We’re going back, back to the good ole days
When men were really men and women knew their place
Back, back a couple of centuries
And welcome back the days of the theocracy

2. The family is so holy, there must be no divorce
And if a wife is not content, she must adjust, of course
And if he’s forced to beat her, it’s all for her own good
She must know what her limits are, as any woman should

3. The next to go is daycare, it’s all a commit plot
What could be more fulfilling than a child, wanted or not?
A woman’s work is housework, God wanted it that way
A salaried job degrades her since she never works for pay

Chorus

4. They teach us women’s lot is "love honor and obey"
And while their crusty notions seem like jokes to us today
They’re sitting in the Capitol, they’re voting on our lives
If we don’t stop them now, our freedom will not long survive

No going back..to the bad ole days...let's go ahead for future centuries,

And build a world that’s based on true democracy
And build a world that’s based on true equality
Ah – person!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #18
27. Absolutely correct!
It is that damn simple. And as they are relegating women back into slavery through constant pregnancy they will find was to marginalize others that don't fit into the old white male Christian fantasy world.

Through forcing constant child birth they can also control straight men (gay men and lesbians, OMG, what they would want to do to you). The fathers of the ensuing throng would be forced by good Christian "values" to be married and work like dogs to support the unwelcome brood with his female slave at home. He gets to then bow an scrape to the powers that be just in order to keep everyone fed, so he gets the opportunity for his own oppression. If he can't make ends meet he can go to the Church, and they will help him (and own him in the process). He will certainly give back to the Church for their "generosity".

Very simple really. Destroy everyone's economic power except the elites and you get to just move right along dragging the whips across the backs of your minions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #18
48. If you think that the goal of all, or even most anti-choice people you are simply wrong.
Most anti-choice people I know have no problem with birth control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #48
55. The middle-of-the-road anti-choice people are the worst of the bunch.

They're merely tools of the religious folk whose end goal is the abolition of birth control. They don't even know what they believe. Most are against abortion because they've been taught it's murder, but think there should be exceptions for rape or incest. What kind of ridiculous logic is THAT? Either it's murder or it isn't. The religious have such a stranglehold on this country and with their endless blathering, murdering, bombing, protesting clinics...eventually people buy into their message without even really knowing why. Look at any secular country...Canada, Norway, Germany, etc. There are plenty of people who are against abortion in these countries, but they just shut the hell up and don't have one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. +1
You are right. People that give power to the far right are just blindly giving power to the anti-birth control, anti-woman cause. Why else do people like Limbaugh openly despise feminism? It isn't saving any babies to call feminists ugly? HATE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #55
62. I see loads of Puke-worthy demonization in this post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #62
90. Flat ginger-ale might help with that nausea. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #55
400. As i said in another thread...


The moderate anit-choicer is like a moderate KKK member or a moderate rapist.


There is no moderate version of a philosophy supporting removing someone's rights over their own body.
It is by definition a violent, hateful, extremist position.

A anti-choicer who doesn't kill doctors is like a KKK member who doesn't kill black people... they still provide a support base for, and share the blame and shame of, those who do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #400
546. Terrific analogy -- !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #48
75. you know a quite different group than I do, then. see "days of the theocracy"
by the way, did you ever hear about the artist in SF who was using condoms to make some rather interesting art, and one of the local pr-forced birth woman-hating groups wanted her arrested for murder?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #75
141. What if the Right wanted their penis?
All these supposedly left guys on here taking up for the religious right just like good old boys slapping each other on the back make me wonder how they would feel if the religious right felt they should get to decide what gets done to their penis, just because their religious book won't let them off the hook without complete penis control in this country. GAWD might tell the pious that American penises need to be cut in half, or they need to be tattooed, who knows? It's GAWD that would be deciding anyway. Or maybe if they were caught jacking off they should be charged with murder. All those wasted sperm won't make GAWD happy. But these people would mean well, they wouldn't really hate men, they would just be obeying their idea of GAWD and we need to respect that to the point that we bow down let them do whatever they want to men's most special private part. Who are we to judge these people?

How would they feel about the religious right's arguments for control of their penis? I doubt they would be so willing to take up for the reich if it were their privates in the cross-hairs!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #141
480. I just found this post. Yeah. Mandatory circumcision because it's in the Bible!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #141
547. When will males be willing to give up the right to self-defense?
Basically that's what third term abortion is . . .

a human right for all --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiranon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #18
138. Thank you and I agree. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
20. No it isn't, and making this argument demeans the pro-choice side
more than the pro-life.

People who oppose abortion for the most part are decent people (gasp! the horror!).

If I were to point out a mother who strangled her newborn most people would react in horror and properly so. Why? Because killing babies is morally abhorrent. No one would argue that it was her choice, that she had the right to do so, and it was nothing more than a tumor. Simple, we all agree on that point.

Main difference is when each group defines an embryo as a baby. And among the pro-choice side there isn't really a consensus. Some say in to the 3rd trimester, some say when the heart starts, or when you can record brain activity, or when it can survive on its own (which changes along with medical technology, so not the best gauge), or when it is the product of rape/incest (a terrible argument, basically defining your humanness by your parents actions) etc. Obviously it is not cut and dried. They just happen to believe it is a baby a few months earlier than pro-choice people, and react the same way we would to see a full grown baby being killed. Not out of hatred of women, but out of hatred of what is happening to the child. And I'll admit, it is a moral grey area. Personally I think there is a point in development when afterward an abortion would be immoral (certainly she shouldn't be able to get an abortion as the child is being born, for example). But I cannot define, in a legal, scientific, or ethical way why that should be the case. And I doubt anyone could come up for a precise date on when the cut off should be that can be logically defend. So yeah, I kind of get their response to the very idea, even though I don't agree I can see why they would be pissed at the very idea.

So let's lay off the demonizing of the other side when it isn't justified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #20
35. There is nothing decent about denying a person control over their own body.
When it's done with shackles, we call it bondage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #35
82. A bit of hyperbole there
I'd put slavery as a bit worse than not having abortions available.

And from their point of view it isn't just their body, there is a child in there too.


For instance, do you have any concerns when pregnant women (who intend to carry their child to term) smoke, drink, live off of junk food, etc during the pregnancy?

Let's reduce this to individual arguments.
.
1) is it ok to kill a human baby (at whatever stage you deem it a baby; third trimester, newborn, 1 month, 1 year, whatever)?
2) can you come up with a clear distinction between a baby and a zygote that can be logically and ethically defended?
3) do you acknowledge that some people may have, and are entitled to, a different opinion on the answer given to point 2)?
4) do you honestly believe most people who oppose abortion do so entirely out of some deep rooted hatred of women, and a desire to enslave them, and not out of any ethical concerns for what they have deemed to be a human baby?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #82
101. No, it's not hyperbole in the least. When was the last time you were pregnant?
Edited on Thu Jun-11-09 04:45 PM by EFerrari
And, friend, there is no argument over my health. It's mine - not yours, not a politician's, not a churchman's, it's mine.

Pretty simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #101
107. So pregnancy = slavery.
There is absolutely no difference whatsoever between not having 3rd trimester abortions available and legally belonging to another human being for your entire life, who can do whatever he chooses with you (including raping and forcing you to give birth)?

No, there is a difference. You engaged in hyperbole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #107
113. I compared forced pregnancy to bondage, which it certainly is. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #113
133. So losing control over one aspect of your body
reproductive choice, is the equivalent to losing control over every aspect of your body up to and including reproductive choice.

You don't see the hyperbole there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stellabella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #133
183. You think that a pregnancy is 'one aspect of your body'??
Yeah, I can tell you're a man.

Being pregnant literally takes over your life. And from that point on you are never on your own or by yourself. The responsibilities never end.

Grow up. Forcing women to have children isn't 'hyperbole'. It's madness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thesquanderer Donating Member (647 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #183
288. adoption?

re: "Being pregnant literally takes over your life. And from that point on you are never on your own or by yourself. The responsibilities never end."

It does take over your life for the better part of nine months. From that point on you can be on your own if you choose the adoption route.

To be clear, I think abortion is a choice that should be protected. I just think you were over-stating your case by leaving out the other option. Let's face it, there is *no* answer to an unwanted pregnancy that is ideal. Each woman in that situation has to choose what she feels is the least bad option in her case (abortion, adoption, raising the child anyway). None of these are easy options.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juno jones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #288
564. Let me clue you into the nasties
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 03:14 AM by juno jones
What happens to women after childbirth that we sometimes don't even want to talk to our doctors about.

Incontinence. Peeing every time you sneeze or cough.

Prolapse of bladder or uterus, painful as hell and not easy to fix. Saw a few of those in my time as a NA. Your insides turn inside out and protrude from your body. Delightful.

Hips and pelvis that pop in and out of socket depending on hormones and activity levels.

Fistulas. They at least tend to get repaired here in the US as opposed to less fortunate places, but they are apparently excruciatingly painful to have and heal and vaginal repair like that can limit a woman's sexual pleasure and capability for further child birth permanently.

Oh, and death. Women still die in childbirth. I just heard of one locally recently. She apparently just pretty much bled out.

Those are just a yummy few.

These risks and medical conditions are acceptable if you truly wish to bear that baby. But they should not be imposed on women who don't desire to take that risk.


This is constant, chronic stuff and many of us women will deal with these physical complaints til the day we die. We don't just go back to living unchanged. Preganancy doen't simply 'interrupt' our lives, it alters them irrevocably and sometimes in negative ways. As a man you will never have to endure any of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #183
303. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #303
351. 'hysterical' ??? here we go.
you understand that in itself is considered sexist. But women demanding their rights are 'hysterical', correct?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #351
448. No, I never said that
actually you had my comment deleted so we can't see what I had said.

I merely said this one woman was acting hysterical, defined as being: in a state of uncontrolled panic, anger, or excitement. She was. Reason being I made a coherent, rational argument that stated while I personally support abortion rights for women I can understand why some would not. Which was to point out not that I agree with them, or think they are all saints, but merely that they are not the demons that the OP stated. At which point she began screaming about me hating women, being brainwashed and wanting to enslave all women. That I would call uncontrolled panic/anger, in other words: hysteria.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #448
493. Actually, I didn't have your comment deleted. Someone else besides me must have found it offensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #133
215. The hyperbole is yours, not mine. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #215
449. Really? Interesting
take a moment away from deleting my comments to look for actual examples of hyperbole I used. I can find actual examples you used (for instance saying there is no difference between slavery and not having abortion rights), do me the same courtesy and provide evidence of your claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #449
499. Why don't you quote me? Your paraphrase itself is hyperbole. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #133
557. If a woman cannot reliably control her reproduction, she cannot control her life . . .!!!
Let me know when men would like to surrender the right to self-defense . . . ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #35
618. But the law of the land sanctions Tiller's clinic and sanctions a woman's
right to make her own decision.

Whether she decides as the pro-choice community prefers or how the anti-choice community prfers is not the point; that she makes the decision herself is.

The murder of George Tiller was an overt effort to circumvent the law. The OP asserts that an anti-choice position is "anti-woman." That is not true. There are any number of males who, unlike Roeder, do not consider themselves above the law, honor the precedent Roe v Wade established, who are decidedly pro-feminist, but who are anti-abortion.

The OP is disingenuous in omitting that demonstrable truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #20
36. See my post above.

If these people truly believe it's murder, why aren't they executing the women who have abortions? Why do you never see signs that say "Put these women in prison for life?" I mean, that's what we do to criminals and murderers, isn't it. First-degree murder at that, since it takes planning to have an abortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #36
77. When PETA says meat is murder
do they then go and kill anyone they see eating meat? When environmentalists say pollution is murderering the planet, why don't they go and shoot anyone they see driving an SUV?

Point being you can think something is wrong and ought to be illegal, and work towards that goal peacefully, without resorting to violence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #77
86. But they DO murder for their cause.

Please see the latest killing of Dr. Tiller. Google all the other abortion providers who've been shot, stabbed, bombed. Why aren't they producing lists of addresses of the women "murdering" children and posting these on the internet? Or picking them off as they come out of the clinics? That's why I believe it's all about control, and not so much the other moral thing.

But now that niyad has elucidated me, I'll have to take back what I said about the more right-leaning not wanting to punish women with long prison sentences or the DP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #86
96. "They" in this case is an extreme minority
not supported by the majority. You cannot logically make an assessment of millions of people with an N=1. That's basic stats.

I don't claim that muslims murder for their beliefs, even though some do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #96
103. That "extreme minority" has a wealthy, powerful lobby
and its influence is felt all over the country. Must be nice to be able to minimize the real consequences to the health of others as you are doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #103
105. They being the actual murderers
who do not have much of a lobby, and in fact go to jail when caught, after being denounced by nearly everyone on their side of the issue.

You don't seriously believe most people who oppose abortion are secretly plotting to kill anyone do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #105
112. Without the right wing noise machine and the anti-woman lobby
and their @ss-lickers among the political elite, Dr. Tiller would still be alive. Were this any other kind of crime, his stalker of more than a decade would have been apprehended and that clinic would still be serving women from all over the country and, indeed, the world.

Don't you find it perverse that the FBI can pre-emptively arrest potential demonstrators at the RNC conventions but they can't apprehend Roeder -- with his felony record. with tape of him violating a federal law, with his name, address and plate number, with witnesses?

And as Dr. Warren Hern said yesterday, those "denunciations" are craven bullshit. We know that. I don't see any of these organizations or their defenders changing a thing. Do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #112
132. So what propaganda/lobby
forced the guy to shoot those recruiters in little rock? What rabidly anti-semite radio host caused the shooting at that holocaust museum?

People are, ultimately, responsible for their own actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #132
235. Yes, they are responsible and we are social animals. Amy Goodman
did a good segment on how all these hatreds are intertwined in the right wing via white nationalists. Anti-abortion, anti-gay, white supremacy, anti-semitism, they are intertwined:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5828885&mesg_id=5828885
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #235
304. Sad,
it always comes back to evil white people with some folks.

Yeah white nationalists are bad. But they are also an extreme minority and don't have nearly the clout people like to attribute to them. Nor are they at the center of some vast rightwing conspiracy. They're mostly just yokels out in the woods.

I guess it's good to have a scapegoat, makes it easier to assign blame after a tragedy. It won't address any root issues but it does make thinking simpler.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #304
496. The "sad" "some folks" you are talking about is an expert on hate groups
and also a white male.

That you continue to dismiss the threat posed by these people is unsurprising.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #96
558. They are influenced by religious fanatacism . . . .
which effects more than a minority and which provides a large majority of support.

Everyone "pro-lifer" who does not condemn this murder contributes to the likelihood of more

violence at abortion clinics!

Everyone who contributes to the Vatican supports their fanatical ideas and goals --

their hatred of women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #77
439. Animals and the planet are not people....

and nobody in PETA or Earth First is arguing that the planet or animals are persons.
Only a person can be murdered... assuming we are using actual legal definitions and not simply ranting with emotional hyperbole.

"Point being you can think something is wrong and ought to be illegal, and work towards that goal peacefully"

There is no way to peacefully work towards the goal of removing one's rights to control their own body.

Just as there is no peaceful way to work towards reestablishment of slavery.

Removal of rights over ones body is a violent abusive act... PERIOD!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #20
38. Lay off the blinders
These people are anti-birth control, that's their dirty little not-so-secret. It is time we all woke up to their true motivation. It isn't abortion.

The blinders must feel awfully good though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #38
50. Most anti-choice people I know have no problem with birth control.
That's like a republican saying all liberals are communists, it's the same kind of demonizing rhetoric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Do a google search
Your friend may will not be representative of the true goals of the movement. They are probably duped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #51
58. No, my friend thinks the anti-birth control people are the wackos they are
Which shows that the "movement" is not the coherent entity you think it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. If your friend supports the "movement" to ban abortion
they give power to the anti-birth control crowd. They can pretend otherwise if they want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #60
64. That's like saying I give support to communists because I am for government economic regulation.
You're argument is about the same fallacious reasoning that RW screeds about us being fifth-column patsies of American hating Marxists and similar crap are based on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. Wrong. Like birth control, abortion is a health care measure.
Access to both are basic to women's well being. The real fallacy is "believing" you can be for one and not the other rationally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #67
72. But to the anti-choice people it's not "just" a health care measure because...
...to them another person is involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #72
81. Since when would anyone base their health care decisions
on the beliefs of others? Sorry, that's not good science or good medicine or good self-care. People used to believe witches caused fevers, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #72
151. So, they should make health care decisions for all?
Based on their personal religion? They get to choose for everyone so we don't step on their pious toes by making our own secular health care decisions? We need to respect their desire to dictate women's health care by their religious views in our secular country?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #67
386. WHOAH there parnta!
Birth Control IS NOT on the same level of Abortion.

You can not logically equate the two.

Because some Catholic groups believe both are sacrosanct does not mean they are equal.

The fact that you believe you can't be for one and not the other is very disturbing.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #386
405. Not one or the other. Be for women's rights, reproductive health and privacy and make the choices
that are appropriate in your life.

No one else needs your approval.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #405
412. I buy that to a point
But choices we make have consequences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #412
460. yes they do. not sure what you mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #67
408. Sex ed is controversial b/c it decreases ignorance about the reproductive process
These threads prove that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #38
74. Oh I see
you've actually read the minds of the 51% or so of the country who has ethical qualms with abortion and found that all of them violently hate women. Wow, with that many psychos out there trying to kill or enslave women it's amazing we have any women left at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #74
94. Can you tell us where you got those numbers?

And the breakdown of who's who?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #94
98. Last poll I saw on the subject had the US pegged at a slight
majority being opposed to abortion. Do you want everyones names who took the poll? Can't help you there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #98
116. It doesn't sound accurate. A link would be helpful in making your case.
I remember something about a recent poll saying that the number of people who identify as "pro-life" has risen. But polls consistently find that the majority of Americans believe in the right to choose, at least in the first trimester.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #116
330. Oh, it's accurate alright. Here's your link:
http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/may/16/poll-majority-now-against-abortion/news/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #98
118. and the last poll I saw said that nearly 75 per cent believed in a woman's right to choose.
PLEASE tell us to which poll you are referring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllieB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #118
297. Probably a Fox News poll.
This poster hasn't met a RW talking point he doesn't like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #297
350. Absolutely
On this and another thread as well! I wonder how much the Republicans are paying for posing now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllieB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #350
366. This thread is like troll flypaper.
It's pretty ugly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #366
367. LOL!!!
"Troll Flypaper", I will need to remember that one. :fistbump:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #366
559. And notice how many of the Trolls are saying "I support abortion" ....but .. .
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 01:55 AM by defendandprotect
just to spread a little right-wing "pro-life" garbage around DU--!!!

You respond, of course, in the hope that something will open their impoverished minds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #118
391. Last poll I saw
50% said a woman had a right to choose IN MOST CASES, but not all.

25% said a woman always had a right to choose.

25% said a woman never has the right to choose.

Heard it on NPR, and it's been that way, unchanged, since the 1970s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #98
125. I can. If you're thinking of this poll, their middle names would be republican.

Their last names would be Christian.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx

Please note the last paragraph.

I believe people are talking out their asses. Many have been brainwashed this past year with the highly effective religious right ad campaign focusing on late term abortion as some kind of torture experiment gleefully performed willy nilly on MASSIVE numbers of women across the country. I also think you'd find, if you did your own survey, that in many cases people like to think of themselves as "pro-life" in theory, (who doesn't?) until it actually comes down to signing on the dotted line. It's very easy to give the opinion that you think abortion should be applied only in a few instances while you're on the phone digging into a bag of chips and playing with the remote. Tell someone, "your opinion will make law for real, for real," and you'd see a different outcome. That's my opinion of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #125
560. Agree . . ..
which proves yet again that right-wing propaganda works --

i.e., "partial truth abortion" --

On the other hand, how disconnected from reality does an individual have to be to

actually believe that a woman can wake up in the six month and just decide she doesn't

want to go any further with the pregnancy!!!?????

People who can be convinced of this are evidently people who have no loved ones and never

were close to a pregnancy nor pregnant!

After the largely distorted and lying campaign by the GOP/"pro-lifers" on late term abortion

is somehow escapes the attention of many that late term abortions are dangerous to the life

of the female -- that's why they have to be approved - done under government supervision.

And that most late term abortions are a matter of self-defense.

