General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOpinions please
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Go Vols (a host of the General Discussion forum).
I'm a feminist, I'm a liberal, I am pro choice.
On DU we use community standards to influence what is acceptable here on DU. The admins also enforce TOS to make sure we aren't trolled or make the place a welcoming place for rw trolls and right wing talking points. For as long as I've been here this DU was a place for like minded individuals, regarding the values we hold dear as democrats, liberals and progressives. Even though we find very spirited debates on how to reach those goals, I have always felt there were standards on what could be advocated for on DU. That certain beliefs against very common beliefs democrats hold dear we're not welcome, and some things are just not debatable. There were fundamental beliefs that were always there, I've felt at home, more or less.
In light of the above and how this community polices itself, more or less, I want to bring this ATA post. It has rocked me to the core and has for the first time made me think that I really might not be able to continue posting on DU. I am not trying to pick a fight with admin, my hope is that maybe if enough of DU spoke up about this we might be able to get admin to see it a different way and I can feel comfortable here again.
There were some postings by persons who were anti choice. Not just not believing that abortion wasn't a choice for them, but that it should not be a choice for any woman. This prompted a question in ATA. Please see the question and admins response here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12593891
Knowing that the OVERWHELMING majority here on DU believes in a woman's right to choose, I respectfully request that you post here in this thread that those right wing anti choice viewpoints should not be welcome here. I am hoping this thread will remain respectful and hopefully get admin, to revisit their answer. In that anti choice view points are as abhorrent as anti gay marriage and racist view points. There is no respectful way to voice those thoughts and the same goes for anti choice rhetoric.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Wanna burn someone at the stake?
If someone is not perfect, they should be banned? Oh shit, that's one way to destroy DU, eh?
boston bean
(36,874 posts)Response to RobertEarl (Reply #1)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
demmiblue
(39,255 posts)Response to demmiblue (Reply #74)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
Warpy
(114,398 posts)In whose universe?
Whether or not to continue a pregnancy is the choice of the person who is pregnant.
When you get pregnant, we will fight to allow you that choice, whichever way it goes.
You owe us the same consideration.
Remember, all the antiabortionists will ever stop with their bad laws are the safe, legal abortions. They'll allow butchers to flourish.
While I may heavily disagree with their position, I don't think that they should be banned from this site completely if that's the only thing they disagree with.
Then again, it is 100% anti-choice. (What I get for doing three things at once...) More inclined to agree with OP, on this.
Deep13
(39,157 posts)Interesting that you chose such a gendered example.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)It's about a deeply personal decision, your own belief system, your own family heritage, your own soul...
And EVERYBODY SHOULD SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT !!!
It is NONE of YOUR business.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)I wouldn't want fellow Democrats who disagree, for reasons of faith or other personal reasons, to be ostracized from DU.
I think being pro-CHOICE goes both ways when it comes to choosing.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)This is a huge distinction.
That is anti choice.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)There are posts saying a woman should not be given a choice and has to carry to term?
Either the person posting those is a troll or very religious.
And if they are religious, then what are you gonna do?
Can someone be a Democrat, yet still think that abortion should be outlawed?
Tough question...
boston bean
(36,874 posts)No woman should have an abortion was being advocated, that is anti choice and what the ATA post was about.
Squinch
(58,397 posts)and oppose gay rights? I don't believe they can.
Can someone be a Democrat and oppose women's rights? Not a tough question for me.
Response to boston bean (Reply #7)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)Response to boston bean (Reply #70)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)I asked you a question. You didn't answer.
IMHO a anti choice is hateful against women as it infringes upon their freedoms.
Response to boston bean (Reply #100)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)Again, you seem to think anti choice means some thing it does not.
Yes it does offend me when people try to take away a woman's right to choose. I don't need to have any dialogue about it on a democratic website.
You seem like I am offending you, do you want me to shut up?
Response to boston bean (Reply #123)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)Good night.
Response to boston bean (Reply #136)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)It's an attack on women's rights and freedoms.
Response to boston bean (Reply #142)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)opinions here.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)And that bothers you more than "censorship"? You may be in the wrong place.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)One can be pro-choice but against abortion.
It is an entirely different, and very in progressive to be a proponent of policy that takes CHOICE away.
Response to cleanhippie (Reply #82)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Lets reconcile that before moving on to who gets banned.
Response to cleanhippie (Reply #98)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)I don't think there is any at all. Do you?
Response to cleanhippie (Reply #122)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)The reasons a woman would CHOOSE to have an abortion are not up for debate.
Are they? Seriously?
Response to cleanhippie (Reply #147)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)You think those discussion a are fine for this website? If so, just say so.
That's what this read is about.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Seriously, what argument is there supporting an ANTI-choice point-of-view that deserves even a second of consideration?
boston bean
(36,874 posts)Response to boston bean (Reply #148)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
icymist
(15,888 posts)Are you trying to say that women use abortion as a method of contraception? If so, then that's a fail. There are many 'birth control' methods, but abortion as a method of birth control is an anti-abortion argument.
Ohio Joe
(21,896 posts)I do not like the idea that a member could be anti-choice. IMO, it is an obvious right wing view point and should not be allowed.
Response to Ohio Joe (Reply #4)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ohio Joe
(21,896 posts)Right wing bullshit does not belong here... If you don't like it, read freeper land.
Squinch
(58,397 posts)
Well said.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)to spew right wing "pro-life" BS here. This is a privately owned discussion board with rules that you agreed to when you joined. We need to weed out the anti-choicers here and in the party.
Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #92)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)the RW trolls who express them.
"Oh, oh, but don't you see? Not letting me express my misogynistic fascist opinions is censorship, oh, boo hoo! You are so mean for not letting me express my opinion that ROE v WADE should be overturned, andfor saying that women should have their right to choose what they can do with their own bodies taken away! The Democratic party is a big tent, and we should adopt RW policies! And why shouldn't I have the right to speak out against same sex and interracial marriage, as well?"
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I just fail to understand where the line is being drawn. Yes, I'm uncomfortable about it. I'm also uncomfortable about those who are proponents of armed US hegemony. But I let the merits of the argument against those positions stand on their own.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)told me that many Kansas Democrats are anti-choice.
For many years, the great progressive icon - Dennis Kucinich was anti-choice. "Prior to 2002, Kucinich's voting record was strongly pro-life, but he currently maintains a pro-choice stance on abortion. In 1996, he was quoted as saying that "life begins at conception", and he has also voted in favor on banning partial birth abortion and preventing the transport of minors to undergo abortion procedures. However since then he has been a strong supporter of abortion rights."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dennis_Kucinich#Abortion
So Kucinich was a rightwinger from 1996 until 2002?
Cirque du So-What
(29,459 posts)If that's not good enough forya, than I don't know what to tellya.
Squinch
(58,397 posts)should not have a say in what happens to their own bodies. As long as the person advocating that position was polite, it was OK with him.
I think this thread is to elicit opinions as to whether that is OK with other DU members.
And the idea that, if someone is polite, they can say that my self determination should be limited? No that's not good enough forme. Is it good enough for ya? Would it be good enough for ya if a poster did the same on any other Democratic issue. For example, if a poster said, "we need to work to outlaw gay marriage," or "we need to be more tolerant of racist views?"
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Every law that prohibits something, limits your self determination. Even over your own body.
You are not allowed to smoke cigarettes if you are under age 18.
Even though you can vote at age 18, you still cannot legally drink alcohol.
In most states you cannot legally smoke pot.
In every state you cannot legally ingest cocaine
or meth
or heroin
Is it okay if DUers support those laws which limit your choices? Your self determination?
Many DUers also support things like
mandatory seatbelt laws (did you know that one of the early actions of the Obama administration was to extort states to write primary infraction seatbelt laws? Was that one of the reasons why YOU supported him? Because it sure was NOT for me. I opposed him doing that - strongly so, and was a minority on DU)
mandatory bicycle helmet laws
Once again limiting people's self determination.
How can such opinions be allowed on DU? It's an outrage!
Or how are those things fundamentally different? Except that some people are very, very fervent about abortion rights.
Squinch
(58,397 posts)with laws about whether you will carry a fetus in your body against your will, sometimes incurring grave health risks against your will, give birth to it against your will, and take on the economic, emotional, and health responsibilities for it against your will for the rest of your life...
If you are equating those things, then you have no understanding of this issue whatsoever.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)in the narrow sense that they all limit self-determination - they restrict choices, even choices only involving a person's own body or own health or risk.