How many males are ready to give up their right to self-defense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varelse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #98
601. There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/cnn-poll-record-support-for-roe-v-wade.html

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/is-public-opinion-changing-on-abortion.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #74
143. No, I know how to Google
Edited on Thu Jun-11-09 09:33 PM by get the red out
Did you ever read the website "Talk to Action"? They really go over what the religious right is after.

I am outraged at the religious right, they want to end birth control, you can look it up. I don't care what someone believes in their own mind, but I do care what they want to legislate or twist into law in by stacking the courts. From what I have read the people who wish to outlaw abortion see it as a first step to ending all reproductive rights. I will oppose them to my last breath. This is my main issue, reproductive rights, and those who wish to end reproductive rights in this country must be prevented from doing so. There is no wish-washy support of the right, they will take all or nothing.

Thankfully there are a lot of intelligent people on this thread that know the truth. I am very gratified to see how few hateful women's rights detractors there are here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raksha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #74
510. You can have ethical qualms about abortion and still be pro-choice.
It just means that you are unwilling to impose your beliefs on others. Ever heard the saying, "if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #20
44. Decent people mind their own business.
You object to abortion? Don't have one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #44
71. You object to shooting abortion doctors?
Then don't shoot any. Otherwise mind your own business.

Point being you can be morally opposed to the actions of others if the cross a certain line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #71
76. Please tell me you aren't equating women's health care
with homicidal acts of terrorism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #76
83. You made a poor argument
I was showing you the error. Simply saying "don't do it if you don't like it" in response to any concern anyone has about the actions of another is an inadequate response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #83
91. Maybe you just didn't understand the poster's argument
which is about respecting the autonomous decisions of others regarding their own health. And which you compared to murder.

See the difference? A women's body isn't actually the public square, no matter how much right wing nutcases argue that it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #91
95. Inability to even try to understand the opposition
is a trait I'd more often associate with the very religious rightwing crowd.

Hypothetical: a woman is giving birth, she is in the actual process of birthing some kid and will be done in say an hour. Is it still her body her choice, should she be able to abort at that point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #95
100. The problem here isn't that the poster or I don't understand the opposition.
The problem is that you're trying to defend the indefensible. And that you drag ridiculous hypotheticals into the discussion rather than confront the problems with your own minimizing of the damage done to women by misogyny. It's the same "ticking bomb" excuse that is used to justify torture. It can't justify the denial of basic human rights, no matter how loud it ticks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #100
102. Carefully reread
or read for the first time, my initial comment. And come up with a clear list, point by point, of what was so objectionable about what I said so I can respond more efficient. I took great care to make my point clear.

And on a side note, I'm curious, why is it so important to you to hate these people? Disagree with them fine, and work against them in the legislature, sure. By why the need to personalize the opposition and make them not just on the opposite side, but downright evil?

You're either with us or you're with the terro . . oh um . . misogynists!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #102
106. Observing hatred is not the same as hating, get it?
Edited on Thu Jun-11-09 04:52 PM by EFerrari
And yes, some ethical issues do come down to choosing a side. Unlike Bush's fake war on terra, women's rights is one of those issues.

You show a remarkable disdain for the rights of women considering that you presumably associated with at least one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #106
110. Like I said, reread my initial comment
actually I'm going to assume from your responses you never read in the first place. So take a minute. And see where exactly I say that I hate women, or whatever nonsense you're trying to claim.

And you're doing more than observing hatred, you're radiating it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #110
115. I'm not responsible for your projections, either.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #115
134. Safe to say then that you're going to prefer to stay outraged
than to educate yourself and risk not being outrage then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Control-Z Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #134
160. EDUCATE?? Are you serious?
JonQ. Do you honestly believe you are more educated on the issue than the women here? Or were you trying to say something else?

Outrage is a perfectly reasonable reaction to someone who wants to control another's body.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stellabella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #160
186. Well, his response certainly was typical of a misogynist.
And he certainly doesn't get it. He's just a nosy busybody who thinks his opinion is worth something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #186
310. whoa, too much irony to handle
have to break it up.

Typical misogynist: from someone who says I'm not allowed to express an opinion because of my gender.

And he certainly doesn't get it: from people who have routinely lied about me and invented claims I never made.

He's just a nosy busybody who thinks his opinion is worth something: from someone who felt the need to interject herself in to someone elses debate, after I posted a comment that was both fair, and not directed at anyone in particular.

Were you trying to be ironic, or did that just happen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Control-Z Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #186
548. And this is why women are still
treated as 2nd class beings. It is disturbing that controlling, misogynist pigs spend their time on progressive boards spewing their hate messages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #160
217. It's just more of the same attempt at control.
Tell women what to do, tell them what they experience. Same bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #160
305. I am more educated on the subject at hand than the person I was responding to
the subject at hand being my initial comment, which I encouraged her to read for the first time. I did this after realizing that she hadn't actually read my initial post as she was responding to statements I had never made.

So when it comes to my own beliefs then yes I would so I am more educated than anyone else on the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #134
216. LOL. Rinse and repeat. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #216
306. LOL, blinders and rage n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tumbulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #134
254. Why don't you read Roe v Wade- all your points are answered in that
decision.

In the meantime anyone who is against abortions need to post a 1 million dollar bond to pay to raise any babies he fathers. Money for the forced mother.. If the bond isn't posted ,then it's vasectomy time.

It is time for the men who oppose abortion to pay some price for their demand for control over any woman's body.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kleec Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #110
643. I say
this JonQ sounds like a KKKKarl Rove wannabe! Nothing like twisting words around. No one has the right to tell anyone what to do with their own bodies...no one! Take your RW talking points and go home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #95
126. The point of your argument seems to focus on late term abortion.

That isn't in question here since this procedure is only reserved for women who's life is at risk, or if the child would not be viable. That's what, .01% of the total?

You've been adequately brainwashed by the religious right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #126
135. My point was not about late term abortion
So lets leave the snide and inaccurate statements out of this.

But since you brought it up, if late term abortions are to be reserved for extreme cases, why? Womans body her choice right? So how can anyone say no in the last trimester if she chooses? You contradict yourself. It's either absolutely her right, or it isn't. You can't say it's ok because it's her right, but only in cases where she or the child is at risk.

Which is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #135
140. You're right.
I apologize, but hope you realize this probably a more close-to-heart issue for me as a woman, than it is for you as a man. I was getting a lack of empathy from your posts, but that's just my perception and this is just a discussion.

I haven't contradicted myself as I didn't give you my thoughts on the issue. Just passing on info. But I believe the reason why is a question of viability of the child. Nothing is written in stone and each pregnancy is unique. It's generally considered that a child can be viable anywhere after the 21st month. No guarantees, but the chance is there. And no, there are no pro-choice people who believe in infanticide, so there's a concern there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
colinmom71 Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:58 AM
Response to Reply #140
279. Ummm, NO! Try 23-24 WEEKS as the standard for fetal viability...
For developmentally normal fetuses. And for some fetuses (usually with genetic disorders), viability doesn't even occur upon a full-term 40 week birth.

Understand, fetal viability (which is the general legal standard concerning abortion laws) doesn't depend solely on gestational age. A condition like Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome may be so severe that the doctor recommends termination versus full term delivery at the seventh month. Some fetuses have such devastating conditions that termination may be far more kind than birth and a torturous NICU stay to prolong a life that was sadly doomed from it's inception..

NO fetuses past 23 weeks have ever been successfully maintained without significant major system damage (intestinal, neural, heart issues, etc.). And that translates to utter heartbreak for the responsible family. I know this well as the mom of a former 24-weeker preemie, who has serious and significant disability issues. He had the best potential prognosis for such a premature baby (no brains bleeds, no other system damage beyond a congenital heart problem), but still wound up profoundly and seriously disabled. It is heart breaking to need to change diapers on a 13 year old boy.

Please research medical issues fully before you try to cite neo-natal needs pre-birth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #279
312. Thanks for the info colinmom.

No I'm sure as hell not an expert, and what I posted about viability is just what I've read. I do understand everything you've said in the rest of your post and agree with you so completely. Maybe you thought I was not in favor of giving women the option to terminate at all? If so, that's isn't the case - I would wish any family going such pain and devastation the mercy of ending suffering for all concerned. It's the right wingers who claim that late term abortion is about doctors forcibly wrenching rosy-cheeked, happy little babies from their mothers' wombs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
colinmom71 Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #312
613. Oh, sorry. No, I didn't mean to imply you were anti-choice...
It's just that there is a lot of misinformation and purposely vague information used in anti-choice arguments. I tend to feel compelled to offer correct info whenever I come across not quite accurate statements (and no, I also didn't think you were doing so for an agenda). I kinda figured you just weren't as personally familiar with info on preemies and viability as I am... Much of my response was more meant to offer some info in general for the sake of accuracy.

And I absolutely agree with your post here! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #140
308. My "lack of empathy"
apparently stems from not having an outright, blind hatred of anyone who disagrees with me. My original post (read it please) merely stated that it is not as cut and dried as people like to make it sound and that for the most part people who oppose abortion (and oppose violence) don't do it out of blind hatred of women but out of legitimate concern for children. I can respect that motivation without agreeing with their conclusions or supporting the laws they'd wish to pass.

"But I believe the reason why is a question of viability of the child."

Ok, lets run with that. At some point in a pregnancy the child is not entirely done growing but could still live outside the womb right? So it is viable. After that point is it still acceptable to get an abortion? On the one hand you have people screaming that abortion is an absolute right and can have no restrictions (and even thinking about that is the same as enslaving all women). On the other hand you just mentioned that no pro-choice people are pro-infanticide, implying that at some point in the pregnancy, very late term, restrictions would be acceptable. Those two arguments are incompatible. Either it's an absolute right and no one can tell women what to do with their bodies, or at some point restrictions are acceptable, in which case it cannot be considered an absolute right.

Which illustrates my initial point, there is a lack of consensus as to when to cut off abortions among the pro-choice camp. Meaning it is not black/white at all, but open to different interpretations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #308
313. Now we're still talking about late term abortion.

As I just posted a little above yours, I'm no expert, but there does seem to be a point at which viability is possible. See colinmom's post just up from yours.

The current laws as I understand them, provide late term abortion when the child will not be viable or there is risk to the mother. That's good enough for me. I personally would find it not morally acceptable to abort that late if I and my child were healthy, but it isn't my business what other women do, and I would leave that to the doctors and those above my pay grade to figure out for the populace.

The one thing I think we can all agree on without doubt though is that something that is the equivalent of this ----> . is not a viable life, or capable of sentient thought. What's irksome about the religious is that they invoke God's word to back their crusade, when the OT clearly states that life begins when God breathes life into a human being. That would be at birth. God apparently had no qualms about abortion either, since it's mentioned, but that's ignored as well. Selective reasoning, if you can even call it reasoning. But I digress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #313
324. But that was my point
that it isn't an absolute.

I wouldn't say you hate and want to enslave women because you just agreed that a womans control over her body is not absolute, that there are acceptable cut offs.

The demonizing of the opponent, making them evil rather than simply holding different beliefs, is an unfair stance that many have taken up.

And if a reasonable argument can be made, from a pro-choicer at that, to end abortion rights at some point doesn't that mean that at least in some small way there is agreement between the two sides? Neither wants to see babies killed, neither is entirely content to mind their own business and let women do entirely what they please. They merely differ on how long it takes after fetilization for an egg to become a human. Some say immediately, some say a little later, and some say alot later, and everywhere in between. It's hard for me to muster up the absolute hate some people on here are showing at a differing political opinion that basically boils down to a vague definition that no one can agree on.

Obviously if I, or anyone, sincerely believed that a fertilized egg was a baby immediately then abortion would be horrid. I don't, but I can't honestly say when the magical transformation occurs between zygote and baby, so I have a hard time berating people who have merely set an earlier time point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #324
420. Of course everyone has their own moral code. That's a given.

I gave you an example of mine, but said I wouldn't foist that on others. There are pro-choice people who would never have an abortion just as there are anti-choice people who sneak in the back door to have their abortion then get back in the picket line the next day. In a decent society we try to accommodate the greater good. All other secular countries around the world have managed to find some common ground that addresses the concerns of most. There are no bombings, stabbings, shootings on a regular basis. No protesters haranguing people. But you're saying our fundies and morality hand wringers are somehow special. We can't manage the way France, Canada, Germany, the UK and pretty much all other civilized countries have.

I don't agree with the OP that all forced-birthers are about the hate... the other reasons are all about control.

Religious Reasons to Be Anti-Choice

1. Abortion is Murder. My morals trump yours. My God said so. ---> Control
2. Sex is for Marriage. You reap what you sow ---> Hatred/punishment/control
2b. Sex outside of Marriage leads to a disintegration of society ---> Control
3. It's your duty to produce as many Christians/Muslims as you can ---> Control

Non-religious Reasons

1. Too many women are using abortion as birth control. They need to close their legs. ---> Control/punishment
1 b) It's all minorities having abortions. They need to close their legs ----> Racist Hatred/punishment
2. Why should I have to subsidize the mistakes of others ---> Punishment/hatred
3. Why should the woman have a choice I don't have ---> Hatred/Control
4. Abortion is Murder. My morals trump yours. I said so. ---> Control
5. All life is fluffy clouds beautiful. Whee. My morals trump yours. I said so. ---> Control
6. Access to abortion turns women into sluts ---> Control
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #420
457. "I don't agree with the OP that all forced-birthers are about the hate"
So my initial post, which stated that not all "forced birthers" (terrible name, no more accurate than pro-abortion) are the devil incarnate was offensive and incorrect how?

You claim that it's about control, let's explore that. Are there any legal limitations that aren't about control? I'm going to say that I have the right to tell other people not to commit murder, even if it isn't against me. Should I mind my own business? Do I hate that person? Am I trying to control them for some insidious purpose? Obviously no one would make those arguments. So the only difference I see here is that you and I define murder slightly differently than the "forced birthers".

For instance, you said it was ok for the law to limit late term abortions except in extreme cases. How is that not an example of you trying to control the actions of women? Saying that your morality trumps theirs?

Point being, there are legitimate reasons for halting the actions of another, and not all of them are about attempts to enslave that individual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #457
471. No I didn't say that it's okay for the law to limit late term abortions.

I gave you my own personal feelings on the matter. What I personally would do. I have no idea what is best for others. But as I said earlier, in a civilized society, people try to compromise, do what's best for their society as a whole.

You're mixing up different types of control. There is the Golden Rule type of control which stops us from murder, raping, robbing others. Why? For the greater good. Doing unto others means that if I don't rape, kill, rob others, they won't do it to me. This is why we have the laws that prohibit this behavior. Without them, our society would quickly vanish, and it's quite likely that the principles behind the Golden Rule have been hotwired into our DNA after so many years of evolution - when our hairy humanoid selves first realized we had to band together in order to survive.

That is not the same as controlling a woman's right to abortion whatsoever. There is no greater good argument to be made, unless if you wanted to argue that abortion will cause society to vanish, but we both know that's far from a possibility.

I tried to answer this in an earlier post to Paulsby... it was this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5826983&mesg_id=5834597
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #471
481. You said:
"That isn't in question here since this procedure is only reserved for women who's life is at risk, or if the child would not be viable. That's what, .01% of the total?"

You didn't exactly endorse it but you accepted the law as is without complaints. And the law limits late term abortions in many cases. You also went on to call me a brainwashed religious nut. Appreciate that. Totally founded in reality.

And for your golden rule: you insist on making the argument for the "forced birthers" that they are about control, that they don't feel it to be murder. So it's ok to oppose murder and stop people from doing that, but it's not ok to stop abortions if you honestly think they are murder, that thought process simply isn't possible. There is no way people could see it as murder. Instead they say to themselves, well there's a happy liberated woman making a decision concerning her own health, let's stop her even though we don't think the fetus is really alive simply because we hate her.

Somehow I don't think that's how the reasoning goes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #481
488. Yes, I do accept the law. It's a compromise.
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 03:48 PM by Gwendolyn
If women had easy access to birth control and early stage abortion unfettered, it wouldn't even be an issue. I'm not sure it is one now.

I apologized to you for my remark, and would have deleted it after the moment passed, but couldn't. I can't send you flowers. :)

The reason I believe that the forced birthers don't really, really in their heart of hearts believe it's murder is because non of them are actively seeking punishment for the women who they ostensibly believe are committing first degree homicide. Ask the average forced birther if women should get life in prison or the DP, and you'll get a blank look. If the idea of punishment were actually put on the table, people would change their minds so fast we'd feel the collective wind tunnel effect from NY to Mexico. Many believe there should be abortion dispensation for rape or incest victims. Again, doesn't wash with the whole concept of murder. On top of that, none would profess, because it's preposterous, that ---> . is a human being. What you'll get is some nebulous idea of a soul that no one can really explain. It's all based on a personal belief that is really a function of imagination. Nebulous ideas have no place in secular, civilized societal law. People are absolutely free though, to pursue their own moral code.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Control-Z Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #135
157. Frankly, it should be her right
for any reason, at any time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #157
309. Would that include
5 minutes or so before she was set to give birth naturally? Just curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Control-Z Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #309
543. Absolutely.
If any woman would even consider that (which we all know is a purely convoluted fabrication made up by you and your twisted pro-birth friends), then yes. I would expect she had a compelling reason. One that would outweigh any of your wet dreams about what women actually do to defy big, tough, controlling guys like you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tumbulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #135
256. read Row v Wade
the answer is there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
colinmom71 Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #95
277. I'm going to mention the personal account of someone I met online...
I've participated in abortion debates for years. In a parenting board I frequented years ago, there was a woman there who shared her mother's painful and sad account of her first pregnancy/birth.

This happened in the days before routine ultrasound exams, but this person's mother's first pregnancy was with a hydrocephalic fetus. The hydrocephaly was so severe that the fetus's head had become stuck into the pelvis and birth canal of the laboring woman. Her OB finally had to come out to the waiting room to ask the dad who did he want to survive the birth, the baby or his wife? The husband of course responded "please save my wife". The OB (likely, since he never shared the details of how he did so) lanced the cranial contents of the fetus to let the extraneous fluid to drain in order to safely deliver the baby. The baby died, but the pregnant woman's reproductive system was spared trauma and she survived to have several more children later, including the person who shared her family's story with our forum.

It is extremely rare, to the point of statistical insignificance, for a woman to find need for a third trimester abortion - never mind your proposed hypothetical question being a reality. In fact, a woman who has carried a pregnancy to term is not going to seek an abortion during labor. Frankly, labor is exhausting and too painful to make any sort of decision concerning whether or not the woman wants to parent the baby.

But yes, to answer your question, it is still the pregnant woman's decision to govern what happens to her body during labor and delivery. She gets to choose whether she'd like an epidural to manage labor pain, whether she's like a vaginal delivery versus a C-section delivery, whether she'd like the father to attend the birth, etc. All medically related procedures require personal consent from the patient (the pregnant woman in this scenario). Since we require legal consent by parents for other medical issues concerning dependent minors, I see no reasonable legal difference between an expectant parent to decide to terminate a doomed pregnancy versus a parent family having authority over consent to medical procedures for a seriously ill baby in the NICU (BTW, I lived that scenario.).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #95
561. And why would someone be so willing to accept such a hypothetical
as a truth?

It would take a great mistrust of women and great disconnect from women and

childbearing to believe such a thing.


I don't see that there is any more responsibility to "understand the opposition"

re abortion than there was to understand those who apposed abolition, or women's ERA,

or ending of Segreation....!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stellabella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #83
184. No, YOU made the error. You made the comparison.
If you think that aborting a zygote is the same as killing a man with a wife, and children, and a life, you're beyond hope.

If you don't like it, don't do it, is a perfectly adequate response to a PERSONAL PRIVATE matter. It's none of your god damned business what another woman does with her body. Get a life. And while you're at it, pay attention to your own life and mind your own business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #184
311. Hmm, strident, irrational, outraged, obviously never read my post
and is responding to claims I never made. Do you have multiple aliases because I've been getting that alot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #76
84. Who knows his calculations.
I know mine. :nuke: Prophylactic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rage for Order Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #44
137. So if one is not in the military, they should STFU about the Iraq War?
I assume this is your position as well, because surely you want to be consistent
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #20
79. Decent people recognize that my reproductive tract isn't their business. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
99. Any group who wishes to force a birth on a woman DESERVES to be demonized.
Duh....:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #20
109. I have been dealing with these sickos for decades now, been the recipient of death
threats, been assaulted, been harrassed working as a clinic escort. so please, do NOT presume to tell me that I am demonizing the other side when it isn't justified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #109
111. 51% of the public claims to be in agreement with them
that's millions of people even if those numbers are overblown. Have you recieved death threats, abuse etc from some significant percentage of even a million people?

If not you're judging a group with a very small sample size. In statistics this is a bad thing, very prone to error and false assumptions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #111
117. So, niyad hasn't gotten ENOUGH death threats for you?
OMFG. That's pretty telling, right there.

How many death threats would you need to get to be enough?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #117
130. To pass judgement on tens of millions?
I'd say quite a few.

Feel free to say what you want *about the people doing the threatening*, but that doesn't mean you can apply their actions to others who haven't behaved in that way.

Is it safe to say you're pro-stereotyping? So like a bad experience with one or two people in a minority group means you can hate that entire group?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #130
139. I'm not stereotyping. You are minimizing the vast network
that allow people like Roeder to operate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #139
332. Ok, prove it
there is a vast network sustaining and encouraging murder.

That is a bold claim.

Now you need to back it up with evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #332
541. I already provided you with a link to an intelligent discussion
on this topic yesterday on Amy's show. Here it is again:

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/11/shooting

And that's the last bit of my time you get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #111
119. your comment is not to be believed.
Edited on Thu Jun-11-09 05:32 PM by niyad
just as a matter of curiosity, how many death threats would I have had to get to be "statistically significant"?


How many did Dr. Tiller get? probably not from several million. it only took ONE person to kill him, and to forever alter the lives of thousands of people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #119
121. I'd love to see how these contrarians would change their tune
Edited on Thu Jun-11-09 05:28 PM by EFerrari
if the calcium was being sucked out of their spine or if their families got even a single death threat.

Unbelievable is right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #119
131. That's your argument?
That you don't need validation because you can pick *one* example?

Ok, how many more 911s do you need before you realize all muslims are evil?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllieB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #111
302. Link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Control-Z Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #20
155. Let's not tell the rest of us how to feel
about the forced birthers.

Tell me this, why is it they have zero concern the moment the fetus actually does become a baby? It's a simple question. If they're such decent, caring people, then why do they stop caring after birth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #155
333. So on a post
telling us that all those who oppose abortion are evil, you're saying it is inappropriate for me to tell people how to feel about them? You do get the irony of that right?

And who says they don't have concern after the kid is born? Saying you don't want a kid to be murdered (and they do consider it murder) is not the same as saying you want to adopt it personally. Anymore than saying you think abortion should be legal means you are personally going to pay for anyone who wants one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blonndee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
171. let's lay off the the judging of "the other side" when you will never be pregnant. Deal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #171
334. I assume then that women could be fairly told to STFU on any issue
relating to men? For instance, the idea that the draft would be brought back was thrown around quite a bit. Since only men have to register I would expect women to not have or express any opinion on that subject.

Fair is fair right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #334
562. Every expectation that if a draft were renewed, women would be required to register . ..
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 02:11 AM by defendandprotect
Additionally, that's a rather inane rebuttal since women are the major opponents of

wars where males have been used as "fodder for war." -- !!!!

Wake up and let's convert Father's Day to something more meaningful than a new shirt!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #562
631. So women are free to argue for/against
something that doesn't affect them directly because they're doing on behalf of men?

Interesting logic. Too bad it only applies one way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #20
382. The OP is heated and also spot on. Women are largely left out of the equation of abortion discussion
as if they are incidental to -- rather than vital and in charge of -- the process.

Damn straight we're pissed off about that. And if people got to that concept -- and quit ignoring the woman, quit spouting on and on as if someone else's reproductive health and life was any of their business -- the discussion would be much briefer and much simpler.

Woman are not incubators. They shall not remain second class citizens. They shall have reproductive health and privacy rights. They shall have equal opportunity BY LAW to provide for themselves and their families.

Anybody got a problem with that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #20
416. There is no decency in removing women's rights... none.


ANYBODY who would seek to remove a person's control over their own body, is neither decent nor peaceful.

And more than simply deserving of ridicule and rejection, these fascists and their sugar coated notions of enslaving women as brood sows, need to be called out and made to own up to the ultimate end to their stated philosophy, which is the abuse and control of women and removal of their freedoms over their own body.

"Obviously it is not cut and dried. "

Actually it is... a person has the right to remove anything from their body... regardless of it's potential to eventually develop into a sentient being.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #20
446. My god, you start off concern trolling and get worse from there.
"making this argument demeans the pro-choice side."

:eyes: :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #20
550. This is nonsense . . . premised on equating a fetus with an existing life . ..
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 12:59 AM by defendandprotect
quite disingenuous . . .

Meanwhile, the millions of women who make the INDIVIDUAL choice to have an abortion

are also "decent people" -- gasp!

When someone shows such disingenuousness as this in equating a fetus with an existing child,
it proves the lack of material for meaningful debate.

If I were to point out a mother who strangled her newborn most people would react in horror and properly so. Why? Because killing babies is morally abhorrent. No one would argue that it was her choice, that she had the right to do so, and it was nothing more than a tumor. Simple, we all agree on that point.

Additionally, this country has been kept so brainwashed by organized patriarchal religions that we
barely still, yet acknowledged "POSTPARTUM ILLNESS" which most other countries acknowledge!
And to suggest that you somehow automatically KNOW that this new mother of this infant is a
"murderer" is despicable! Most sane and decent human beings would want to try to understand what
had caused such unusual behavior. And, in most cases, the answers are before us. Though, often
denied by religious fanatics.

Main difference is when each group defines an embryo as a baby.

The purposeful unwillingness to acknowlege that anything still dependent upon a HOST/female
is NOT AN EXISTING LIFE again reeks of fanatacism.

As for third-trimester abortions, are you suggesting that women should give up their rights
to self-defense? Let me know when males are ready to do that?

or when it is the product of rape/incest (a terrible argument, basically defining your humanness by your parents actions) etc.

That is also a rather telling example based on forcing a woman to remain pregnant while framing it
as "parent's actions" . . . ! Since when is a rapist a "parent" . . . ???
Since when is INCEST a matter to be framed as "your parents" . . . ???

Again, describing what religious fanatics think isn't really helpful to the discussion . . .
especially since we've just had religous fanatics re-encouraged by Randall Terry -- after
having just killed another LIVE HUMAN BEING WHO HAPPENED TO BE A DOCTOR PROVIDING ALL
REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES TO WOMEN.

Unfortunately, there is no way that religous fanaticism can be considered true debate when
it is so elaborately based on distrust, disrespect, dismissal of the pregnant female and
her rights as an existing human being .... to self-defense.

Now, where would you get ideas such as this except from fanatical religious anti-abortion groups...?

And I'll admit, it is a moral grey area. Personally I think there is a point in development when afterward an abortion would be immoral (certainly she shouldn't be able to get an abortion as the child is being born, for example). But I cannot define, in a legal, scientific, or ethical way why that should be the case. And I doubt anyone could come up for a precise date on when the cut off should be that can be logically defend. So yeah, I kind of get their response to the very idea, even though I don't agree I can see why they would be pissed at the very idea.

You seriously distrust women to such an extent that you believe that a woman decides to get an
abortion "just for the sake of it" even to the point of the day before birth? And you don't
understand how fanatical that is????

Try to open your mind to the reality that as a pregnancy matures . . . even by weeks, the abortion
becomes more dangerous for the woman. NO WOMAN carries a pregnancy only to decide she doesn't want
it in later months -- unless something has gone wrong with the pregnancy which threatens her life!

Unfortunately, the right-wing propaganda and demonizing of women continues to work on those
impoverished in mind!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varelse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #20
592. Main difference is when each group defines an embryo as a baby
Wrong. The difference between the groups is that one defines a woman as a person with human rights, and the other defines her as an incubator whose rights are subject to abrogation based on her status as such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
22. Yes, you are exactly right. At bottom, it is rationalized gynephobia. n/t
Edited on Thu Jun-11-09 02:39 PM by EFerrari
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
26. ITA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
winyanstaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
28. Society and our parents program us as children and little girls
are taught early what is expected of them. They see who gets the rewards and the attention. Is it any wonder that many of the brainwashed participate in their own subsurviance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
32. The world hates women who aren't doormats for the men in their lives...
Edited on Thu Jun-11-09 03:00 PM by Captain Hilts
ER: Ain't that the truth!



MO: Ain't that the truth!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
34. There's nothing "pure" or "simple" about it
There's a lot of woman hating, but there's also racism, fear of sex, worship of authority and a desperate, desperate need for attention. Oh, and let's not forget the hi-test, undiluted stupidity.

What it's never, ever about is any professed love for unborn alleged babies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ehrnst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
41. Disregard, or disrespect is not the same as hatred.
Edited on Thu Jun-11-09 03:00 PM by ehrnst
If these people acknowledged that giving birth is a choice to give the most profound gift of all, and also acknowledged the costs to the giver, they would have to acknowledge the the gratitude and respect due that gift.

That is incomprehensible to a society where male attributes are more highly prized.

Therefore, childbearing is reduced to an obligation, and a "blessing" bestowed on the woman, rather than proceding from her. The power is given then to the man - and any woman that exerts the power of refusal is considered out of line. We have disrespected childbearing, and with it women.

None of us come into this world except by the consent of a woman to carry us.

That kind of power is threatening. Especially to the weak and insecure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. No one expends the kind of effort that these people do out of disregard. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ehrnst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #43
295. I think that some are PL due to a disregard for women, not hatred.
Again - they are not the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raksha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #41
511. Very well stated. I never looked at it that way before.
Re If these people acknowledged that giving birth is a choice to give the most profound gift of all, and also acknowledged the costs to the giver, they would have to acknowledge the the gratitude and respect due that gift.

That is incomprehensible to a society where male attributes are more highly prized.

Therefore, childbearing is reduced to an obligation, and a "blessing" bestowed on the woman, rather than proceding from her. The power is given then to the man - and any woman that exerts the power of refusal is considered out of line. We have disrespected childbearing, and with it women.

None of us come into this world except by the consent of a woman to carry us.

That kind of power is threatening. Especially to the weak and insecure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #41
551. They are symptoms based in hatred of women . . .
Even more, if they acknowledged that NATURE gives the power of life only to women,

we may have a better insight into this patriarchal hatred of nature and women?

Agree -- agree --

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
42. Anti-choice ANYTHING is anti-Working Class
Rich fucks have no problem securing their own interests.

They don't want the rest of us to enjoy self-determination.

We might get ideas you see.

Fuck 'em.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
47. No, it's not that "pure and simple", The OP is black-and-white nonsense
Most anti-choice people I know are such because of the belief that "ensoulment" occurs at conception and because of irrational "OMG, they're killing babies" sentiment. If one thinks an individual is a person with a "soul" from the moment of conception then abortion = homicide is the logical conclusion of that assumption and thus trying to convince them to be pro-choice is essentially asking them to be hypocrites. Sure, some are misogynists, but most aren't in my experience. My coworker, a baptist Republican who voted for Obama, really takes "pro-life" literally, he is also against the death penalty and for helping low-income families, so putting all anti-choice people in one box is BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. That's rationalizing, fantastical *nonsense*. .
That we can even entertain myth as "reason" enough to deny a women her autonomy just shows you how entrenched misogyny is in our culture and how easily we accept it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. You aren't making any sense.
You're problem is that you seem to be assuming that everyone that thinks personhood begins at conception is merely rationalizing misogynistic beliefs, that's BS. I refuse to make paranoid assumptions about people motives and take their philosophical views at their word even if I disagree with them. The notion that the views of people that disagree with you must be the result of the rationalization of bad motives is a load of crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #53
57. Nope. Denying women control over their anatomy because of
religion is irrational baloney and had no place in the consideration of a person's physical well being. My health is not an "opinion" and it's not up for negotiation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #57
68. Great, lets create a Ministry of Philosophical Truth to "re-educate" people who have...
...different philosophical and religious viewpoints! :sarcasm:

Every worldview, religious or not, is fundamentally irrational. One can't be logical and reasonable unless one makes the irrational judgment to value logic and reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. Basic health care is not in the realm of belief. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #70
78. And other people disagree with your assumptions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #78
80. But they can't do it rationally. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #80
85. Basic worldviews cannot be rationally justified.
Belief in a worldview is am irrational value judgment, any claim that a world view can be logically proven to be correct is inevitably fallacious and is based on denial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. You are confusing science and philosophy. Again, my health is not an opinion
and not subject to your "worldview".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #85
129. That's not true.

The one proven correct worldview that is theoretically embraced by all is the Golden Rule. Doing unto others guarantees the safety of those we share the planet with, and in turn, oneself. It's the foundation of both the law of God, as well as secular law. Adhering to this one basic rule is what has ensured the viability of the clan, the society, the country, the World's population. Part and parcel of our evolution from slimey mud crawler to human being.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #78
120. based on what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #78
144. This is a secular country
So no, health care isn't in the realm of belief.

Do you want a theocracy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #47
52. If he voted for Obama he isn't "anti-choice"
No one is trying to legislate anyone's belief, we just don't want them legislating ours!

If someone voted for Obama they are pro-choice, the will not force their religious beliefs on anyone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #47
187. Trying to make a nuanced point about characterization of an opposing view?
What, are you on fuckin' crack!? Stow that nuance now and learn to cheer the obvious red-meat-for-the-masses applause lines! :mad: :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mushroom Donating Member (309 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
104. Hate women? No way!
Seeding us women for Him and barren homes to save the soul of our nation is just living the dream, baby, just livin' the dream.

:sarcasm:

Men and their doctors never have to worry about being threatened if medical procedures stop fertilization of an egg. That would be absurd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KakistocracyHater Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
114. sick of it called "choice", it's birth control: pills, diaphragm, etc.
Only a small part is abortion. Again, it's a women's health clinic, like Lifetime's Strong Medicine tv series. 3rd World Values=Pro-Life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
122. I have nothing to add to your post. k+r, n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
124. Hypothetical exercise
James wants his girlfriend to have their child, and pressures her not to choose abortion.

Across town, John does not want his girlfriend to have their child, and pressures her to choose abortion.

Are John and James both "terrorists" who are driven only "by their profound hatred" of their girlfriends?

Personally, I think your argument is completely hyperbolic. I think it does a disservice to the cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #124
127. If you do, it must not be your cause.
Especially if you can sit there and compare pressure to homicides, bombings, death threats and the ceaseless lobbying of Congress to deny women health care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
145. utter rubbish
i used to be anti-choice. intelligent discussion, research, and introspection caused me to change my mind.

hateful attacks like yours leave me cold.

i know lots of men and women who are anti-choice and none of them have hatred towards women.

this is a stupid meme that HURTS our cause. it's demonizing people who disagree with you on a very contentious subject.

really, with abortion, it simply comes down to balancing the rights of the woman vs. the "rights" (if any) of the fetus.

if one thinks, the "right" of the fetus to survive outweighs the right of the woman to abort, they are anti-choice. they think the woman has a duty not to terminate the fetus. i can respect that, even if i disagree with that.

i know many people who are anti-choice who would make the converse argument that you are making. they are equally wrong.

fwiw, i don't know anti-choicers who are anything but appalled at tiller's murder
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #145
146. What's utter rubbish is having to defend a woman's right to choose on a progressive board.
This shit gets old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #146
147. you don't have to defend it. who is against it here?
not me or you.

what i am against is the false , demonizing claim, that all who are not pro choice are just WOMAN HATERS.

the whole "demonizing the other " thing is lame. it's frankly, exactly the kind of thing that justifies people treating other people as objects or means to an end. i am sure the guy who murdered tiller thought of him as a "baby killer".

do you REALLY think that everybody (or even a majority) of anti-choicers have HATE for women? really? i know LOTS of these people, and they have no hate whatsoever in their heart.

i am not criticizing you for defending choice. we are all on the same page there. i am criticizing your fallacious attack on those who disagree with us, as having hate in their hearts for women. it's crap.

and like i said, INTELLIGENT discussion with rational people who didn't demonize my pov helped me CHANGE my pov and become pro-choice.

calling me a "woman hater" would not have.

it's preening. it makes people feel better to demonize their opponents. that is a hell of a lot easier than addressing their pov and treating them with respect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #147
148. You are not comprehending the OP.
Not allowing women to have autonomy, self-determination over their own bodies is not acceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #148
149. except that's not what the OP said
the OP said that specifically in regards to choice, that people who opposed women having that choice were basing their POV on HATING WOMEN.

also, fwiw, few people go so far as to "allow" women (or men) to have autonomy and self-determination over their bodies.

if you support

1) legalizing people selling their own organs
2) legalizing sex for money (called prostitution) and
3) legalizing all drugs

then you truly support autonomy and self-determination.

most people don't.

i support 2. i am not fully in support of 3 but support legalization for MJ, and decrim for most other drugs.

also, many anti-choicers (myself included when i was one) do not see it solely as an issue of a woman and her body, because the fetus is a dependant, but DISTINCT organism.

iow, it's about the woman's autonomy over both.

personally, i believe she should have autonomy over BOTH. that's why i'm pro-choice
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #149
158. Re-read the first sentence of the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #149
175. I don't think you've made a comparable list...

1) legalizing people selling their own organs
2) legalizing sex for money (called prostitution) and
3) legalizing all drugs

These don't even come close to a comparison with abortion, and I'll suggest that's because you're a man and can't completely put yourself into a woman's shoes. If you had changed your first item to 1) forcing people to sell their own organs, that would've been closer.

Thanks for answering my question btw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #175
365. the list is exacfly relevant
to the justification that SOME People use for abortion rights.

such as the one that i responded to.

that it's about autonomy over one's body.

prostitution, selling one's organs, and using drugs w/o govt. interference are all examples where govt. restricts people's autonomy over their bodies, and many many pro-choice people see no problem with one or more being illegal.

which shows that the claim that it's merely about autonomy and that autonomy is an established legal/rational reason to support choice is a false claim.

that's why i don't use that argument to support choice. because it rests on the fallacious notion that a woman (or man) in our society HAS autonomy over their body. they don't. we limit it in numerous circumstances as noted in the 3 examples.

i am more libertarian than most. i support 2 and mostly support 3. even i don't support 1.

a person who was making the autonomy argument but did not support 1,2 and 3 is being intellectually dishonest whether they realize it or not

a better argument, for example, is that a woman should have no duty to maintain a fetus' development within her body because that places an unfair burden on her.

that is much more logical and legally supportable than the oft-used autonomy argument, often characterized as "it's just about a woman and her body"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:05 PM
Original message
Everything on your list...

is an example of something a person WOULD LIKE TO DO but the the government says no. These are active, positive wants. The person is in control of the desire.

I WOULD LIKE to sell my organs
I WOULD LIKE to take drugs
I WOULD LIKE to sell my body

that's more in line with the following.

I WOULD LIKE to have a baby, (but the government says no.)

In none of these cases is a person rendered helpless or at the mercy of others. It might be disappointing not to be allowed to indulge one's wishes but there is no harm, no foul to a person's sense of self. The person is still in control of his/her destiny.

Dousing a person's drink with roofies and then raping her is something that happens TO HER. It's a negative, if you wish.

A woman who finds herself pregnant by accident is something that happens TO HER. It is not a WOULD LIKE situation. Although she may have actively engaged in sex, the outcome is an accident, something undesired. The technology exists to relieve a woman of this undesired accident. If she is denied that means, the result is helplessness, of not being in control of one's destiny. She is at the mercy of the government. Enslaved.

Maybe that's too abstract but I think most women would understand what I'm saying. And when women talk about their bodies and autonomy, they are talking about an unfair burden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
399. that's actually an excellent
argument. cheers.

i still think the autonomy thing is an inferior argument to the burden argument. fwiw, you at least use elements OF the burden argument within your autonomy argument. so, there is not that much disagreement.

some would argue, fwiw, that the right to use mind altering drugs (to achieve a higher state of consciousness etc.) means that denial to do so IS a denial of their sense of self and their destiny.

this is actually similar to the arguments used (successfully) to justify some religions' use of peyote (certain native religion).

but i concede your argument is an excellent argument because it does draw a distinction between my autonomy examples, and the abortion example, specifically the whole in charge of the destiny thang.

again, though, i think it's better expressed under the due burden thing. here's why.

assume that pregnancies only lasted 2 days. that would make the choice argument MUCH less compelling, because a woman who became pregnant (even in the accidental example) would only be burdened for 2 days, not many months.

i would argue that given that hypothetical, few would argue that abortion on demand in those circ's should be legal.

the only element that changed was the degree/length of the burden, not the underlying AUTONOMY issue.

this is similar to why society sets different standards for abortion in the 1st trimester vs. the third.

the fact is that in the latter case, the burden is shorter in duration (only a couple of months to go vs many more) AND of course the other element, which is that the fetus is further developed and thus closer to personhood.

regardless, i would think that if you look at the hypothetical 2 day pregnancy, that this dilutes the autonomy arguemnt in favor of the burden argument.

the burden argument is ultimately about balancing competing interests/outcomes and the law is so often about a balancing act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #399
479. Whew. I wasn't sure it made sense.