You mention grave health risks, and yet
to avoid "grave health risks" is NOT a reason given for very many abortions. It does not even make the list among the reasons given.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
"The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner."
This other google result says 3-4% of abortions are about the mother's potential health problems http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
Further, being forced to allow a baby to be born, certainly does NOT require somebody to "take on the economic, emotional, and health responsibilities for it against your will for the rest of your life ..."
First, because it is quite legal to give that baby, once born, up for adoption.
Second, even if you kept the baby, the economic responsibilities legally end when the child reaches the age of 18. Not the rest of your life, only 18 years.
Squinch
(58,397 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)just to tell me that your mind is closed and that I wasted my time trying to reason with you?
And that's supposed to improve my night somehow?
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I think it's entirely acceptable, as a Democrat, to argue that the legality of abortion ought to be a matter decided by the states rather than by the Federal Government.
That said, we live in a nation where the Federal Government has made a definitive ruling on the subject, and that's the law of the land. It's decided until Roe is overturned, and the states are quite limited in what they can do about it.
I have argued here and elsewhere that the left has already won most of the great social issues of the day. Frankly, these are not the ones that concern me most. It's the economic issues that hold us together as liberals, and that's why I have such little tolerance for 3rd-way types.
Here's what I said in 2009:
But on all the significant social issues in America, the left has already won. We just haven't seen all our cultural victories translated into law yet, but we will. Republicans keep hammering these wedge issues, but they seldom act on them when they have the chance. They controlled the federal government between 2003 and 2006. They could have outlawed abortion, if they wanted, but they didn't. They know they have already lost that argument. Only their rabid base, a small and dwindling minority in this country, would support such a measure. The vast majority of the country is "socially liberal." That doesn't make them all our political allies.
As for foreign policy, while that's very important, I don't see a clear liberal/conservative distinction. I see differences between various administrations, but I don't think these differences are shaped by either classic liberalism or classic conservatism. Isolationism has often been considered a conservative position, for example, but the Bush administration wasn't isolationist at all. In fact, their aggressive foreign policy philosophy has been called "neo-liberalism." Ultimately, I am uncomfortable describing myself as either liberal or conservative on foreign policy. I just don't find those labels to be particularly useful.
So, because we've already won on the social issues, and because "liberal" and "conservative" are not terribly useful in describing people's opinions on foreign policy, I return to my assertion that it's the economic issues that matter. Whether people have homes, whether they have jobs, whether they can afford health care, whether our economy collapses, and whether people can afford to feed their families ... these are the issues that really matter. These are the issues most often affected by the laws passed in Congress. These are the areas where we most often disagree with Republicans. And it is on these issues where politicians show us whether or not they are liberal. The words "liberal" and "conservative" have real and profound meaning in the context of these issues.
Of course, the Republican Party is in dire straits. We have always has conservatives in the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party will continue to attract more conservatives as the Republicans dwindle. We have to accept that fact, for the moment, but I will continue to reserve the word "liberal" for those politicians who show an inclination to act on behalf of the less fortunate in regards to the issues that matter most ... the economic ones.
Obviously, ymmv.
-Laelth
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)or maybe just one place to go hundreds of miles away. With the whittling away of choices for women, it is very disappointing to hear men say they think they should "stay out of it" instead of helping, or others say the battle has been won. The battle is ongoing for many in this country.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)But looking into my admittedly-flawed crystal ball, I think the latest restrictions on abortion will be quietly repealed in most states over the next 20 years. On this issue, as I said, I think we have already won. In time, we will see this cultural victory codified into law.
The cultural issues are, typically, Republican wedge-issues. I have no interest in fighting on their home turf. Getting into or staying out of a debate on abortion is simply not an issue for me, at the moment, given the state in which I reside. Other states have some battles yet to fight on the subject. I wouldn't dream of standing in the way of those who want to fight those battles. I might even be willing to help, if I can, but the cultural issues are definitely not my primary concern, nor does it bother me that people who disagree with me on cultural issues post on DU.
It's the economic issues that matter most ... to all of us.
-Laelth
Ilsa
(63,855 posts)a generation of women will lose their right to choose unless they have the money to travel to states with more liberal abortion laws. In other words, pre-Roe v Wade.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Tell that to LGBT Americans.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)It's on issues affecting the LGBT community that we have recently made the most amazing and unprecedented progress.
-Laelth
Aerows
(39,961 posts)but to say that we have overcome social issues is incorrect. Not trying to be confrontational, just pointing out that in the majority of states we can't marry, in many we can be fired for being gay or discriminated against with regards to housing, and many states you have to fight to have inheritance or custody issues even if there are legally binding documents.
Autumn
(48,763 posts)I am very interested in the second set of questions that she asked. I agree with you completely, " anti choice view points are as abhorrent as anti gay marriage and racist view points. There is no respectful way to voice those thoughts and the same goes for anti choice rhetoric.
This is an important women's right that is under attack by the RW and it should not be acceptable in our own party.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)in our own party. " YUP!!
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Squinch
(58,397 posts)wonder if DU truly has women's backs when it comes to our reproductive rights. So your opinion matters quite a bit.
procon
(15,805 posts)The very concept of liberalism implies that we recognize that everyone marches to the beat of their own drum. I've been at this for over 50 years. When did an individual's personal "choice" become a questionable option that other Democrats opposed?
haikugal
(6,476 posts)This is not a place I would expect to have to argue the merits of choice to a 'fellow' liberal. It's absurd. I have left or been banned from other website forums for doing battle with RWA's and not accepting the fact that women, and their concerns were treated as second class. I don't want to have to do the same thing here on DU. This is supposed to be a place where some things are understood but I suppose that even here women are under attack.
Response to haikugal (Reply #10)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)What are you on about?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)If being ANTI-choice is an opinion that can be overlooked, why not other Right-wing viewpoints?
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)I have a low tolerance for anti-choice views, because they usually come coupled with an entire array of right-wing claptrap. I do know however that it is possible for an individual to be very Progressive and yet remain troubled by the concept of abortion. It's not the norm to be sure, but it does happen. Whenever I hear such a view here it certainly sends up a red flag in my mind, but I do not think an auto-ban is in order.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)I am requesting that we as a community not have to fight these right wing abuses on women's right here on DU.
That it is frowned upon as much as any racist, anti gay post.
I would have never know this had the person not started spouting this. They ought to not to be able to advocate for it on DU. I'm trying to get the pulse and let admin know we don't want this here. It has nothing to do with banning anyone.
Of course one can be anti abortion for themselves, I get that and agree, that is what choice is. What was being advocated was one choice only, no abortion, for any woman. That is anti choice.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)I think you phrased it as "such people should not be welcome here". The only way to accomplish that goal is to ban them.
It's a point of view. The freedom to choose has become such a fundamental part of Progressive politics that I would not be particularly pained if banning anyone who didn't agree with it was the official policy here. It's just not what I would personally do.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)Goodness gracious. I've explained myself to you completely. Believe me don't believe me. Whatever. I am NOT advocating an auto ban of anyone. I am suggesting as a community we let admin know these viewpoints are As abhorrent as racist and anti gay viewpoints. I don't know how much clearer I can be.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)I apologize if somehow I gave you the impression I was attacking you, or that I didn't believe you. I guess what I am failing to understand is what "should not be welcome here" means, if not banning them. Again, if banning such viewpoints on sight were the rule I wouldn't have an issue with it. It's just not what I would do, were it up to me. If you have a different action in mind that somehow communicates that a person is not welcome here I'm all ears.
In any case let's not quibble. We are on the same side after all. We can share viewpoints without acrimony.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)Yeah, there probably are, but if they spout that crap, posts gets hidden and get admin attention. Here we have admin saying that it's ok as long as it's respectful ok to sometimes to post anti choice crap. It's an attack on women's rights, it's offensive as all hell. We aren't talking about someone stating that abortion isn't a choice they would make personally, they are stating no woman should have one. Two completely different animals. I don't get what is so hard to understand about this. Keep those viewpoints to oneself if one wants to post on DU.
I don't want to have to fight rw bullshit attacks on women's rights on DU.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)As a mother of 4 daughters, I'm extremely disappointed with DU.
Response to boston bean (Reply #34)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)Response to boston bean (Reply #126)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)It would be the one who limits that choice.
Wanting to discuss the limitations of what is acceptable to be posted here in this context is not an infringement on a woman's right to choose. Because inherent in choice is the choice to not have an abortion.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Anti-choice is a specific legislative orientation that seeks to overturn roe v. wade and outlaw abortion.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)Don't like abortion? Then choose not to have one. Try to convince your family and people around you to choose not to have one (or better yet, to avoid unwanted pregnancy).