It's difficult to put these concepts into words. :)

Paulsby I have no argument with what you've set out in your post at all. Our thinking is very similar. The only thing I would add is the responsibility after birth, which is no small responsibility and is a lengthy one. There's also the little issue of the father's rights, and even if two people will never spend a day together as a couple, they will still be tied to each other by the child. But other than that... we are a hive mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #479
485. i am kewl with that
cheers :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #485
508. Cheers. Have a good weekend.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #147
150. Quick question.

These people you're talking about, and from you're own experience, are you counting people who, for their own moral/ethical reasons, or whatever, would not have one, or want their sig other to have an abortion... or are you talking about people who vehemently have fought against abortion rights for all women?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #150
154. i am referring to
Edited on Thu Jun-11-09 09:43 PM by paulsby
people who think abortion should be illegal in most circumstances.

that's the "classic definition".

most i know aren't particularly politically active, so they haven't VEHEMENTLY fought against abortion rights, if they have FOUGHT against them at all.

imo, if you don't support "abortion on demand" for first trimester, you are anti-choice.

as to the various gradations during 2nd and 3rd trimester, it becomes more subjective. heck, prof.singer might consider those who don't believe in infanticide to be "anti-choice", but he's a loon.

there is also the legal issue.

i know some people who think abortion should be legal, and would vote to keep it legal, but who do not agree with the legal reasoning in roe v. wade that recognized it as a right (in limited circ's) under the constitution.

but i do not think that people who would not have one or not want a significant othter to have onE ARE anti-choice.

since that does not go against choice. it only goes against choice when one wants to limit OTHERS.

i am also pro-choice for mj legalization. i would still choose not to smoke it. i just think the locus of decisionmaking rests with the individual, not the govt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #147
340. Thank you!
You said it well! The kind of rhetoric the OP is spewing is not doing their cause any good at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #146
153. Very old!
People actually defending the religious rights desire to dictate women's reproductive rights according to their very personal religious belief. They defend the right's right to make the rules for everyone because they are so pious. On a liberal discussion board.

Men never cease to amaze me. If the right wanted to dictate their penis care they would be all up in arms!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #153
156. really?
please show me where anybody did what you claimed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Control-Z Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #145
167. So would you feel the same
if it was your mother, sister, wife, daughter, who had 'the duty not to terminate the fetus'? How would you feel if she was the one being forced to give up her life for a potential one?

Think about it before you answer. If there is a woman in your life that you actually love, imagine her giving up her life for a potential one.

Anyone who wants to risk the life of someone I love deserves to be demonized.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #167
369. first of all, it's not
about feelings. it's about legal and policy principles.

i would probably feel that somebody who harmed my wife or daughter by stabbing them should be put to death in a painful manner.

i am not supporting cruel and unusual torturous death for attempted murderers, though, as a matter of policy.

your question reminds me of the infamous question asked of dukakis vis a vis kitty and the death penalty.

how i FEEL is tangential at best to policy and legal issues.

with that in mind, i want choice to be legal in every state in the nation. and i think there is sound legal basis for that.

i do not think that many who oppose abortion on demand in 1st trimester HATE women.

the demonization necessarily involves falsehoods. iow, lies. many anti-choicers (i would argue the VAST majority) do not hate women.

telling lies about people who disagree with you is more than demonization, fwiw. and it's wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #369
552. Is the right to self-defense no longer a human right . . . ??? Women don't have that right--??
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 01:20 AM by defendandprotect
Because late term abortion is self-defense . . .

As for "abortion on demand" that is certainly a Randall Terry cliche bit of propaganda.

Opposition to abortion is simple fanatacism, too often based on organized patriarchal

religious teachings.

Consider that NATURE has given everything to do with childbirth/childrearing to the care

of women -- from gestation/10 months in her body - breast feeding -- delivery, etal.

NATURE has never entrusted any male with such a responsibility!

Consider that NATURE also provided many natural ways thru plants to avoid conception,

terminate conception, and to abort. Most of these plants and knowledge were destroyed by

patriarchy.

However, note that NATURE IS PRO-FEMALE ... TRUSTS FEMALES ...

and that NATURE IS PRO-CHOICE . . . in fact, if you're religous, you may come to understand

that, indeed, "GOD' IS PRO-CHOICE . . . !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #552
563. that's a nice screed
but i don't see how it's remotely relevant to what i said, iow what you responded to.

you are preaching to the choir here. i am pro-choice.

i merely said that many of those who AREN'T do not HATE WOMEN.

that's all

hth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #563
584. "Abortion on demand" . . . the Randall Terry version . . .
seemed to come trippingly off your tongue --

I was responding to your overall exchanges and your seemingly weak support -

and we're seeing that from a lot of supposedly "pro-choicers" who offer "but's" about

complexities which don't exist except in the minds of "pro-lifers."

really, with abortion, it simply comes down to balancing the rights of the woman vs. the "rights" (if any) of the fetus.

and here again . . .

if one thinks, the "right" of the fetus to survive outweighs the right of the woman to abort, they are anti-choice. they think the woman has a duty not to terminate the fetus. i can respect that, even if i disagree with that.

you offer an exact example of why anti-abortion positions are based on hatred for females.

It is the poverty-ridden brain which would even equate a fetus with a living woman, yet alone

decide that it should be more highly valued that the life of the existing woman.

Wife, mother, aunt, daughter .... doesn't count if your are a fanatical fetus fancier!

In "respecting" that position, you are offering support for disrespect for women.


fwiw, i don't know anti-choicers who are anything but appalled at tiller's murder

I'm sure the streets have been filled with "pro-lifers" pleading for an end to "pro-life"

violence!!!! I, personally, have seen hundreds on TV overwhelmed by sadness for the family.

:sarcasm:

Unfortunately, the message coming from this fantical, anti-female movement is clearly that

they will murder more of those who continue to offer aid to women seeking reproductive health

care ... until we come to recognize how wrong it is for women to have control over their own

bodies!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #584
593. again, nice screed
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 12:53 PM by paulsby
but simply nonpersuasive.

the evidence is there.

there are SCORES Of millions of anti-choice people.

an infinitessimally small %age of them engage in violence, such as the murderous attack on tiller.

i don't blame all anti-choicer and use bigotry against them, any more than i blame the entire muslim community for the actions of (for example) the guy who killed the recruiter.

fwiw, there are FAR more anti-choice people than muslims in this country. if you had a group of scores of million of people, and several were engaged in murder, would you blame the whole group.

that's just as bigoted as blaming all muslims for 9/11 or the recruiter murder.

hth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #593
598. Thank you . . . but again, you offer no meaningful debate, except unwitting evidence contrary
to your positions --

Three out of four women have had abortions by the time they are 45 years of age.

Catholic women have just as many abortions as any other women -- i.e., Catholic women
are "pro-choice." That's more than half the RCC of 6 billion! Wherever it becomes
possible for them to exercise control over their bodies with birth control or abortion,
they take that control. Only a few years ago, the Pope was begging the Italian Parliament
to "make Italian women have more children."
Did he cite the joy of children? Assistance that might be offered to families with children? No . . . his reasons were that capitalism could not expand without the needed labor!
Thereby, the farce of the Vatican's interest in children is exposed as well as it's obvious
and blatant greed.

As those working the strings of religious fanaticism well know, you don't have to excite
to violence more than a small handful of vulnerable fanatics to basically shut down
access to women's clinics -- which by the way deprives them not only of their right to
terminate pregnancies, but of access to birth control/family planning health care.
And, as Randall Terry has made clear, his string pulling to that end will continue on.

Re this more believable part of your debate . . .

i don't blame all anti-choicer and use bigotry against them, any more than i blame the entire muslim community for the actions of (for example) the guy who killed the recruiter.
fwiw, there are FAR more anti-choice people than muslims in this country. if you had a group of scores of million of people, and several were engaged in murder, would you blame the whole group.
that's just as bigoted as blaming all muslims for 9/11 or the recruiter murder.

It's believable in the sense that IMO you are still under the influence of organized patriarchal
religious beliefs which you are still unable to question and challenge.
However, the reality remains that patriarchy and its organized patriarchal religions exist
to create an order of males as superior and women as "inferior."
You might suggest that this is based on love and concern for females --
but to the rest of it is quite clear that it is deep seated hatred for females.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #598
600. you can't seperate the personal from political
you have NO idea what my religion is, or even if i believe in god.

yet, you tell me i am "under the influence of organized patriarchal religious beliefs", which is thus completely unsupported by evidence, and absurd.

why?

because i, a person who *is* pro-choice, DARES to say that most anti-choicers do NOT hate women.

if it makes you feel better to make up stuff about me to support and continue your prejudicial beliefs, then knock yourself out.

and you don't speak for "the rest of us". plenty of people think that many anti-choice people do NOT hate women.

it's silly prejudiced, and non-factual rhetoric.

and just as bigoted as saying "muslims hate the military" because some muslim just killed a US servicemember.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #600
604. As I've made clear you're quoting Randall Terry . . .
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 06:32 PM by defendandprotect
you're repeating "pro-life" propaganda . . .

and as I said, "IMO" -- repeat "IMO" -- based on your posts here

you are influenced by organized patriarchal religous beliefs.

Again, as many have made clear to you, anyone who suggests that a fetus

is more important than the life of a living, existing female human being

is expressing hatred for females --

And defending your argument with "Muslims" as an example is additionally inane

as it is simply another organized patriarchal religion -- actively MURDEROUSLY anti-female!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #604
605. and you are
using bigotry and prejudice to attack me.

so, i'm done.

all you want to do is broad brush attack people you disagree with, make up falsehoods and unsupported statements about their religion, etc.

it's getting old.

it's nice to know that there are people who are pro-choice who can be bigoted and irrational.

it's a big tent
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #605
608. Ah . . . at long last -- !!!
Bye !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #552
583. misplaced
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 11:47 AM by defendandprotect
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mwooldri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
152. I much prefer the term anti women's rights.
and niyad yep, these so called "pro-life" people (ha ha!) don't trust women one bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Saying Donating Member (133 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #152
266. +1
They don't respect women either whether they realize it or not. They are inserting themselves in a very important and PRIVATE area of life. As with so many things in life, this is not simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
159. Stem cell controversy throws the monkey wrench
My mother believes the stem cell transplant that will save my husband's life, is murdering babies (embryos).

I think it's interesting that couples typically decide together to donate their fertilized embryos to science. And that the loss of "life" (if you want to even go there) of the embryo means that the person saved could be male or female.

There are choices being made by the "parents" of the embryo. Choices being made by men and women to utilize stem cell treatments.

With the way abortion has typically been seen in our planet's history, I actually agree with the OP. But stem cell therapy throws a whole new monkey wrench into the anti-choice movement. All the interesting conundrums: creating new life but with some inevitable "death" (which probably matches the rate of fertilized embryos washed out in a menstrual cycle that don't implant anyway....), anti-choicers wanting to control even the choices of the couple involved in IVF, anti-choicers wanting to control the lives of grown men and women on choosing healthcare that's beyond just pregnancy.

In light of stem cell therapy, I'd now vote that the issue has moved more to "control" - yes mixed in with inherent hatred of women too but you can't factor out control and authoritarianism anymore imho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
161. Your statements are simplistic. And incorrect.
I am a woman who is not religious at all. I am also anti-choice/anti-abortion. I am against these things because I revere life, not because I hate women.

There are many of us out here, who believe this way. And many of us are liberals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #161
162. I don't believe you're a liberal if you don't believe a woman should be able
to have an abortion just because she doesn't want one. You're for forced births if you don't recognize that fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #162
169. It doesn't matter to me what you believe I am. I define myself as a liberal.
Edited on Thu Jun-11-09 10:45 PM by Th1onein
And your judgement in that regard changes nothing for me.

Sure, I'm for forced births. That's just one way of saying that I'm anti-choice/anti-abortion. But it does not necessarily follow that I am for murdering someone who performs abortions. Or that I hate women.

By the way, your statement, "I don't believe you're a liberal if you don't believe a woman should be able to have an abortion just because she doesn't want one," doesn't make a lot of sense. You might want to look over that and change it to something that does make sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #169
172. You can define yourself as liberal, but being a self-admitted forced birther
doesn't fit the definition, no matter how much you want to believe it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #172
173. That's right. YOU are the final arbiter of the definition of what a liberal is supposed to be.
Uh huh. Riiiiiight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #173
177. You might want to look up the definition someday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #177
179. I know the definition. I am wondering if you do.
Really, though.....this argument is devolving into one that most often takes place out on the playground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #179
181. Forcing women to give birth to children they don't want isn't covered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #181
193. Yeah, I think it is covered, in fact.
It's called a reverence for all life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #193
203. Not the mother's life. Tough shit if she dies in childbirth with a baby she didn't want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #203
206. You are confusing quality of life with life, itself.
And you are making a very bad argument, as well. Your argument assumes that all women who want abortions want them because they are at risk of dying in childbirth.

To have reverence for an unborn child's life is quite different from having a reverence for quality of life for the mother of that child. I think that the former trumps the latter, everytime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #206
212. That's insane.
You are totally disregarding the woman's life, her wishes, and obligations to her other children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #212
221. No, I am not.
I simply do not think that they should be held above the question of whether someone else should live or die. EXCEPT in the case where a woman's life is actually at risk. In that case, I think it should be her decision, and no one else's, as to whether to abort her child or not. In other words, I think that the mother and the child have EQUAL rights; especially when it comes to life, itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #221
228. *Every* single pregnancy holds the risk of death. Every single one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #228
236. Yes, and there's a risk some stranger on the street will pull out a gun and shoot me.
That's always a risk. But some risks are bigger than others. And that risk doesn't mean that I should shoot every stranger I meet on the street, in order to protect myself from that risk.

Come on. You can do better than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #236
237. Lame analogy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #237
240. Whatever. You sure didn't counter it, though, did you?
I'm going to bed. It's after 1am where I'm at. Have to work tomorrow.

Good night to you guys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #240
246. Not relevent to the discussion.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #221
229. Yes, it is irrational -- to believe that you have any right whatsoever
to prescribe for another human being at that level of magnitude.

You don't. It's not up to you or to your "beliefs".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #229
238. If it is irrational for me to believe that I have the right to prescribe for another
Then how rational is it for a mother who is wanting to abort her unborn child to prescribe death for that child?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #238
242. Because it is not your body. That's the boundary. And it's not up for negotiation.
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 12:20 AM by EFerrari
And for your information, life doesn't begin at conception. Those cells are alive BEFORE conception. Do you punish yourself for your menses? By your logic, you should. It's murder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #242
243. And that child's body is not hers, either, once life has commenced.
That's really what it all comes down to--when life begins. I think that it begins at conception. You apparently do not. We disagree on that point. So be it.

Hey, nice talking with you. I have to get to bed now. Goodnight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #243
248. But life "has commenced" before conception.
So, you will have to find another argument for being against good health care for women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #248
322. I do not believe that life has commenced BEFORE conception,
so your argument is specious. Most people who are pro-life/anti-abortion aren't the radicals who would outlaw birth control. The lies that many right wing extremists tell about Dr. Tiller taking the lives of healthy babies out of the wombs of healthy pregnant women are just as bad as the lie that being pro-life/anti-abortion always means that one is "against good health care for women."

That, too, is a bad argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #322
402. That there is life before conception is also not a matter of belief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #243
569. While I agree with you that life begins at conception
I don't think it constitutes human life. Not for a while. It is just a collection of cells. We kill non-human life all time. The problem is when the fetus constitutes human life, and I agee it happens somtime before it passes thru the birth canal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #238
356. If it is in her, it is not independent
It is not an independent citizen, not born. Not a person yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #169
174. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #174
176. Absolutely amazing, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blonndee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #176
185. Some sick, arrogant, misogynistic people who call themselves liberal.
It is amazing indeed. I wonder if they really believe they are liberal? How could they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #174
178. Hey darlin'. Personal attacks are not allowed on this forum.
For one so careful about who you associate with on which "message boards," you might also try to educate yourself about the rules of the "message boards," hmmmm?

I am a liberal. I support most liberal causes. If it walks like a duck, you know? Simply because I disagree on this one issue doesn't make me less of a liberal. Liberals are known for their tolerance; I would suggest to you and to some others who are on the other side of this issue, to re-acquaint themselves with that particular trait. It does your cause no good to paint anti-choicers/anti-abortionists, or as you put it, "forced birthers," with such a wide brush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blonndee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #178
182. Hey darlin back, I don't need your lectures
or your condescending thoughts on liberalism. Ironic that you would say, "if it walks like a duck," since your stance on abortion "talks" just like a RW extremist. And I don't give a good goddamn about what you "suggest" I do in support of my "issue." You are no liberal, SIR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #182
189. I'm not a "SIR," I'm a woman. But you can call me "Sir" if you like.
Edited on Thu Jun-11-09 11:19 PM by Th1onein
Heh.

And, I repeat, personal attacks are not allowed on this forum. I'm pretty sure that the reason they are not is because it takes away from talking about the issues.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blonndee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #189
190. Whatever, neither is not supporting progressive causes.
And **I** repeat, you are no liberal. And by the way, I'll have an abortion any time I CHOOSE to do so, and you can't do anything about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #190
191. Once again, you are not the final arbiter of who is and who is not liberal.
In my opinion, when you have an abortion, you are a murderer. Whether I can do anything about it or not is not the issue here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #191
196. Hey now this is interesting!

What do you think the punishment for women who murder their unborn should be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #196
202. I don't know.
Perhaps murdering their unborn children would be enough of a punishment in a society that truly revered life? I doubt it, though. And I don't know what kind of punishment would be appropriate in those cases. But if murder should be outlawed and breaking that law deserves punishment, then it logically follows that women who abort their unborn children should be punished.

As I said previously, I don't support capital punishment, for the same reason that I don't support abortion. But the issue of punishment is one that is more complex than I am able to, or willing to go into, here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #202
210. How so? If you are so adamant that abortion is murder you must have...

at least thought about it. Activities that are against the law are punished, by prison terms or death. Making something illegal and then not extracting punishment is ridiculous, isn't it?

When people commit premeditated murder they get life. So it follows that women murdering their unborn should get the same treatment, since you believe that aborting a fetus is comparable to murdering a spouse or child. Doesn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #210
325. This must be the post you talked about my not answering, after I went to bed.
Just because one can define murder doesn't necessarily mean that one can, at the snap of your all-knowing fingers, also prescribe the penalty for it.

But, yes, I think abortion should be against the law. The penalty for it is up to the justice system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Saying Donating Member (133 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #202
268. Murder is a legal term.
"Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent" per Wiki. Abortion is a legal medical procedure. Therefore, abortion is not murder.

I would be interested in hearing how any forced birther assumes we will go about forcing women to carry and then give birth to a baby. I shudder to think of this situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blonndee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #191
198. And neither are you. But I can state my opinion, and you are NOT a liberal.
Your positions are anti-woman, and in MY OPINION, that is sick and right wing. I really cannot see how you could dare to call yourself a liberal. If you are so quick to condemn people who have abortions as murderers, that simply confirms the simplistic, misogynistic mindset typical of right-wingers. In MY opinion, of course. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #191
201. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but are you African American? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #201
205. Me? What difference does it make?
Are you a racist?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #205
208. Nope. There's a substrata of Dems who are AA, socially conservative.
I'm in a Chicago suburb. Just curious from what I know about that community. I'm familiar with the community Obama came from, and Wright, and many others, I was just interested as your position is very firm. It rang my bells.

I'm not judging, I know there's an element out there in the AA community that is very vocal, very Dem. But socially conservative. You'd be my first contact and was just wondering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #208
218. I'm a Caucasian woman from Texas. Divorced, agnostic single mother.
And before you go off on the Texas thing, give me a break. Not all Texans are idiots, nor are they all conservatives. And I am very far from socially conservative.