But you don't get to legislate your morality or religion on others by banning an accepted *medical procedure*.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)That is the nature of being prochoice...a choice...let the woman decide. Thanks Warren.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Seriously? Being ANTI-choice is okay as long as its not "coupled with an entire array of right-wing claptrap"?
Seriously?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)or a racist would be "okay" as long as they poster doesn't voice it too loudly or too often. Some things just aren't acceptable. Being uncomfortable, troubled or not open to something is very different from being ardently against it. "I'm not attracted to black/white/asian/latino people" or "I'm not interested in pursuing a gay relationship" so you won't get involved with either one is a hell of a lot different than "inter-racial marriages should be banned" and "gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry".
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and I mean nothing.
Good luck with that. I mean it.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)that are impoverishing millions.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Instead of trying to derail this one.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Should not be welcome here?...and then go hunting for people that defend it and have them banned?
Or maybe people that support the banking industry should not be welcome here?
Or would you have it the other way, that anyone who complains about the police state or banksters should not be welcome here?
How about people who believe in god...are they welcome here?...after all right wingers believe in god, or at least they say they do...should they be banned?
Skinner gave the logical answer...if we are to remain a viable Democratic party and board, we must not be hostile to those who disagree with us on a single issue or we will be chipped away little by little by every one with a single issue stance....whether it is DU or the Democratic party as a whole...and in fact that is exactly how the GOP and trolls divide us...and divided this house or any house cannot stand.
Having said that I don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone what they can do with their body, and that includes those people that are against abortion...if they don't want one then they don't have to have it...but just because they don't agree with me on it does not mean I do not want to talk to them...and that is what leads to division.
If we go down that road we will become as marginalized as the Tea Party...and DU will become a much less interesting place to be for many people.
DLevine
(1,791 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)IMO, a quick pizza delivery would be justifiable for anyone who advocates abolishing Roe v Wade.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Let me state up front I am unequivocally pro-choice.
However, abortion is a tricky subject. When does life begin? When do we become unique human beings with inherent rights?
Some liberal people have placed their subjective judgement that a fetus is a person deserving of rights. They may reach that judgement through faith or intellect or gut feeling or what have you. Because they feel it's a person, they oppose abortion just as one would oppose murder.
And who am I to disagree with them on that point of personhood? It's so subjective that no one can prove it right. I don't think they've made their decision because they hate women. They just believe life begins at X.
I respect their position even if I vigorously disagree as a matter of law. I believe choice underpins privacy and personal autonomy.
But I do get how good, solid liberals can oppose abortion. I grew up Catholic. I know bunches of them.
As for being just as bad as racism or homophobia, no, not even comparable. Bigotry against a characteristic is different than disagreement with a law or an act.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)It's not about a persons own decisions or beliefs for themselves, it's about denying other women choice.
Prism
(5,815 posts)My reply was that I know solidly liberal and Democratic people who oppose abortion.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)You think they should be, ok just say it, that's what this thread is for.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Catholic Democrats have been managing it for years.
And the thing is, I really don't see that viewpoint being aired on DU to a great degree. I've seen anti-abortion posts now and again, but not as some kind of system wide epidemic.
Skinner's reply seemed suitable to the practical issue.
Squinch
(58,397 posts)are also against gay marriage and gay rights. But a post that said, "we need to work for the repeal of gay right and gay marriage laws" would be summarily hidden here. And rightfully so, because the idea would not be consistent with being a Democrat.
And no, anti-abortion posts are not a system wide epidemic on DU. Neither are racism or homophobia system wide epidemics on DU. Nevertheless, when racist and homophobic posts are posted, they are hidden. It isn't a matter of whether such a thing is common here. It is a matter of whether it is acceptable here. Anti-choice is not acceptable. A person who has chosen against abortion for herself is fine. A person who has chosen against abortion for the rest of us is not fine.
I think what is missing here is an appreciation of how fundamental the rights to reproductive choice are to self-determination, economic stability, family stability, and mental health. When someone advocates taking reproductive choice away from women, he or she is taking away the right to all those other things too. It's not just some piffle. That this needs to be pointed out is very disturbing.
PS. I too was raised Catholic. I have never been in a social group in which more people had abortions than my social group in the Catholic college I attended. So Catholics are perfectly capable of holding opinions that don't jive with the church's teachings. Or at least not pushing their religion's opinions on those who don't share their beliefs.
DLevine
(1,791 posts)No one is saying they have a problem with that. If you're against abortion, don't have one. But telling other women they may not, by law, have an abortion, is a RW position. It should not be tolerated here. This is a life and death issue for women.
DLevine
(1,791 posts)Prism
(5,815 posts)Discrimination against an immutable characteristic is not the same as tackling a difficult moral and philosophical issue.
DLevine
(1,791 posts)because they were not able to get an abortion.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Everything goes from zero to inchoate screaming in five seconds flat.
Enjoy.
Isoldeblue
(1,135 posts)abortion, you have no room to talk like that. Your comments aren't that far off from the RW anti-abortion rhetoric. This issue is not poop.
It certainly is discriminatory against a woman who would die, if she were being legally denied an abortion. Just as much or more so concerning gay rights and racism, when it is a matter of life and death for the mother.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)I cannot believe I have to point this out on a liberal progressive discussion board. WTF?
Response to DLevine (Reply #33)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
DLevine
(1,791 posts)You can be anti abortion but also pro choice. I have no problem with Democrats who are anti abortion so long as they are pro choice. No one has the right to make that decision except the woman who is pregnant.
Response to DLevine (Reply #76)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)An anti-choice example would be if you forced a woman to carry her pregnancy to term, or the inverse, where you force a woman to abort her pregnancy.
Squinch
(58,397 posts)
chervilant
(8,267 posts)ARE just as bad and just as damaging as racism and homophobia.
And, please do NOT attempt to assert that an anti-choice stance isn't sexist or misogynistic, because you cannot.
But I won't. I don't see much point in it.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Please do tell ALL of us how telling other women whether they can or cannot make reproductive choices about their own bodies is not sexist or misogynistic! I am confident I won't need to hold my breath.
Squinch
(58,397 posts)on the point of personhood -- when it concerns MY body and not theirs? How is that the default ethical position?
And I must disagree with you about homophobia and racism not being comparable. What do homophobia and racism seek to achieve: the limitation and elimination of the rights of groups of people to live their lives according to their own choices and needs. Anti-choice rhetoric does the same, only it does it to 51% of the population.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)MagnumUK
(37 posts)DU to be an echo chamber?
boston bean
(36,874 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)If we all wanted to spend all day arguing mindless misspelled bargle with teabaggers and right-wing trolls, we'd be on the yahoo boards or the youtube comments.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)It's sort of the way things have gone.
But I didn't think we had anything that could be called an anti-choice progressive.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)the admins have turned a blind eye towards other instances of sexism and misogyny. I am quite impressed that you are pursuing a resolution about anti-choice posts. I do not want to see anti-choice rhetoric on a Democratic website!
boston bean
(36,874 posts)Post about it all the time.. That's where my main concern is and trying to find out if this is a place I, as a pro choice person, should be supporting with my time and money.
I am hoping that most will help admin to understand this is not something that should be allowed here and that it is offensive. If it comes on from on high it's not allowed, I'll feel much better. But what we got right now is that it is ok under circumstances.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)ANY circumstances! I don't understand why this is even in question! (Except, of course, my prior experience with the admins turning a blind eye to other instances of sexism and misogyny -- which I've come to expect from men who haven't addressed their own internalized patriarchal precepts...)
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Pro - choice is one of those things that every Democrat, liberal, and progressive should support. There are many anti - choice websites out there in which those with that view can participate.
I don't want to see that garbage here.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)ideological baseline for participation on DU, as supporting LGBT marriage equality (now) is.
Note this is not the same thing as being "personally opposed to abortion". When someone takes the political, legislative anti-choice position, they are supporting outlawing it.
That should not be okay on DU IMHO.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...and the exercise of free will by all persons. Anyone who states that they believe that the state should decide what you can do with your own fucking body is NO DEMOCRAT.
- And certainly not one I would waste any time on. Clearly they are not fully evolved.....
K&R
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Two days ago, I put Omaha Steve on full ignore for demanding that the DU gang get together and torment a newbie who dared to disagree with him. I posted that I would not join the demand to grab the pitchforks and torches and chase the Carpetbagger out of town. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3961026
While we are generally speaking, a progressive site, many of the Democrats who serve in Congress come from very conservative districts. That reality is that they must be at least reluctant on abortion if not outright opposed to abortion. As an example, John Barrow, Democrat from the 12th District of Georgia, voted to restrict the interstate transport of a minor to get an abortion.