Most far lefters are against the death penalty. There are very good justifications for this position. Those same justifications are relevant when it comes to being anti-abortion.

I do not understand why some people here cannot understand that reasoning.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #218
231. Prioritizing medical privacy vs. choice vs. your moral positioning that's not based on solid ground
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #231
234. You call it choice. I call it murder.
I think that life begins at conception. You disagree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #234
244. Is birth control also murder? What about your period?
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 12:28 AM by EFerrari
Is your body killing a potential baby? What about skipped periods? What about male masturbation -- those are all potential babies. Is that genocide?

What you "think" is not based in science in any way and so has no bearing on medical care for women. Maybe it serves you in some way to be so concerned about abortion. But, whatever secondary gain you get from it still doesn't make it rational, wise or right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #244
328. No, birth control is not murder. Nor are any of the other things
you mention in your post. And, people that view them as murder are extremists.

I THINK that life begins at conception. At that point, the "potential baby" is no longer "potential" but a real, live baby. And, yes, that's based in science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #328
441. Really? So should identical twins be legally defined as the same person?
After all, the "twinning" happens post-conception. :shrug:

A LOT of other stuff happens after conception, within the body of the woman, that leads up to the baby that is born (if a pregnancy is carried to term). To describe a fertilized egg as a "baby" is to ignore or trivialize the considerable contribution that the woman makes to the gestation of the fetus. Moreover, it reeks of sexism, since it's only at conception that the father makes his physical contribution. Declaring life to begin then is society's way of aggrandizing the father's role in making the baby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #328
497. Well, no. If that were the case then petri dishes could be parents. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
create.peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #191
273. you talk to murderers every day on here then, what does that make you feel?
i had an abortion in the 70s and had 4 children later, is their mother a murderer?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #273
342. You are saying that you are a murderer, then.
That's how I feel about abortion. You asked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #342
459. And I feel that people who want to force unwanted children into the world
Are sadistic assholes full of fake piety who should go fuck themselves. You didn't ask, but that's how I feel. If you forced-birthers expended 1/10 the energy you do worshiping fetuses on existing children in the world who desperately need help just imagine how much nicer the world would be.

Don't bother listing your progressive bona fides either. The time you spent typing anti-woman drivel on this thread could have been spent volunteering to help some needy kids or a poor single mother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #190
241. Damn! If I'm not a liberal, I've sure wasted a lot of money on Democratic candidates.
But, hey, you believe what you want to believe. You will no matter what I say. I just wish that we could disagree here without it getting personal. Some guy even brought my dead sister into the argument. What a shame.

I'm going to bed. Goodnight to you guys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #189
197. Call yourself what you like - you're no progressive
Edited on Thu Jun-11-09 11:27 PM by REP
Sure is great to have someone else make personal medical decision for your family, though - you can attest to that! That worked out great, didn't it? And that's what you want for everyone. Nice!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #182
194. Yes, you do apparently need those lectures.
I'm pro choice, I think the pro-life argument is weak, but it doesn't make my case or yours any stronger to zealously mischaracterize those with who we disagree, to accuse them of hatred when we can't possible know what they feel on the inside, or to choose a single issue among hundreds of generally-considered-liberal issues as a litmus test for an absolutist insistence that a particular person can't possibly be a liberal.

And if what's brewing up inside of you right now is an angry tirade consisting of how, in your own viewpoint, thinking such and such which has this and that consequence obviously means a person is thus, you're entirely missing the point and need to learn to step outside of your own head a little bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blonndee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #194
200. Did I write the OP? No, and you ought to reread the threads and posts by the poster in question.
Edited on Thu Jun-11-09 11:32 PM by blonndee
I don't appreciate people calling themselves "forced birthers" also calling themselves liberal. Do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #200
230. I don't like that view, but I don't have to like it.
It does seem a bit bizarre to me to combine that view with a generally liberal viewpoint, but I can sort of see how putting a high (what is to me is excessively high) value on the life at even the earliest stages of an unborn child could land a person in that strange territory.

Besides, I don't think the poster in question called herself a "forced birther", she merely didn't reject the label when someone else applied it to her.

There are a lot of liberals who are against fully elective late-term abortion, who only support late-term abortion in various limited circumstances, like risk to the mother's health. Are they "forced birthers" too? After all, if there's any type of abortion at all that one would prohibit, that sort of turns into "forced birthing" in the cases where one doesn't think abortion should be allowed, doesn't it?

If you happen to be insistent on support for absolutely, utterly unrestricted abortion, at any time during pregnancy right up until moments before birth, fully at the mother's wish, as an absolute requirement for being considered a liberal, you will have reduced the number of possible liberals in this country to, I'd guess, less than 10%, or even 5%, of the population.

If your view isn't so extreme (and I'd hope it's not) then you have to accept that there are a fair number of liberals who would, at least in some cases, "force" a woman to give birth.

If you take a person who would like to see universal health care, better protection for the environment, see the rich pay more in taxes, see better legal protections for consumers and workers, equal rights for gays, wants us out of Iraq, etc., etc., but who would force a woman to give birth over a full span of nine months instead of maybe just during the last three, I'd still call that person a liberal. A liberal I'd have one big beef with, but a liberal nevertheless, and not likely a person filled with hate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #230
253. The problem with your argument is that there aren't hordes of women
running to doctors for elective late term abortions. That's simply a right wing myth and is fed to people who really don't understand the process of a pregnancy.

Women bond to their pregnancies. And to carry one beyond the first trimester is usually to be very much looking forward to having a baby.

So the whole argument about how women might kill babies with late abortions is exactly like the ticking bomb scenario that is used to justify torture.

Abortion rates go down when birth control and legal, safe abortions are available, not the other way around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #253
259. The problem with my argument?
What does numbers of women seeking late term abortions have to do with what I've said? What do "right wing myths" have to do with what I've posted?

Argue thoughtfully with what I've actually written, not reflexively with the ghost of some old argument you think you think you is happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #259
260. Yes, your argument. I was actually being conciliatory, lol, not aggressive:
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 12:52 AM by EFerrari
"If you happen to be insistent on support for absolutely, utterly unrestricted abortion, at any time during pregnancy right up until moments before birth, fully at the mother's wish, as an absolute requirement for being considered a liberal, you will have reduced the number of possible liberals in this country to, I'd guess, less than 10%, or even 5%, of the population."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #260
262. That quote hasn't got a thing to do with numbers of women seeking...
...late term abortions. It has to do with the percentage of the population that supports restrictions on late term abortions. Yes, late-term abortion is a very rare thing. I AM aware of that. Nevertheless, a lot of people, including people who call themselves liberals, want restrictions on it.

Perhaps you think that shows people are showing way too much concern over an issue that doesn't have much real impact. I might even agree with you there. That has nothing to do with proportions of people with different opinions on the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #262
263. It has everything to do with the framing of the issue
which in turn elicits opinions, though.

If you ask a group of people, should aborting an 8th month pregnancy be unrestricted, you'll get a different response than asking, should unviable third term pregnancies be aborted without penalty?

I think all I mean is, that the framing matters and that the right wing has flooded our society with all kinds of unreal frames and has completely distorted this issue for political purposes. Not for spiritual ones or for moral ones. It's a straight up political wedge that has very little to do with the real care of real women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #263
265. So I should never say anything that even brings up tangentially...
...a framing of an issue that you don't think is a proper framing of that issue, even when I'm not supporting that framing, but I'm instead using diversity of opinion over abortion that still exists regardless of how you frame it to make a point about excessive characterizations of people with whom one has disagreements?

Face it. You had a knee-jerk reaction based on a word-association level perusal of my post instead of a substantive reaction to the reality of the post. If you'd like to use my posts as a springboard for something you think is an important related comment to make, fine, but please try to do so without accusing me of spreading right wing myths that I'm neither supporting nor spreading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #265
267. Well, no. And if you read my post, I said that the idea that there was
a big market for late term abortion was a right wing myth, not that you were a purveyor of myth.

And I pointed out that the underlying assumption of your post, that most liberals are against unrestricted late term abortions, was founded on a questionable assumption. Which is true once you dismantle the right wing frame.

No knee jerk there, thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #267
269. A lot of people have strong opinions on things that only effect a small...
...number of people. Should we, for example, dismiss the importance of closing Gitmo because, after all, it only represents a tiny, tiny fraction of all of the people who are imprisoned?

My "underlying assumption" that many (I said "many", you changed that to "most") liberals are against unrestricted late term abortions comes from opinion polls I've heard about at various times. Are you denying my impression of the statistics, or are you saying, "Well, if those liberals hadn't been influenced by right-wing framing, they probably wouldn't have responded they way they did to the pollsters"?

You could take away all of the right wing framing about late term abortion, you could have people forming opinions in full light of the actual number of cases involved, and I see no reason to expect that liberals who are against unrestricted late-term abortion are going to significantly switch to saying, "Ah, hell, let's make all abortion totally elective up until birth, no restrictions, because the kinds of abortion that would bother me intensely just aren't going to happen all that often anyway!".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #269
271. The problems with unrestricted late term abortion are...
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 02:13 AM by Gwendolyn
the issue with viability for one. It's not possible to really pinpoint when a child can live outside the womb, and since most people. including liberals, are not in favor of infanticide, it makes people queasy.

There's more of a chance a woman will be psychologically harmed by a late stage abortion, so it's in the best interest for all to see that women can get safe, early access to abortion.

Those are reasons based on logic and empathy. Liberal qualities. Having some vague everything-is-angels-and-ice-cream reverence for "all" life, or fearing the wrath of an invisible God, aren't particularly good reasons to deny women health care or autonomy over their bodies.

What's funny is even the invisible Abrahamic God states in his book that life begins when He breathes the breath of life into him/her. No breath, no life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #269
272. "Unrestricted late term abortions" is right wing framing
because no one is asking for unrestricted late term abortions. Women who have late term abortions have them overwhelmingly because their baby has died or has no brain or other similar unviable situations.

You've bought into the right wing propaganda much more than you even know, it seems.

And frankly, I don't care if you or many or most "liberals" object to abortion at any stage. It's not your choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #272
275. The point was to get at the "forced birthing" phrase.
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 02:36 AM by Silent3
As for "no one is asking for unrestricted late term abortions"... absolutely no one? Zero people?

If you favor any restrictions on abortion (and you must yourself, since NO ONE according to you is asking for unrestricted late term abortions) then somehow, someway, someday, a case will come up where a woman wants an abortion that isn't legally allowed, and the law will be forcing her to give birth, and YOU are supporting that she be forced to give birth.

Which is all to illustrate how the how the "forced birthing" rhetoric is unhelpful in discussing whether or not a particular viewpoint is liberal or not.

But go ahead, please, show me how you can miss the point entirely again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #275
498. Nope. Another big FAIL for you. I do not advocate that women be forced
to bear unwanted pregnancies or to be forced to give birth.

As I said earlier, whether you or most or many "liberals" agree or not is immaterial. It's not your choice. It's not my aim to be "helpful" to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #498
520. Who the hell are you talking to?
There's no one there!! :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #498
609. So you're telling me that your views of abortion...
...are that a woman days from birth should be able to terminate her pregnancy on a whim?

Would sticking a knife in a baby as long as you catch it just before it emerges from the birth canal count as a "valid choice" you'd want to protect for the mother?

The extremity of these examples is NOT to liken normal abortion to this sort of thing. It's to draw sharp contrasts so as to establish where the real boundaries of the terms of this argument lie. I'm wondering just how absolutist you are about this stuff. I wonder also if you think you're the arbiter of what makes a "true" liberal or not by using your own view on this single issue, however strong they might be, as a litmus test.

As for "it's not my choice" and your not having an aim of being helpful, I'm not really sure what you're going on about there. I never had any impression that you were being trying to be helpful, or any expectation that you would be, that's for sure. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #169
359. So you are admitting to being a right-winger
who opposes women's rights and calls himself a "liberal" in order to display your anti-reproductive rights positions on liberal message boards and try to convince us of your GAWD given male supremacy and wisdom. Correct?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Control-Z Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #161
192. So you revere life?
And what exactly do you do for all the unwanted babies once they are born?

I don't imagine you will answer my question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #192
199. Don't expect answers; expect bullshit and homilies
When the government made medical decisions for her sister, she didn't like that a bit. But she thinks it would be a great idea for everyone else's sister. No hate there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #192
211. I do what I can do for every person I come across in my life.
That is all that I CAN do. And all that YOU can do, as well.

Does that answer your question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #211
219. Nope, you need to be advocating for improved foster care and adoption
if you are so pro-life. As an insider on that scene (of course you are since you are so pro-life), I hope you are on the frontlines advocating for more services, funds and training. Placement is in a shambles with dire needs for social workers and facilitators. You're the go-to gal right???

You're either putting your money where your mouth is, or shut the fuck up. You can do more if you believe everyone should give birth. Are you writing petitions? Harassing your governor? Getting your rep involved?? Child services in every single stinking state of the US is in a despicable state, under funded, under staffed. I expect you are the one ensuring their feet is to the fire right? Otherwise you are all talk, no action.

Just being a good gal to the people you "come across in life" isn't enough if you truly believe as you do. There's a horde of unwanted babies being born right now. Somebody's got to take responsibility for them. That someone has to be you since you believe this way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blonndee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #219
222. +1 for this post. Very well said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #219
226. You've got to be kidding, right?
You are going to tell me what I should be doing, in order to confirm that I believe the way that I do?

Let me ask you something--

If someone is pro-life/anti-abortion, there is only ONE way to support what you believe in? YOUR way?

If you bothered to look up my posts on this forum, before you rendered your judgement of me, you would know that I support my beliefs by doing everything that I possibly can, to help people who are on death row. That's pro-life.

You would know that I research a fatal disease, in my spare time. That's pro-life.

You would know that I am a very good warrior, in the fight against euthanasia. That's pro-life.

You are not one who should tell me HOW I should fight for those things that I believe in. That's arrogant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #226
245. If you aren't taking on 18 years of tears, fears and raising other people's children
then you are a hypocrite of the highest order. You know of what I speak. I don't give a shit what you do on your "spare time" for other causes. Nothing is the same as having children in your house that you are responsible for.

You either have 20 foster kids right now or shut the fuck up. You are a hypocrite of the highest order to state that women having abortions are committing murder but will NOT step up to the plate to raise those who are placed for adoption.

We are talking childbirth. We are talking 18 - 20 years of hard labor raising a child. Not a fundraiser once/year in your spare time.

I'm a farmer on the outer rings of Chicago and my dialup won't load much more of this thread so I'll just sign off now.

You've made yourself perfectly clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #245
249. May I just say....
:yourock: :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #245
257. And when these people are done adopting all the orphans in the world
they need to clean out the sperm banks.

And when they're done with that, they can get to work on used prophylactics.

Maybe after that, they can tidy up after pubescent boys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #226
250. Being against euthanasia is pro-life?

Prolonging the agony of someone who is in languishing in horrible pain during the end stages of some horrible disease, who only wants to go out with a little shred of dignity is pro-life?

Having so little empathy for the women who would and have suffered greatly due to forced birthing is pro-life?

Good lord, you're a beacon of hope for us all. :D

Didn't think you would answer my question upthread. Most anti-abortion people can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #250
319. Prolonging life is the way that you put it.
But if someone wants to live, and medical professionals want to put them to death, then "prolonging" isn't quite the right word for that, is it?

I didn't see your post, upthread, or I'm sure I would have answered it. As you might note, I had to get to bed. When I signed off last night, it was after 1am in the morning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Control-Z Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:16 AM
Response to Reply #226
278. There IS only one way to support forced birthing.
'If someone is pro-life/anti-abortion, there is only ONE way to support what you believe in?'

Taking care of the babies throughout their life and up until they've completed college. That's right. That's it. Saving a death row murderer, researching fatal disease? Great big Zero for these kids. There is nothing you do, warrior, that even hints at reverence for the life of innocent children.

Aren't these kids good enough to have the same opportunities as other kids? What makes it so easy for you to turn your back on them after forcing them here? It it punishment for the mother? Tell me, how do you justify it in your mind?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #226
411. You have more in common with Carrie Prejean than Str Helen Prejean
It takes more than writing love letters to inmates and luvving preborn poppets to qualify for sainthood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #411
523. How silly.
I don't write love letters to anyone, much less death row inmates. And my views on abortion are consistent with my views on the death penalty. If you can't see that, then that's your problem, but you are replacing real debate with personal attacks. They do nothing to further your argument. You lose the debate. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #523
528. No, the laws favor my position so looks like you're losing
You're so blinded by your rage, grief and bitterness you can't see your hypocrisy. You try to save murderers - but call women who have abortions murderers. You can't see the blood on your hands, but it won't come off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #528
532. Once again, you are engaging in personal attacks, REP.
Once again, I will alert on your post. This really is getting tiring.

I have been very civil with you. I have attempted to speak of this issue in a rational, logical manner. I will do so one more time, and if I get another personal attack, I am going to take this further than just alerting on your posts.

Pro-life, to me, means pro for ALL of life. And I believe that life begins at conception. NOT BEFORE conception, so therefore I do not agree with those who would outlaw birth control. Being pro-life also means to me being pro-life for EVERYONE, even abortion doctors, like Dr. Tiller. And, really, he is not even a good example, because Dr. Tiller only took lives in order to save lives.

Despite your accusations, there is no "rage, grief and bitterness" in my views. To me, it is simply logical. As for the murderers on death row, surely you can see that my being pro-life for them is simply a logical extension of my being pro-life, period. All of life is sacred, in my view. Whether it is the life of a murderer, an unborn baby, or an abortion doctor.

I ask you, once again, and for the final time, please do not bring my son's death into this argument. It is simply not a decent thing to do, REP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #211
227. I need a kidney.
Well??


When are you getting tested?


Perhaps you've already donated a kidney, a lung, a lobe of your liver ...


Or maybe it's just easier to volunteer someone else's body while you flap your lips.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #227
247. Believe me, you don't want my kidneys.
That's assuming you really do need one. Which I doubt.

You know, it really would further your argument if you didn't engage in commentary such as "Or maybe it's easier....while you flap your lips."

I'd love to stay and argue, but I've got to get to bed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #247
251. Your disbelief devastates me
I don't believe anything you say, except for your bitterness and anger.

I notice how you didn't answer about volunteering your body to save lives. Very convenient. How like a pro-liar! Always willing to put someone else at risk!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #251
321. I'm bitter and angry? YOU are calling me a "pro-liar" and I'M the bitter and angry one?
I have medical issues that preclude me from dispensing my organs to those in need of them. Not that that is any of your fucking business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #321
337. And not that ANYONE'S abortion is ANY OF YOURS.
:freak:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #337
341. That's your viewpoint. And you're welcome to it.
However, I disagree. Murder is society's business. We have laws against it. And abortion is murder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #341
415. You're a very sick puppy, Th1onein. I do feel for you
knowing what you've been through. :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #415
474. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #474
521. You notice, REP, downthread, how your posts are being deleted?
That's because you are engaging in personal attacks. Just like this one that I'm responding to.

This is not good, REP. Not a good way to fight for your cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #415
524. I could say the same thing about you, Karenina.
But I don't believe that personal attacks belong on this forum.

What I've "been through" has very little to do with the issue at hand. People that bring the death of my child, or my fight for my sister's life, are intent, not on debate, but on something else that is quite dirty and quite nasty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #321
406. How hypocritical
You refuse to what you demand of others for some convenient excuse.

Your anger and bitterness shows in every post. You poor thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Control-Z Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #211
276. Well, that is just not good enough.
Unless you are following up on, and supporting in every way, each and every child whose birth you've had influence in forcing, you're a monster. Who are you to condem innocent souls to a life of poverty, abuse, or worse? And you claim these are lives you revere? So much you've decided they don't deserve a fair shake at life. Tough luck kid, I helped to get you here, now suffer. Yeah, that's revering life. You sound like a spoiled rotten little, eh, never mind, just yuck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #276
323. I've decided that unwanted children don't deserve a fair shake at life....
But YOU'VE decided that they don't deserve life AT ALL.