Why would he do that if he was a Democrat? Well, he understood that he had to vote some ways to get re-elected, and before you start hopping up and down denouncing such things remember it was the Blue Dogs we lost in 2010 that led to the end of the first (hopefully) period of Speaker Pelosi holding the gavel. We may get that back, but we won't without the blue dogs taking those more conservative districts away from the fucking Rethugs.
But on so many issues around here it rapidly becomes fuck the elections we're going for party purity. Damn the majority and damn the chances to make a difference in this country, we need anyone who dares to call themselves a Democrat to be fully in line for several issues even if such a position is the kiss of death in their districts. We don't give a damn, fuck it, the Rethugs are done so lets self destruct right alongside.
So because you think that the Overwhelming majority here on one web board feel some way, no one else should be allowed to express any opinion to the contrary. Well, when the Snowden/NSA stories started, a vast majority felt that it was all lies. Should we have banned all those who spoke up in defense of learning the truth? After that, let's ban those who haven't expressed the proper adoration of the ACA. Then we can ban all those who think that foreign cars built in the US are American Made. Then we can ban anyone who doesn't support a complete and total ban on guns. Then you and a dozen of your friends can sit around and chat because there won't be anyone left.
The purpose of this site is the discuss the issues, but the primary purpose is to get information into the hands of the people who can influence neighbors and co-workers to vote Democrat.
Now you would have us turn our backs on the blue dogs who we desperately need to keep in office, and we need more of them to get the majority back in the house. Because a far left Liberal will not get elected to the Georgia 12th. We lost in South Carolina to a man who had to resign the Governorship because of misappropriations of monies, a decade long affair, and lying about his whereabouts. If we want that seat, we are going to have to run slightly less conservative people under the Democratic Party flag. That may mean the candidate has to be opposed to Abortions. BUT isn't it more important to win the bloody seats we need to get the fucking majority? Because we can't do a fucking thing about any of these issues if we don't win the god damned elections.
But like I did with the last one who demanded the townsfolk run the heretic out of the village, I am going to put you on full ignore. Because anyone that invested in party purity is not going to help us win in 2014, and I think we have enough obstacles to taking the House back that the last thing I need in my life is the Party Purity Patrol calling on the majority to shun anyone who doesn't believe as strongly on an issue as they do. If we did that, then those who defend the NSA would be run out now, assuming any of us who opposed the NSA before survived that round of purges.
Sometimes people don't agree with you. I may believe a woman's right to choose is important, but I also think that others views may be equally valid to them. The first amendment is for freedom of speech, and the only speech we are supposed to censor here is Rethugnik talking points. When we turn on Democrats, I think we have forgotten the purpose of this site. ELECTING DEMOCRATS.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)That is if I'm not already on ignore......
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I was going to post the platform in your other thread on this topic. So, thanks. Women's rights are a major part of the Democratic Party platform. Nobody on DU should be advocating legislating them away, however politely stated.
I hope you are around many more years to fight the fight. I'm getting too old and too tired.
thank you bb.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)There is no way one can be a Democrat if they don't support a woman's right to choose.
Response to boston bean (Reply #56)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)
Little Star
(17,055 posts)to those LOTS of liberals.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right."
Any questions?
Response to Savannahmann (Reply #53)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)about every subject.
Homophobia, misogyny, libertarianism, it all routinely gets a pass from juries.
Freddie
(10,062 posts)I know many people find abortion abhorrent. So make it an unthinkable choice for you. Persuade your friends and family that it's an unthinkable choice. Discourage abortion, the right way, by doing everything possible to help women avoid unwanted pregnancy.
But the minute you try to make it an unthinkable choice for *everyone*, legally, that's stepping over the line.
Squinch
(58,397 posts)
Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)Isn't it enough that the RW are stripping abortion rights from their states all over? Why do we have to come here and get the blast from our own "side" too. 
Response to boston bean (Original post)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)Anti choice, as in a woman should have an abortion and they should be outlawed is what we are discussing. Not that a woman personally would not have one, and would not force that choice on other women.
The latter is an essential part of choice. However if one is against all abortion and wants to outlaw it that is anti choice, because they leave no other choice to be had.
I am discussing anti choice.
Response to boston bean (Reply #65)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)You cannot co-opt pro choice and try to make it seem like prohibiting abortion is part and parcel of it.
Doesn't work that way...... Sorry....
Choice means chose for oneself to not have or have an abortion. Anything less than that is anti choice.
Response to boston bean (Reply #95)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)You don't understand choice.
Response to boston bean (Reply #111)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)Anti choicers!
Response to boston bean (Reply #133)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)malokvale77
(4,879 posts)That is part of the RW platform. Why don't you get that? DU does not allow a lot of RW views. This is a political web forum. Not a free speech zone.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)demmiblue
(39,255 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)...and it's quite another for someone to want to use the power of the State to impose religious doctrine upon the entire population.
Keeping in mind that the Church during the inquisition never executed directly. They handed over those they tortured into confessing blasphemy or witchcraft to the State,...who then publicly did their dirty work for them.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Does this person vote for Republicans? Or Democrats?
Does this person actively campaign for anti-choice legislation?
Does this person make it a habit to bring up anti-choice rhetoric in all of their postings?
Are they actively disrupting DU?
I do know people of this mindset (I am related to some) who vote Democratic every election because they are whole-picture voters.
The Democratic Party platform used to be "legal, safe, and rare..." which is where I think a lot of this thought process comes from.
I don't think one should be automatically banned from DU for being anti-choice any more than I think pro-cop shooting 13-year-olds, or anti-sharing health insurance costs people should be.
However, if it is their reason for being here, then DU might not be for them.
If it is the poster I am thinking of, I went about 42 rounds with them the other night, and that behavior was, in my opinion, disruptive.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
Ms. Toad
(38,312 posts)than I am in reading the posts which are asserted to be offensive.
On this particular issue, I have read so many posts which are described in a way that I don't even recognize the post being described once I find them that it is pointless to discuss it generically.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
A-Schwarzenegger
(15,780 posts)The poster's 60-70 posts on this issue begin with this one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3923777
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)AAO
(3,300 posts)"But the fact of the matter is that there do exist a very small minority of progressives who are anti-choice. We have a very low tolerance for the point-of-view, but if a particular person makes the point infrequently and in a manner that is not overtly rude then it is not a bannable offense."
Me: I would go further and say "if you vote for democrats, you can be as anti-choice as you want, but forgive us if most of us disagree. It will never be part of the democratic party platform. But thank you for voting democratic. Remember to vote democratic in all your local elections, too!"
Deep13
(39,157 posts)It occurred to me that the embryo was at best a hypothetical human being where the women, who's interests are ignored in the RW perspective, are clearly persons. I also rejected the idea that women alone assume the risk (a defense in a personal injury case) of pregnancy by engaging in sexual conduct. It also became increasingly clear that women could never have personal autonomy until they were allowed to control their own reproduction. The logical implication, therefore, is that patriarchy uses the rhetoric of pro-life to control reproduction by controlling female bodies.
Frankly, I no longer see it as a balance of interests, because most abortions happen early in the pregnancy when there is no way that the embryo can be considered a person. The only way it can be is if we assume embryos have souls. Since I am convinced that no one does, this is not a valid reason. One can argue that a very late term abortion creates a need to balance interests--that was part of the Roe v. Wade ruling, but even then I am inclined to let the individual decide rather than the state.
As far as what is off-limits for DU discussion, back in '04, the DU management said they would ban me if I kept saying that the political issue of gay marriage was damaging the Democratic brand. (Yes, I turned out to be mistaken.) I was NOT against gay marriage, I just noticed how the RW was using it as a wedge issue. So, if something like that can be off-limits, then arguably the Constitutional right to an abortion can be too. I would not look for too much consistency, however. It is pretty clear that DU is nothing more than commercial media, that is, a device for delivering an audience to advertisers. I still remember the grossly misogynistic remarks of many of the pro-Obama people in reference to Hillary Clinton in 2008.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I do know that both sides get extremely polarized about it. I think Skinner's answer seems reasonable in the link given, but meh, just my two cents.
whttevrr
(2,347 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/12593891
1. I'm no fan of anti-choicers either.
But the fact of the matter is that there do exist a very small minority of progressives who are anti-choice. We have