Your argument is not a good one. It's like saying that if you're anti-war, you have to track down every piece of ammunition, single-handedly, and confiscate it. It's like saying that unless you do it ALL, what you HAVE done means nothing. That's bullshit and you know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Control-Z Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #323
329. Well at least you admit it. -eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #329
331. Good grief. This is getting ridiculous.
The OP was bad enough. Now, we've devolved into playground games again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #161
195. It's great to the have the government make medical decisions for your family, isn't it?
Isn't it great when someone else knows better about personal medical decisions?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #195
214. If we have to have laws, then we should outlaw murder.
And, in my opinion, abortion is murder. You can characterize that as the government making medical decisions for my family all day long, but it would be as incorrect as saying that the government is making a personal financial decision for a thief's family when they make laws against bank robbery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #214
223. Wow. Talk about failed logic
Is a bank in someone's body? No? But thanks for playing, you poor thing.

When the state decided what kind of treatment was ok for your sister, were you ok with that? I was, heck; she was gonna die anyway, right? Let someone less emotional make those decisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #223
233. Could you please stick with the issue, and not engage in personal attacks?
Really. Do you think that that furthers your argument? It doesn't.

My sister was going to be euthanized. I fought for her life. I fight for others' lives, in the same position. If you can't see that as pro-life, then I'm sorry.

If you want to take control of your body, you need to use birth control. It's that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #233
252. That simple
You want to make your own end-of-life medical decisions, live in the right state. That simple.

For simple minds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #252
326. You want abortion on demand? Go live in another country.
That simple. Because I hope that, soon, it will be illegal here.

Fighting against euthanasia is pro-life.

Fighting against capital punishment is pro-life.

Fighting against abortion is pro-life.

Fighting against war is pro-life.

Fighting for gun control is pro-life.

These are stances that are consistent with the belief that all of life is sacred.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #326
468. Go live in Romania
Oh wait. Once they overthrew their oppressive dictatorship, they legalized abortion.

It's nice you have dreams. I'm sure it occupies your time. You can call yourself what you like, but you're not pro-life. How quaint of you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #326
500. Abortion will never again be illegal in the United States
because unlike you, most people respect women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #233
264. There is no 100% birth control and you should know that at your age.
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 01:17 AM by EFerrari
And there are pregnancies that have to be ended for other reasons that have nothing to do with birth control.

You really haven't thought this all the way through. And you really should before you run around calling women murderers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #264
327. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #264
472. She has more compassion for convicted murderers than for women who've had abortions
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #214
225. I expect you have a horde of adopted babies to back up your position
as a fierce advocate of forced birth. You are taking in your fair share right? Doing your part to be the example of your values and beliefs? Or are you just all rhetoric and moral posturing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #225
232. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #232
255. Ok, no way. I have to kick this just for this post.
Loading it will take another 5 minutes at the end of a long day but you are way worth it buddy.

Un-fucking-believeable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #255
261. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
create.peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #261
274. OMG nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllieB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #261
335. Wow. What a piece of work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #335
345. I shouldn't have to even answer this drivel.
My daughter is 32 years old and pregnant. She won't leave her asshole of a boyfriend, even if I could get her to stay with me in my RV. And, dragging her around the country with me would NOT be a good thing, either for her or for her baby. I am required, in order to make a living, to travel all over the country. I do this in an RV, because it is more comfortable than staying in a hotel. This would not be a good life for my daughter, while she is pregnant, nor for the baby, after she delivers.

If you read that thread, read it in it's entirety. I have been pummeled for giving my daughter five credit cards, in order to help her. And then, here, I'm pummeled for thinking that it would not be good to drag her, pregnant, all over the country.

If you think that it is the right thing to do, to pass judgement on me for those decisions, in an argument about abortion, well....I'm appalled, and I hope that the moderators of this forum are appalled as well. They should be.

REP, you've done this before, and it's wrong, and you know it. This is an out and out personal attack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #232
344. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #161
220. It's not really possible to "revere life" and to be against basic health care for women.
That you and many people "believe" it is beside the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #161
383. Then don't have one. Stay out of other peoples' business. Support women's rights.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #161
554. There is such a condition as low self-esteem of women who have grown up
under patriarchy --

The original ban on abortion was done because women were dying from illegal abortions.

It had nothing to do with protecting a fetus.

Unfortunately, when you suggest by your position that you "revere" the life of a fetus

above that of an existing female, then I'd say you show disrespect for your own gender.

This disrespect, failure to acknowledge, the life of the existing female is tantamount

to "hatred for women."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
164. Karma will get these misogynists....
the women, complicated pregnancies or children who grow to hate them. The men, blindness from viagra. LOL!!!! And I'm not helping him across the street either!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
166. They are Forcing women to bear Flawed/Challenged babies by outlawing abortions
Some women will go through their term and love their baby with all their hearts...

But many women upon learning they carry an abnormal fetus....would choose to abort....

The Far Right wants them to not to abort.....so who picks up the tab....who pays the price...the Far Righters?.....

I don't think so....

This supposed to be a Free Country......so they say.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
188. You'll like this then (George Carlin)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX_0MVOUytU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blonndee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #188
209. LOL! "Why are people who are against abortion people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?"
"Once you're born, you're on your own!"

"If you're preborn, you're fine, if you're preschool, you're fucked!" :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
213. K&R for the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmondine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
258. Underlying it all is a desire to punish women who choose to live less repressed lives than them
And even more disgustingly, the children that they bear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #258
397. or for having the right to choose. Resentment for not having or using that right. Good points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 04:57 AM
Response to Original message
281. Young women are sometimes forced into abortions
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 05:19 AM by Mimosa
I can't believe I've read the whole topic. I've seen a lot of assumptions made by some posters about the motives or goodwill of other DU members. Abortion as an issue is very complex. My point of view is the same as Hillary Clinton's: abortion is often a tragic choice. I've never met a woman who felt good about having had an abortion. Feeling relieved or 'freed from anxiety' isn't the same thing as feeling good. Feelings of sorrow or guilt often come after the abortion experience. It isn't all that physically 'easy.'



I do have one concern because of abortion related issues which have happened to people very close to me. In one instance a 16 year old was pressured by her mother to have a legal abortion when she wanted to have her baby. She had a happily married aunt who had no children herself who offered to adopt the child, if that's what the girl wanted. The girl seemed to want that. The mother of the pregnant girl didn't want the inconvenience of her daughter's pregnancy and pressured the daughter into an abortion. Finances were not an issue. The fact that abortion was a more convenient option for the mother of the pregnant girl led to a pressured abortion. I think many of us women know this type of thing happens fairly often. Is abortion under pressure really a choice?

Many years ago, before abortion was legal, it was available. Somebody closely related to me (then 16) was pregnant, maybe about 6 to 8 weeks. Her mother was given a certain abortifacient drug by a doctor. After the pills were administered the girl was administered nearly a whole small bottle of castor oil to cause the contractions and abort the fetus. The girl was Catholic and did not want an abortion. She had no idea what was being done to her, supposedly 'for her own good.' The girl suffered an ugly painful abortion and suffered severe emotional problems for many years afterwards.

My point is that sometimes what is called choice wasn't freely chosen. Many of us know this and thus have ambiguous feelings about abortion, not viewing it as a wonderful thing, freely chosen.

However, abortion should be safe and legal for all women who desire them. The clinics should be clean, the staff caring and efficient and there shouldn't be protesters allowed around the clinics to cause distress to patients or staff. I'm always perplexed by the middle-aged sometimes unmarried men who get all worked up over abortion. Yes, it is often part of their cluster issues. They dread the 'control' of liberal 'socialist' government, yet they want control over the lives of women totally unrelated to them! There's a bit of CRAZY there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #281
555. HRC seems to have adopted some odd, less than "pro-choice" -- DLC views . ..
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 01:38 AM by defendandprotect
on abortion as a "tragic choice."

Let's stop the "complex" BS for one --
Millions and millions of women have made the decision to have a legal abortion -- and many
millions more have risked their lives to have illegal abortions.
I don't see women, in general, buckling over from the weight of the decision-making!

And, are we to presume that YOU have personally spoken with EVERY woman who has ever had an
abortion? This is also a rather reeking attempt to spread right-wing pro-life garbage here.

I've never met a woman who felt good about having had an abortion. Feeling relieved or 'freed from anxiety' isn't the same thing as feeling good. Feelings of sorrow or guilt often come after the abortion experience. It isn't all that physically 'easy.'

And, needless to say, the many late term abortions for health reasons and threat to the life of
the mother are presumably "on a whim" -- "just for something to do today" decisions . . .
or do you recognize a pregnant female's right to self-defense?

Women being forced to abort babies is nothing new -- many males press for abortions when the
"news" is delivered to them!

And, medical tests which confirm gender often result in aborting of female fetuses.

My point is that sometimes what is called choice wasn't freely chosen. Many of us know this and thus have ambiguous feelings about abortion, not viewing it as a wonderful thing, freely chosen.

But in your mind FORCING a female to stay pregnant when she doesn't want to is "choice" . . . ???

The clinics should be clean, the staff caring and efficient and there shouldn't be protesters allowed around the clinics to cause distress to patients or staff. I'm always perplexed by the middle-aged sometimes unmarried men who get all worked up over abortion. Yes, it is often part of their cluster issues. They dread the 'control' of liberal 'socialist' government, yet they want control over the lives of women totally unrelated to them! There's a bit of CRAZY there.

Good for you . . .

and whoever said that religion is "good for mental health" . . .???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BoneDaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 06:40 AM
Response to Original message
283. Wow
Terrorists? I don't think so. As a pro-choice male, I support a woman's right to her own reproduction but I do understand an anti abortion stance, even though I do not agree with it.

Certainly there are folks who are to the extreme of the argument but most of the people I know who are "pro-life" simply believe that a potential human life trumps a woman's right to end that life.

This type of rhetoric is not much different from the extreme right. Ignorant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #283
289. At the heart of your argument is the assumption that women do not have the right
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 08:32 AM by mnhtnbb
to control their own bodies. Period. The anti-choice crowd who "simply believe that a potential human life trumps a woman's right to end that life" are simply saying that women are incubators.

And PS: the ones who scream the loudest are the ones in their family MD's office when their teen daughters
get pregnant asking where they should go to "take care of it quietly". I heard that from my own family
doc in St. Joseph, MO. in the early '90's.

That's, of course, not the Sarah Palins of the world who are such narcissists that they see the opportunity for more attention for themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #289
301. Why this desperate urge to say "period."?
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 10:50 AM by Silent3
Foot-stomping certainty that an issue is exactly as simple as one asserts it is (period!), and that disagreement with that simplistic assessment can only mean one thing, is the problem here. It smacks of the worst of the right wing, which we shouldn't want to emulate. I'd like to think of Democrats as being the party who are patient with dealing with nuance.

News flash: Rights can come into conflict with other rights. Circumstances arise where no matter what your idealized views of rights are, somebody's rights are going to have to give. Your right to free speech ends, for instance, when it comes to the old example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

Every liberal who thinks there should be some limits of some sort on abortion, and there are many (and Christ on a crutch, yes, I know late term abortions are rare and totally elective late term abortions even rarer than that -- I don't need to start up the ridiculous argument I was having with another poster), thinks there exists a tipping point where an unborn child is close enough to being like a born child that it has rights too, and sometimes its right to live might trump the mother's right not to carry it.

To think there can be such a tipping point is not a denial of the existence of either right.

My disagreement with the absolutist anti-abortion crowd is their insistence that there's no tipping point at all, that unborn rights trump a mother's rights starting from a fertilized egg. On the other hand, I do not find unreasonable the idea of telling a woman who has a healthy unborn child, a woman who faces no particular health threats from giving birth, who is two weeks from giving birth, "If you haven't decided by now to terminate your pregnancy, I'm sorry, you've made a commitment to the very viable life inside your womb, and you should stick it out the next two weeks and give birth."

If you agree with the above (maybe you do, maybe you don't, but a lot of non-woman hating liberals would), then you're not SIMPLY saying that women are incubators, you are IN A NUANCED WAY saying that, after a certain point in time a woman can obligate herself to that role, and you are IN A NUANCED WAY recognizing that other rights have come into play.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BoneDaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #301
315. One of the best replies to the issue of abortion I have ever read
Ty. I support a women's right to choose but the way so many portray it on these boards is as draconic and insensitive as those I have read on the right. Similar thinking on either end of the extreme spectrum.

I am all for the morning after pill as well as the early stages of pregnancy, but the issue of abortion becomes harder and harder to justify as time passes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #315
556. Exactly...because late term abortion is dangerous for the female . ..
Try to absorb that point ---

That's why Roe vs Wade stipluates that late term abortions have to be approved

-- and they are usually done for reasons of "self-defense."

I don't know how many males want to give up their right to self-defense . . .

but many obviously would quickly take that right from women!!!


We have had tens of thousands of years of patriarchy and its abuses of females and you

now conclude that those who support "choice" are often "insensitive" and "draconian" -- ????

I'd like to hear an example of that . . . .

And, maybe read up on the Witch Hunts - "Hammer of Witches" before you tackle it!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BoneDaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #556
607. Wow talk about bunching a shit load of issues and anger
into one post making it a morass of confusion. I have never supported patriarchy as a male and have worked my whole life to undo much of it but you cannot ignore the simple fact that allowing late term abortions, by choice, not by pain of death or harm to the mother as an immoral act. I could care less about the abortion pill or the removal of a mass of tissue, but late term abortions, unless they harm the woman or can show some congenital or genetic defection, are wrong, especially when the potential child can be removed and sustained.

Get over the wound and come back to reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #301
346. The right wing wants NO abortion. Period. Get it? They have whittled away
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 12:45 PM by mnhtnbb
a woman's right to make a choice regarding whether, when, under what circumstances, to bring new life into the world. They do not want women to have contraception, the morning after pill, or abortions
in the first trimester. They do not want teens to be able to have abortions without parental consent.
They prevent women from crossing state lines to have abortions. They require women to listen to
a song and dance about fetal development before having abortions on the off chance they can induce such
guilt that maybe someone will change her mind. In short, they want women who become pregnant to have NO choice in whether that pregnancy is to continue. They want to turn back the clock and make women
have babies or seek out illegal means to terminate them unless they have the funds to go to another country for abortion. There is no room for nuance with these folks.

That's where the period comes from. IMO it's a mistake not to challenge these people
with the assumptions behind they "simply believe that a potential human life trumps a woman's right to end that life". These anti-choice folks get black/white, right/wrong. They don't get nuance. So, speak
to them in their language. If one of them says, "well, it's simply wrong" then challenge that with, "well, are women supposed to be incubators, no matter what" Lead them into nuance. The only way that is done
is to smack them in the face with another statement of certainty. If they agree, you know not to waste your time trying to talk to them. If they say, well, that's not exactly what I believe, then there's a basis for conversation and maybe you can bring them to recognizing they have a more nuanced opinion
than what they thought.

The real problem, again, IMO, is that most of the anti-choice people don't think. They parrot what they're told. A lot of them are very insecure and the idea that a woman has the power to make choices
about her reproduction is extremely threatening to them. Better for them not to have to think about it--and if they can make that the case for every woman, then they no longer have to deal with the issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #346
347. So, since "the right wing wants no abortions at all"...
...the only possible response to that extremism is to be extremist oneself and spout ridiculously overstated, oversimplified, nuance-free counter arguments, characterizing every single person who opposes abortion, no matter what he or she might have to say about his or her own position, as a woman hater?

Gee, if only I'd known I was supposed to shut off my brain and approach everything like it was a matter of who shouts the loudest. :eyes:

That's where the period comes from. IMO it's a mistake not to challenge these people...

I think it's a mistake not to challenge them too. But I have this funny desire not to lower myself to the lowest possible level of inflexible stupidity found amid the opposition in order to make my case.

Can we assume the OP doesn't really mean what he/she said? That it's just being said for strategic effect? Certainly doesn't sound like it's just for effect.

Even if I grant that, why take that tone in a Democratic forum where one should be able to assume one is talking to an audience more open to nuanced positions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #347
348. Democrats "Nuanced" this country into hell
We nuanced ourselves right into 8 years of Bush/Cheney. So I guess we can nuance ourselves into making sweet with the anti-choice people. Then we can explain to the next generation of young women that they had to loose their right to choose (or even use birth control) because it would have just been too rude to fight. That's not what good Democrats do; we can let the right win but we must never be "rude".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #348
353. This is about intellectual honesty, not manners, not strategy.
If I don't think every single anti-abortion person is a woman hater, I'm going to say so, and I'm going to say why I think so.

We nuanced ourselves right into 8 years of Bush/Cheney. So I guess we can nuance ourselves into making sweet with the anti-choice people. Then we can explain to the next generation of young women that they had to loose their right to choose (or even use birth control) because it would have just been too rude to fight. That's not what good Democrats do; we can let the right win but we must never be "rude".

I utterly reject the logic of the above statement. But explaining why is probably more nuance than you can handle. I can be rude and nuanced at the same time, however. Perhaps that's slowly dawning on you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #353
363. Oh so angry! All because of us uppity women!
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 01:41 PM by get the red out
Wow, what outrage at women expressing themselves. Honey, that's hardly nuance. You have some serious anger going on.:rofl:

The anti-abortion position is a front for the drive to limit access to and eventually ban birth control. The right wants you to convince us that this is not the case, and that the anti-choice people would be willing to still allow women access to birth control if abortion were made illegal or curtailed. This is not the case. The Southern Baptist leadership has even been coming out against birth control, more and more of the right is taking this position, but supporting anti-choice one lends onself to the cause of ending all reproductive rights.

So we, as liberals, should not support the anti-choice people because they are anti-birth control and anti-women's rights. Cheer for them against abortion and then be shocked at what we loose. But some of won't be shocked at all.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/03/20/anti_contraception/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #363
376. You see no difference between supporting and understanding?
To not indulge in blanket extreme characterizations is the same as lending support!? Saying, "I don't think every single last person against abortion is a woman hater" is the same as "cheering" for them?

And what anger? Yeah, I might be a little angry now, but that's out of frustration with the low quality of argumentation from many posters here, not in the viewpoints I'm trying to post. And "uppity women"? I don't even know the gender of most of the people I'm responding to here.

But you're obviously drinking your own koolaid, and think the only way to win an argument is to play the demonize-your-opponent game. Understanding is support. Nuance is weakness. Don't just put the bumper sticker on your car, internalize the bumper sticker and make your own thinking just as simple, and then you will be strong!

You have to demonize me and oversimplify me, even misrepresent me, in order to "win". Yes, you certainly are a "winner".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #376
385. There is a difference
But when there are liberals who are anti-choice they need to become informed regarding the real aims of the anti-choice movement. I don't think we can have any argument about abortion in any way until birth control is guaranteed to remain legal and women are guaranteed access. Until then all reproductive rights are under threat from the right, and it upsets me when I see liberals seeming to give them aid and comfort in their goals.

I agree with the OP because that is exactly how the Religious Right come across.

If a person is personally opposed to abortion yet do not support the overturn of Roe v Wade then they are pro-choice. The choice someone would make for themselves or discuss privately with others is not a concern in any way. It is in wanting to overturn Roe that personal beliefs become a concern because that is dictating the rights and freedoms of others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #385
424. You can inform someone of the aims of a movement without...
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 02:33 PM by Silent3
...making blanket condemnations of each and every single individual in that movement. In fact, you might make a bit more headway doing that informing if you take the approach of not condemning the person you're talking to.

...the real aims of the anti-choice movement.

"Movements" are collections of people. As a group, a group may very well have particular aims. It does not follow that each individual in a movement shares every aim with the whole. If anything is a good principle of liberalism, it's learning to treat people as individuals and not interchangeable clones of whatever groups they belong to.

Moral responsibility for groups one belongs to (when they are groups you have a conscious choice about, unlike gender or race or sexual orientation) is another matter. There is certainly a case for holding people who choose to belong to a group responsible for the overall behavior of that group, but even that can be a fuzzy thing. I support some of the goals of PETA, but far from all of their views, and want nothing to do with their "movement" or any of the extremist acts some of their members perform. Just like I'd never join PETA, I'm sure their are plenty of antiabortionists who don't want to associate with Operation Rescue or people like Tiller's murderer.

Speaking of which, if you think any anger I have concerning this issue is directed at "uppity women", think again. When I heard about the killing of Tiller, one of my first thoughts, not one I'm particularly proud of, was to wish that someone would massacre a bunch of antiabortion protesters and put the fear in them that they're trying to put into the doctors, nurses, and patients who visit family planning centers. Even sharing that much of how I feel, however, is something I'm hesitant to do. It's exactly that kind of "Oh, I'd never do that myself, and wouldn't support it, but I wouldn't be very sad if someone else did it!" rhetoric among the antiabortion crowd that helped enable people like Tiller's murderer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #424
452. Otherwise ok people make mistakes
People who support the right's desire to overturn Roe v Wade may not know that they are supporting the hard core driving force of the movement to go on to end access to contraception. But the result would be the same. That is my point.

However, concerning the core of the religious right, they are as anti-woman as they get. And I cannot stand them.

I felt similar to you at Dr. Tiller's death, but the next thought I had was that I hope none of these people get the opportunity to become martyrs, we do not need that and I am sure they would love nothing more than to be martyred for their cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #347
349. If you look, you will note that I was not responding to the OP. I was responding
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 01:10 PM by mnhtnbb
to the post previous to mine that seemed to tolerate anti-choice folks, because they "simply believe that a potential human life trumps a woman's right to end that life"

Setting up parameters of an argument--the goal posts, if you will--of on one hand, then the other hand,
leaves room for what comes in between.

I have a different approach than you do. Yours isn't wrong and neither is mine. My approach suits
me and it works. Believe me. I'm not interested in wasting time talking to people who think
women should have no say in their reproductive choices because "a potential human life trumps a woman's right to end that life".

I do not agree with the OP, by the way. I think it's an issue of power, not hate. The anti-choice crowd are
envious of women with power and will do everything possible to eliminate that power.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #349
361. I'm well aware of the flow of conversation in the subthread...
...going back to BoneDaddy's post and your response to that. The OP still makes a useful illustration of oversimplification, done either for supposed strategic effect or because the OP's view really is that simplistic.

The anti-choice crowd are envious of women with power and will do everything possible to eliminate that power.

I'm sure many do feel that way. I'm sure some are hateful too, just like the OP said. I just see no value in overstated blanket characterizations, however. Humans are way too complex to make 100% certain, absolute diagnoses of motivation and attitude based on nothing more than knowledge of a single political position.

None of what I'm saying has the slightest thing to yielding ground to people just because you're trying to understand them better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #361
379. Ah. I'm not trying to understand anti-choice folks better. I do not want to cede them the right
to determine when a woman chooses to continue a pregnancy. I want the woman who is pregnant to be able
to make her decision, including whomever she wishes in the decision making process--whether it's an MD, spiritual advisor, partner or anyone else whose opinion she respects.

If the anti-choice folks don't want abortions, then they shouldn't have them. I still maintain it's an issue of power. It's a helluva lot easier to have no choice in the matter; takes away all the discomfort,
the agonizing, the trauma of making a decision. Better to make it unavailable for everyone than to have to deal with making a decision in your own time of need because the option is legal and available.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #379
387. You can understand someone without ceding anything to them.
If you simply don't want to understand the anti choice people, it follows that whatever you say from that point on is rhetoric, not reason.

I still maintain it's an issue of power.

Maintain that all you like. It's probably even true as a good description of many, or even most, people on the anti abortion side. Are you actually afraid that if you don't oversimplify your view to an absolutist, blanket condemnation with no room for individual variation that your failure to be inflexibly extreme will bring about the end of legalized abortion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #387
404. I am not afraid. I'm not interested in reasoning with or understanding people
who wish to take away a woman's right to choose.

My view leaves plenty of room for individual variation: it elevates the right to choose to any woman--regardless of her political point of view or religion. Now if that's extreme--and it seems you've bought into the anti-choice argument that choice is extreme--then so be it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #404
456. What you just said isn't extreme, but you're conflating two separate things.
There are two points here:

(1) You believe that the proper expression of antiabortion sentiments is simply not get an abortion yourself while leaving it open to others to make that choice for themselves. (I could add promoting birth control and providing support for women to make it easier for them to choose adoption as an alternative, which I'd imagine you'd have no problem with either.)

(2) Antiabortionists who do not agree with Point 1 MUST be motivated by a desire to control women.

I can agree with Point 1, which I do, but not agree with point 2. The end result of disagreeing with Point 1 (and getting your way in the political arena, which is not guaranteed, or using intimidation, which is unfortunately happening) may well be that women lose power, but that doesn't make the desire to take that power the motivation. The motivation can truly be protection of unborn life and nothing else, with, from the perspective of some antiabortionists, the loss of power for women simply being a consequence, not a goal, of protecting unborn life.

I don't want my neighbors to break into my house and steal my television. Insisting on Point 2 is almost as silly as saying that I'm motivated by a desire to deprive my neighbors of television. That might well be the end result if they can't afford a TV themselves, but it's not my goal. My goal is simply protecting my own property.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #456
470. I do not pretend to know what motivates anti-choice people. They give a lot of reasons
why they're against it, and a lot of them fall back on "God" or the "Bible" or some morally
absolute position.

The end result is that women lose the power of choice if the anti-choice people get their way. They are all willing to individually cede reproductive choice issues to some power beyond themselves. And they want everybody else to be in the same boat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BoneDaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #289
314. No, that is not their argument
at all. Now your comments about Sarah Palin i do not disagree with at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
294. I think it's more of a desire to control than actual hatred
Accusing everyone who disagrees with you as hateful is not an effective way to change peoples' hearts and minds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
296. Absolutely agreed. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
316. With All Due Respect; NOTHING About The Abortion Debate Is Pure And Simple.
It is, and will continue to be, one of the most complex issues of discussions and theory that exists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tommy_Carcetti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
317. Okay. Sure. Whatever you say. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllieB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #317
320. Are you going to elaborate or just disregard the OP's opinion with sarcasm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #320
354. Angry males that can't control this thread
There are a few angry males that couldn't control this thread, they can't stand that a woman might expess "strong feelings" and "emotion" when discussing the right's desire to end reproductive rights. If it were a few hundred years ago (or Sarah Palin's Church) the guys on this thread would be calling for the witches to be burned!

:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dem629 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
343. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllieB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #343
374. You're always on the wrong side of an issue, aren't you?
:hi: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dem629 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #374
403. The issue here being: ridiculous hyperbole....
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 02:19 PM by dem629
Yes, I'm proud to be on the "wrong" side of that.

If anti-choice is nothing more than woman-hating, then logically (according to the OP's odd logic) pro-choice is hating....what, exactly?

Now go ahead and play another victim card.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllieB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #403
443. Not a victim-I never have been.
Nice projection though. Anti-choice assumes that women shouldn't have control over their bodies. It's not 'playing the victim', but thanks for the nice RW meme as usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dem629 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #443
585. I see you were unwilling (or unable) to answer my question.
Thanks for the hyperbolic emotional response in lieu of an actual response...as usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
352. Sexism is so deeply woven into our culture that it even has to be explained on a progressive board
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 01:18 PM by Matariki
And pointing it out earns you all sorts of insults from our supposedly progressive brethren.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
357. No, it is not. It is a complex personal and medical issue overtaken by extremists....
... but at heart that does not make it any less a complex issue.

Hekate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reflection Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
360. Well now, this has been a fun thread, hasn't it?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
371. Highly agree . . . and they've also reached the point of denying women the right to self-defense--!!
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 01:52 PM by defendandprotect
Just a small technicality . . . a right which everyone has!

Yes . . . I agree, this is all based in female-hatred; this is based in patriarchy

and its organized patriarchal religions.

And just when is it that NATURE entrusts males to carry a new live in their body?

Never has she!


We also have a Democratic Party which is playing the pretend game . . . pretend the

woman isn't there . . . pretend it isn't about HER life . . . pretend it isn't about

HER health . . . pretend along with the GOP!

Eventually, the bottom will fall out of this as many women die -- they won't be wealthy

women . . .

We do need to raise our objections more loudly -- and our elected Democratic officials also

need to stop standing there silently and show some of the passion and concern this subject

deserves!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #371
393. Beautiful
That was beautifully written.

Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cagesoulman Donating Member (648 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
372. I actually fucking agree with this
I'm kicking you up. :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
373. Questions
If a women is kicked in the abdomen by her boyfriend who does not want to be a father and kills the unborn fetus, is he guilty of murder or just assault and battery on the mother?

If a pregnant women is in a coma due to a car accident should the fetus be aborted automatically or saved automatically?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
377. This is not so.
I have maintained for years that EVERY anti-choice argument has, at its heart, a profound hatred for women. EVERY anti-choice argument says that some THING, or some ONE, be it the church, the state, the sperm donor or the z/e/f, is more important than the woman.

What you are saying is not so in most cases.

Let me preface this by saying that I am a pro-choice married male with children. My wife and I agreed during our pregnancies that should we find out that the unborn child was deformed in some way we would abort, as this world is hard enough to make it in with all your faculties than without.

I am pro-choice and believe a woman should be able to kill her unborn child for whatever reason she likes. But I do believe it is an unborn child and that, most of the time, if left alone, it would develop into a normal human being like the rest of us.

I believe attempts to de-humanize unborn children, by calling them zygotes, or fetuses, a bag of cells, or whatever, are just that - attempt to de-humanize the entity and thus make its destruction more palatable.

I, personally, have decided that it is OK to kill unborn children in certain cases, just as society has decided it is OK to kill other people in certain cases. Others can not bring themselves to make that choice. For those people, who believe that life begins at conception, they hold that life not to be more precious than the mother carrying it, but equally precious. In most cases, it is not a matter of hating the woman mother or finding her life to be worth less. To them, it is worth the same, and that unborn child deserves as much protection of its life as the mother does hers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
381. The right to have sexual intercourse without consequence
Because that is what it amounts to. How does that empower women?

Having a baby is an ENORMOUS thing. Having an abortion can be an enormous trama. I understand that. I also understand that having sexual intercourse is a RISK with CONSEQUENCES and should not be taken lightly.

I have practical issue that the day before a child is born it has zero rights under our society. You can't legally kill a baby that has passed thru the birth canal, but you can just days before it does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #381
389. How many women are able to reach their goals with 10-12 kids?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #389
398. Sorry, not following (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #398
414. Being able to plan your reproductive life is empowering.
Having more children or any children that you didn't plan for limits your choices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #414
421. Ok I get you
But doesn't a couple make a choice to have intercourse? Abortion is the act of reversing the consequence of another choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #421
427. So what? Why should it be set in stone?
People's circumstances and wishes change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #427
504. One can wish to not to have had children
well after they are born.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #504
505. Think about what you are saying.
Leave it up to the woman involved to decide what is right for her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #505
512. There comes a point
some point when it is greater than what is right for her...unless of course we are all narcissists.

The question is when is that point. I don't pretend to know the answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:37 PM
Original message
Should gay people be punished for having sex also?
Just curious because no one can get properly punished by pregnancy when gay people do the dirty against God like us hetero folks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
570. What's with the God reference in everything?
And yes there are potential consequences to homosexual sex too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #570
579. It's where the punishment ideas come from
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #579
635. Consequence is not synonymous with punishment. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #635
637. Sounds that way in this context
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #389
529. Well . . . if you're "Jon & Kate" you sell your lives and your children to the MSM . . .
and to corporations selling things!!

Just said the other day, Kate is lucky the show doesn't have a funeral services

sponsor -- !!!

Actually, it's patriarchy's view that for women their goals should only be to

procreate!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #381
396. Document or retract
That's a blatent lie. I expect you know that, and will retract it since you don't want to be spreading terrorist propaganda on a public forum.

Or maybe you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #396
401. I assume you mean this part?
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 02:21 PM by vincent_vega_lives
"The right to have sexual intercourse without consequence
Because that is what it amounts to. "

Not sure how you expect to document that, but that is certainly the logical result.

Abortion is the act of terminating a pregnancy.

A pregnancy is the consequence of a woman being impregnated by either inter vaginal sex or artificial insemination (either consensual or not).

Terminating the pregnancy by artificial means only results in two things.

If nonconsensual insemination: A reversal of the consequence of being raped.

If consensual: A reversal of the consequence of having sexual intercourse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #401
417. So disengenuous.
39-40 week terminations other than live birth. Where are they done??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #417
477. Just pointing out that he's not backed up his outright lie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #477
571. Ok I see what you are ranting about
I was not referring to the partial-birth abortion issue. I was trying to make the point that a fetus becomes a human life, protected by societal laws at some point, probably prior to birth.

The partial-birth ban does not actively establish rights of the fetus, it simply restricts doctors from practicing the procedure. There is a difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #417
482. Oh dontchaknow that slutty slut sluttersons get them ALL the time!
Why, just last week I breezed into the abortion clinic and callously dispatched with a healthy 8-month fetus. I had a big event and wanted to fit into my cocktail dress, you know. Then I had a mani and pedi. And a latte. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #482
491. I get preggers just to have 39-wk abortions!! They're fun (and imaginary!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #482
572. So do you not want the right to do that or not? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #396
409. He was just slut shaming
Sad really. Why are men disgusted with women who have sex? And it always hetero men who look down on women who have sex. It looks like that would be very self-defeating?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #409
419. See now that is conflating the issue
And just the attitude I am referring to.

You are making the point that abortion is about the right PEOPLE to have sexual intercourse without consequence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #419
422. You don't think people should be free to have sex?
Who should control people's sex lives? Why should people be punished for sex?

The right wants to end the right to use contraception. Are you eager for that punishment on people?

I think people should have the right to privacy. I think that abortion needs to be safe and legal otherwise women will get back-ally abortions and women will die. I cannot believe anyone posting on DU would support that.

Yes, saying women should have consequences for daring to have sex is "slut shaming".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #422
431. free to have sex
Yes you are also free to get venereal disease, Gonorrhea, AIDS, syphilis.

You might consider those being "punished for sex". The point is YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL with sex or it may fuck up your life!!!


I AGREE abortion needs to be safe and legal. I ALSO think WE as a society needs to come to terms with what abortion is...life termination, and not beat around the issue, and come up with some reasonable ethical framework that respects all parties.

The problem now is that the issue is so Polarized ON BOTH SIDES it cant be discussed, or you get called a "slut shamer".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #431
434. You are incorrect
You are asking that WE, all of society, come to terms with what YOU believe abortion is. I am not sure you are qualified to decide what particular point of view society should be required to embrace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #434
440. OK
So you do not agree that abortion involves termination of a life?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #440
445. You said society must come to terms with your opinion
You implied that society must come to terms with your opinion on the matter, I disagree that you should decide what society must believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #445
502. I said society must come to terms with the reality of abortion
that it is more complicated than pro-choice vs pro-life groups make it.

I see you wont come to terms with the question...and that IS part of the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #502
577. You want YOUR point of view to be accepted
Just because I question whether your implication that your point of view should be the default that society has to come to terms with, hardly shows what I have or have not come to terms with.

What I do not support is that anyone can say "Abortion is ____" and society must come to terms with that. Society is bigger than one person having an opinion and believing we must all come to terms with sharing that opinion.

That is the main reason I do not express my opinion here. Society is bigger than me and I recognize that. My opinion on what abortion is or is not isn't the issue at hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #434
515. Im not sure either
but neither are lots of other people with strong opinions about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #431
437. Have you ever considered that women get abortions so their life doesn't get fucked up?
You're still wanting to control something that has nothing whatsoever to do with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #437
506. Yes I do consider that
Unwanted pregnancy is a VERY scary thing. Abortion can be a scary thing to live with also.

Sex can have consequences.

A mother burning their child with cigarettes also has nothing to do with me either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #431
455. Modern medicine
Do you believe we should utilize modern medicine in order to make all those "risks" you listed gradually become a thing of the past? Should we not educate young people so that they can keep themselves as safe as possible where sex is concerned?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #455
516. YES YES YES
In an ideal world abortion would be a crude thing of the past.

I agree with everything from voluntary abstinence, to responsible birth control, to the morning after pill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #431
486. I call bullshit on the 'both sides are extreme' meme
No, one side believes that women of childbearing age should effectively become wards of the state and that they should get to meddle into everyone's personal lives. The other side doesn't believe those things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #409
426. Well, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time"!
Because sex is a crime and babies are punishment. Or the greatest gift ever and a punishment. Or something. Who knows with these Junior Anti Sex League types?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #426
433. Yes sex can have serious consequences
Perhaps some people need to grow up and realize as much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #433
435. God hates sex!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #435
503. I am an atheist
so I am exempt from God's opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #503
578. Seems you have been shaped by religion
I am not an atheist, but I have had to come to terms with the way ancient, cruel religious ideas (many anti-woman and sexually shaming) which I have long rejected have harmed me on a very deep, personal, sometimes subconscious level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #578
641. Shaped by Religion
No I've been shaped by diet and exercise more than anything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #433
466. Like having an abortion
Yes, you do need to grow up and get your nose out of other peoples' business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #466
518. Yup none of any of our bizniz
if you beat your kids either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #518
527. How, exactly, is an abortion like you beating your children?
You never got around to telling us where 39-40 week non-birth terminations are legal. Since you got caught in that lie, are you trying to befuddle with "abortion is child abuse" bullshit now? You hear that at an Operation Rescue meeting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 05:43 AM
Response to Reply #527
567. Ahh
It's not like getting an abortion. The point is "mind your own biz" only goes as far as one's actions do not negatively impact somone else. The question is when does that "someone else" count.

I have no clue what you are talking about re: late term abortions. Please point out where I even mentioned them...let alone lie.

Operation rescue...thats a good one. I'm pro choice, but with caveats. I just think rabid choicers are as misguided as rabid lifers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #426
484. Hey, didn't someone get a ration of shit for describing being 'punished with a baby'?
Who was that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #484
519. Eh?
Consequence does not necessarily EQUAL "punishment"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #381
407. It's about a lot more than abortion
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/03/20/anti_contraception/

If we keep abortion safe and legal, and move forward and guarantee that birth control will remain legal, and women will be guaranteed access, then express your anti-abortion sentament over loud speakers if you like. But until we are guaranteed that the law will protect women's reproductive rights, ultimately, including contraception; debate is quite difficult.

We need abortion safe and legal first and formost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dem629 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #381
410. In fact, during many debates here, some people make the argument
that the male should "wrap it up" and that if Roe is overturned then the woman is "forced" into pregnancy.

That kind of rhetoric doesn't empower women. It demeans them by implying that women don't have the power to make their own choice before conception.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #410
450. Oh, yeah. The woman who was raped made a bad choice. The woman
whose birth control failed made a bad choice. The woman who develops medical complications that are life
threatening should have had a crystal ball. The woman whose husband lost his job should have
told hubby, "no more sex for you...what if I get pregnant before you find a job?"

Get real. Stop buying into the right wing bullshit that women wouldn't need safe, legal abortion options
if they'd only just make a perfect choice before having sex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #450
495. But good godly women always submit to their husbands' urges
And gladly bear the fruit of them. The only choice for women in Wingnut Land is NO choice!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #495
575. WTF are you talking about
this is just stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dem629 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #450
588. Interesting that the first two examples you cite
are the most defensible. Those are good points.

But there is no defense for using abortion as post-conception birth control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #410
490. You do realize that the anti-choice movement is largely against contraception don't you?
After Roe v Wade their next target is Griswold v Connecticut. So, um, yeah, they do want to force women into pregnancy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #490
573. Not really

AFAIK only Catholicism prohibits contraception. Protestantism, which is what Evangelicals are, do not. What they are against is state sponsored contraception.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dem629 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #490
587. And I'm sure all of that is carried out
with black helicopters, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #381
478. Thanks for the abstinence lecture, Bristol. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #478
574. Reality sucks
If you are not prepared to become pregnant, avoid intercourse, because no form of BC is 100% effective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #574
580. Reality is that there are options to deal with an unwanted pregnancies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #580
634. Hence My point
Abortion is mainly about concequence free sex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
388. bingo
the pro-fetus crowd believes women are incapable of thinking for themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
395. notice which gender is disagreeing with your premise
it's sort of like the disconnect between black and white people when defining racism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dem629 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #395
413. notice which gender is agreeing with your premise
it's sort of like the disconnect between black and white people when defining racism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #413
430. Oh great. You again.
Why am I not surprised? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllieB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #430
454. It's amazing he's still around.
I thought for sure he's have been served pizza by now. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dem629 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #454
590. Of course that's what you want.
You have no defense for your positions, so you resort to the typical tactic of trying to silence an opposing view.

This exchange says far more about you than it does me.

And, for the record, as I have stated many times, if you are under the impression that I'm going to suffer a life-altering disappointment by being banned from a website, well, you need to get out more. Oh, the horror. Banned from a website?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #413
462. the problem: most white people haven't experienced systematic
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 03:00 PM by noiretextatique
institutionalized racism. nor have most men experienced systematic, institutionalized sexism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #462
549. And those people don't understand that both can change your life
forever. Can end your life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #395
453. The biggest anti-choice person on the thread is a woman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #453
458. the numbers is what i am referring to
i counted at least three highly offended males before i stopped counting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #453
465. OMF has only posted once so far
He has posted at length about how he would sue a woman to prevent her from aborting a pregnancy if he were the sperm donor. Doesn't get a lot worse than that. Well, the person you reference does try to approach that level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #465
475. OMG.
:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllieB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #465
487. Who's OMF?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #487
489. #316
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllieB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #489
494. Amazing.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #453
473. So? Some of the biggest misogynists in the world are women.
I don't know why people haven't figured out that oppressed people often internalize the negative messages foisted on their group and enable the dominant group to perpetuate them in the hopes of a reward. Fuck, Michael Steele was blubbering about the poor widdle discriminated against white menz just the other day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #473
476. I was refuting the poster's claim that one gender had the lock on the disagreement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #395
576. Yes because there are no pro-life women right? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #395
615. Across the spectrum of social and political viewpoints, both men and women
hold contradicting opinions and are sanctioned to express them.

The debate regarding choice is not in the least like the debate over racism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
517. Thanks for the discussion All
I enjoy the debate but must turn in. I have a 9 month old lil girl that insists da-da gets up with her at 5:30am.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fortyfeetunder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
526. Yes definitely anti-woman empowerment:
In an ideal world - We women haz the eggz, we should make the rulez.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack_DeLeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
536. Sex and contreception are choices...
unless they arent a choice such as in the case of rape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #536
542. Contraception is fallible and some situations have nothing, nada
to do with contraception like when your baby dies in your womb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TerryRay Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:11 AM
Response to Original message
565. I have always felt
That one of the biggest problems with the discussion of abortion is BOTH sides tend to go to the extreme side of their argument and act like that is where the whole topic exist. The right like to bring up the late term abortion issue and pretend that these evil women are having doctors tear away healthy babies in the last three weeks and doing it with an evil laugh. which of course is wrong..Or that there are millions of women who are having abortions monthly cause they are sluts who just dont care


But I feel the left at times get caught up in the anaolgy of what the woman in a life or death choice scenario or the contraceptions fail discussion

Both sides are taken this small % and blowing it up to make it the main cause of their argument. That alone will not elicit anything but anger from the other side.

The majority of abortions fall in the middle. they are not always so cut and dry and I like to think that the decision never comes easy because it is a complex issue.

I personally believe it is a woman's choice...but I dont feel those agianst abortion are women hating, or want to control women( yes I do know some on that side do feel that) but I also know for a huge amount on the anti-choice side they simply believe an unborn child is a person who should have the right to live. I dont agree, but I am not going to demonize all of them as evil women haters because I disagree with their view if they dont truly hate women.

Two things I can say I dont know...When abortion became such a vile discussion that cannot be debated and talked about without it turning into hate and illogical name calling on BOTH sides of the issue.

And when did ONE issue make someone a liberal or a conservative? It seems people feel if your pro-choice your auto liberal( I know a good chunk of conservatives who are pro-choice) or if your anti-choice your auto right wing( again I know a good chunk of liberals who are agianst abortion). So when did THIS issue become what decides your political affilliation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:16 AM
Response to Original message
566. it's not. some people believe abortion is murder. there is no "pure & simple" anything in politics
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #566
581. That's where secular law comes in
We need to maintain secular law, then people who are not in favor of abortion can preach as long and as loud as they like, so long as they permit secular law to be the final rule. They also need to stop harassing women who utilize family planning clinics. If they would behave like good citizens more power to them expressing their opinion. But as things now stand they prefer to be a threat to freedom. They wish to impose their religious beliefs on everyone instead of leaving the laws as they are and persuading through expressing their case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demwing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
582. "Sperm Donors"???
Wow. Your own hate is blinding you.

I don't have to agree with your harsh and harmful rhetoric to agree that choice is a fundamental right, so I won't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dem629 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #582
591. It's the usual misandry.
And of course hypocrisy.

What's new?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
586. One better: I'll respect a woman by not getting off my jollies, impregnating her, and then needing
to think about the procedure in the first place.

:wow:



I know, being thoughtful of others is soooooo passe in our modern day and age...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
594. there's a good book called "Sex in History"
written by an anthropologist named Tennenbaum. If you look through history you'll find cases of infanticide not abortion. For instance, many places in the ME female infanticide was common. The Catholic Church has a hidden history of infanticide ( I can't remember the name of the European convent where they found hundreds of newly birthed infants--I believe they found the remains in a nearby lake) These accounts are in the book, which seems to me a clear case of hypocrisy.

Now, I've heard some anti-choicers comparing abortion to Hitler's mandates. On the contrary, Hitler banned abortion, as did Hirohito. Why? Hitler initiated the "Baby Factories", thus forcing Aryan looking women to birth babies all for the sake of the Aryan race. I'm sure some have read about the baby farms, where captured women with Aryan features were forced to birth babies? Ceasceau from Romania banned abortion and made law that women had to birth at least five children, why?

Some people believe that the soul is at the time of conception, some believe the soul is at the time of birth. Of a human having a soul is purely based upon religion or spirituality. Abortion, in my opinion, should never had been a governmental issue-it is a decision that should be made between (primarily) a woman, her family and her church.

Even the anti-choicers know that third term abortions are made because of serious medical issues. Either the fetus or the mother's life is in jeopardy. So, do they also believe a woman should carry a "dead" fetus around for nine months? There was a case in the eighties, I believe in California-where a woman who was pregnant was in an auto accident, the doctor said she'd have a better chance of surviving if they aborted the fetus--the parents consented--before the procedure a male anti-choicer blocked the procedure, just long enough that the woman died. I am a woman who loves her daughter, I will chose my daughter every time. If a doctor told me that I would have to make a choice between my daughter or the fetus (and my daughter could not make her own decision), I'd chose my daughter.

I've had two friends who were on birth control pills and got pregnant (that's why BC pills are only 98% effective). One chose an abortion; the other chose to have the baby even though the doctor told her there may be some abnormalities. They both had the freedom of choice, and I believe that's the point--it's their right to chose.

Sweden was one of the first countries to legalize abortion. And, the argument was on the woman's life. Pregnancy causes quite a number of medical conditions-the younger or older a woman is at the time of conception, the more likely of mother mortality. I wish some on this board would actually look at the risks of pregnancy (I mean if your actually interested in the woman's life). Even in my first pregnancy, I almost "bled out"-I was twenty.

The question is "do we value women and their choices" or are they less valued than the fetus?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #594
595. +1
But the unfortunate fact is that anti-choice terrorism has won; something like 80% of the counties in the US have no abortion services at all, and most of those that do have arbitrary restrictions. The next target of the anti-choicers is birth control.

Its just a few more steps from there to the Aryan baby factories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retired AF Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
596. First I want to say if a woman wants to abort her baby
that is her right. What I don't understand that everybody that is pro abortion had a chance to be born and formulate their position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #596
597. why sir, I'm glad you brought that up
See, my mother was raised in a very, very religious household and found herself unwedded and pregnant with me. Since, her mama never ever talked about sex (except that it was a sin), you can imagine the predicament she was left with. Well, she tried to get rid of me, on her own by some kind of wives tale (I think it was drinking lots of cod liver oil.) Finally, had to fess up. In her town, the shame she endured by others and by parts of her family. A shame that to this day she still relives. (you know, cause that's how she was raised.)

Now, I've asked myself many times about what would have happened if I hadn't been born? Do you think I think "thank God I was born.? No. I wouldn't have known, wouldn't have existed. And, because of that shame, my mom has made some pretty lousy choices, especially in men. I've had one hell of a childhood that I wouldn't have wished on anyone. If I had been aborted and if there is some higher being, I would have understood, as I understand now. So, do I get up every morning blessing my mom for not aborting me? NO!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #596
599. I've known a lot of women, including myself, who have had abortions
and have yet to meet one that celebrated having one.

Pro abortion? I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
603. take a chill pill. most of the pro-lifers are about the unborn fetus's life, NOT hating women.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #603
606. but, that's it--it's not about the woman's life at all
and, it's not actually about the baby's life after it's born. Because frankly, I believe some of those who are demonstrating against choice, are the same ones who love our wars of choice and killing other people's children, have no second thoughts on the death penalty and would scream bloody murder if even one poor woman with her baby got state assistance for survival.

I respect those who are really pro-life and are against war, against the death penalty--I do not share all of their beliefs, but I respect them for their beliefs. But, that's not the majority of the anti-choicers.

Again, my daughter's life will always be valued over the fetus. She is here, she is loved, she is valued.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #606
627. exactly- it's not about the woman's life at all...
for it to be an act of hatred against women, as the op proposes- it WOULD have to be actively about the woman's life, and it most decidedly is NOT. the pro-life crowd has an insane focus on the life of the fetus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #603
620. Right. All their press releases say so, it must be true!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #620
628. i'm not privy to their press releases...
i'm just going by the attitudes they always seem to express- they have no interest in the mother's life whatsoever, and hatred takes an active interest. all that the pro-life crowd has it's focus on is the fetus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #628
633. The anti woman crowd has YOUR attention foused on the fetus
as they set about attacking women's health care providers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #633
638. if they hate women so much, why are the only "health care providers" being targeted...
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 10:30 PM by dysfunctional press
are abortion providers? if they hate women so much, and want to deny them healthcare, shouldn't they be going after ALL ob/gyn's?

or does your hyperbole include reasons as to why that isn't happening...? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #633
642. just what i thought...
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

as usual- you got NUTHIN'!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
610. One may be strongly pro-feminist but oppose abortion.
Many of us are pro-feminist and strongly pro-choice, but our position does not preclude dialogue with men and women who are pro-feminist but who oppose abortion.

I strongly disagree that the murder of Dr. Tiller was about the hatred of women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
611. There is no incentive for the anti-choice movement to acknowledge, let
alone discuss, women's health.

They have cast reproductive freedom not as a matter of health but one of moral trespass. They have imposed a rigid, theocractic (I should say pseudo-theocratic), systemic condemnation of the termination of pregnancy, period.

They are playing with other cards at a different table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
612. Biophysiology is not an equal-opportunity provider insofar as males are
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 11:42 PM by saltpoint
the only sperm donors (to use your phrase) available.

Females should not be cast as "baby-makers" anymore than males should be dismissed as "sperm donors." Us boys, we can do other stuff besides that.

Girls, eggies; boys, spermies. There's no interchangeable facility there at all.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
614. Reproductive freedom should be the choice of the individual woman in
consultation with her physician, say.

But as pregnancies go, there is a male involved at some point in some way in order for the narrative to have advanced this far.

To carry your absurd assertion in your OP a bit farther, then, would you also not have to concede that to oppose reproductive freedom is also anti-male?

Carry it farther yet: if someone is anti-choice, are they not also anti-process? Your argument falls apart at the seams when you assert that a given moral position equals hostility toward one sex when both sexes are necessarily involved in the moment in the narrative when pregnancy occurs.

Not when "life" occurs, because life is always occurring in one or another form, but when pregnancy occurs. The laws of the land says that women may terminate a pregnancy. Roeder, acting above this law, (allegedly) murdered Dr. Tiller. Pregnancy must involve a male participant, no matter the specific method by which a woman is impregnated.

Progressives cannot argue for a woman's choice and then oppose her when she makes a choice that aligns with the anti-choice demographic or viewpoint. "Choice" as a concept means we prefer the woman to make her own choice and should not mean that we want her only to choose as we would want her to. It is her choice, not ours, whichever outcome prevails.

But at the point when any choice regarding the termination of a pregnancy is undertaken, a male has also been involved in the process, in one way or another. A woman who chooses not to abort is not "anti-choice." She is a woman who has in fact made her choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
616. I'm trying to imagine a meeting at CNN or MSNBC in which you,
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 12:10 AM by saltpoint
a producer, say, try to persuade your superiors that Tiller's death was prompted by a pervasive hatred of women, and that their coverage should emphasize this indisputable fact.

I think that would be a real tough sell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #616
622. I think it would be pretty easy. There are all kinds of graphics
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 01:03 AM by EFerrari
you could use to illustrate how the extreme right wing is all about controlling women and denying them their personhood via their reproductive apparatus.








Taking out one of seven doctors that can perform late term abortions in a country where 87% of counties have no access to abortion at all is pretty much the poster crime for the expression of misogyny. Especially because those women got to their third trimester fully expecting to deliver a healthy baby.

What could possibly be more hateful than demonizing a grieving mother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #622
623. But this is the same media that has digital orgasms over the OctoMom.
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 01:07 AM by saltpoint
This is a pro-baby culture and the media reflect that.

I would reassert that the OP's effort to persade higher-ups at CNN and MSNBC that a "profound hatred of women" is at the heart of the anti-choice citizen would be a doomed commitment.

The OP cannot claim on one hand that the mainstream media limit Tiller's career to "abortion provider" and then on the other demand that that same media attribute his death to "anti-woman" sentiment.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #623
625. Octo mom provided entertainment for the same people who think
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 01:22 AM by EFerrari
"freak" shows are a good way to spend an afternoon.

And killing Dr. Tiller especially demonstrates how hate is, at bottom, what this is about. Those third term abortions had no chance of turning into healthy deliveries. It's not even accurate to call that a choice, not like a college girl deciding at four weeks that she wants to defer parenthood. There is no amount of prayer or any faith strong enough to reanimate a dead pregnancy or reform what is morbidly deformed or to develop a brain where there isn't a viable one.

Dr. Tiller was especially targeted because he helped with these hopeless cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #625
626. Tiller was the targeted "trespasser" who made the Far Right nutbags'
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 01:33 AM by saltpoint
"Most Wanted" list. I think you are exactly right that because his clinic provided, among many other services, that exact procedure, he was singled out for their vengeance.

OctoMom was in fact entertainment and a freak show. While the media is certainly complicit in fanning the flames, this particular woman decided to rent out her own uterus as a carnival venue. Book deal. Reality television contract. Mass media attention. She was held here on this site by some as a victim. I thought she was a manipulative freak in true need of significant counseling.

Roeder may have been anti-woman for all I know. But he did not have to be in order to do what he did, anymore than you and I should be considered "anti-life" (or targets of hate crimes) if we hold to our views that women should have the right to choose after consultation with her own best instincts and, if she wishes, her physician, friends, and family.

The OP is more angry than clear in establishing a motive for an anti-choice viewpoint. The broad-brush "anti-woman" assertion is just way the hell off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #626
629. The thing is pro and anti abortion positions are not two equally rational
positions. I don't think you can be pro-feminist and anti-abortion any more than you can be pro-gay but against marriage or pro civil rights but against integration and equal opportunity. Those positions skirt the very core stakes of each movement.

I haven't always known this or thought this way. It only became clear to me after watching this last murder. And it may be true that there are well meaning people who are vaguely anti-abortion and who do not realize what they are participating in. I think I'm related to a few of these. And it's true that politicians use this issue to raise money. That is a different level of participation than the Roeders of this world but, it is participation in the oppression of women nonetheless.

There is another, much more direct way to see what Roeder and his "movement" are about. Just read the projection. It's right out there in the open. Calling abortion "murder" and Tiller "baby killer" is transparently projected hatred. It's the same mechanism that allows serial killers, psychopaths, to project their monstrosity onto their victims and to control it for a moment by killing them.



These people that perpetrate violence against women and their doctors are the same ones that burn down black churches and go to gay bars looking for victims. Hatred is what they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #629
630. Your observation (whether or not one can be pro-feminist and
anti-abortion) should have been the topic of discussion and not whether or not being anti-choice is anti-woman.

IMO those are not the same issues. They overlay in key places but are not the same. You are covering the vast difference in your observation; the OP just lashes out by insisting on a black/white, either/or construction.

If you and I are pro-feminist it appears to go without saying that we would honor a woman's right to make her own decision. But if the decision she makes is not to abort then Roe has succeeded. I think it matters only that she is the one making the decision (again, possibly with her physician, trusted friends, close family) and not that a panel of male judges is making it for her.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #630
632. Agreed.
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 05:23 PM by EFerrari
This topic is a super charged one and one here at DU that I've appreciated this last week. It made me remember how privacy came into modern Western culture via the idea of bedrooms sometime in the late 16th. And with privacy, a more developed notion of interiority, right? Discrete subjectivity, personhood.

Remember the "country house" poems?


II. — TO PENSHURST.

"Thou art not, PENSHURST, built to envious show
Of touch, or marble ; nor canst boast a row
Of polish'd pillars, or a roof of gold :
Thou hast no lantern whereof tales are told ;
Or stair, or courts ; but stand'st an ancient pile,
And these grudg'd at, art reverenced the while.
Thou joy'st in better marks, of soil, of air,
Of wood, of water ; therein thou art fair."

Even in these first few lines, the idea of inwardness, of "therein" is a revolutionary shift of valuation in a culture where outward showing meant so much.

That was, what, four hundred years ago?

It should be no surprise that regressive anti-feminist wackjobs attack a woman's privacy as a way of stripping away her power as an individual in our culture. It's the most powerful tool they have, a deconstruction of a bounded, autonomous self that took us four hundred years to put together.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 12:48 AM
Response to Original message
621. Here's why the argument advanced in the OP is false:
"If you are anti-fetus, you are anti-life."

"If you are anti-choice, you are anti-woman."

Both statements assert a viewpoint which insists on a sharp, black/white division defined by a "correct" attitude on one side of a condition.

Almost nothing is that simple and almost everything is far more complex and layered. Certainly including reproductive freedom. The law sanctions a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy even as it sanctions her choice not to. To fall for good reasons on either side of that spectrum does not make anyone a "woman-hater" or a "fetus-hater."

The law sanctions the choice; it does not specify or designate the outcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mushroom Donating Member (309 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #621
639. Oh FFS
From the OP:

"let us not just call them the terrorists they are, let us make it plain, and demand that the msm make it plain, that this is all about hatred for women."

There are two choices. Contact the msm, or don't. Yes, it really is that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #639
640. The mainstream media is not a dependable source of public commentary
on much of anything.

There are some very good reporters out there, certainly. Christianne Amanpour, Jim Lehrer, Amy Goodman, etc. -- all spanning the range from MSM to smaller-market coverage, and also from investigative reporting to framing news updates.

Tiller's murder, while certainly mischaracterized by much of the mainstream media reporting, nevertheless is a violation of national law. You and cannot murder someone on grounds that we disagree on issues; neither can Roeder (the alleged assassin of Dr. Tiller). Trials are held in murder cases. If van Brunn survives his assault in the Holocaust Memorial Museum, he will be tried for murder. That's how things work.

Would that we could direct the tone and content of mainstream media news. That may not happen any time soon. The OP can urge us to bring pressure to bear upon media outlets to be more clear and balanced than they often are but past that, the United States permits private profit on public airwaves. If you or anybody else has a quick solution to that conundrum, I'm all ears.

The OP's principal assertion is that an anti-choice human is an anti-woman human, and that claim is ridiculous on its face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
624. As for "The Church's" views on women, I would personally like to see
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 01:22 AM by saltpoint
the Vatican announce that Jesus' revelation to select followers, including Mary Magdalen, addresses the issue of apostolic succession and that therefore, women may serve as priests within The Church.

I'm not expecting that announcement any time soon, however, and would advise others not to hold their breath waiting for it either.

Citizens may go to a Catholic Church if they choose to. They don't have to if they don't want to. But the State may not direct the Catholic Church to believe differently than it believes or practice/worship differently than it practices/worships regarding the ordination of women, for example.

Progressives may have no problem with women as ministers and priests, but The Church does not have to adhere to progressives' views on female priesthood within The Church.

The OP specifically cites "the church" as part of the woman-hating problem. A case could be made that The Church's refusal to consider women as priests is misogynist but no case can be made that all Catholics hate women or that all Catholic women are somehow pro-choice or that all Catholic men are somehow anti-choice. Even within The Church, views differ, often very sharply.

The Virgin Mary is almost certainly a remnant entity, an ancient pro-feminist archetype.

As Roe does what it does in favor of a woman's right to choose, the same national laws permit The Church to keep to its beliefs. I don't see any reason why women cannot be priests, but then again, I'm not in charge of The Church.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
636. Exactly, kick back to the top.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC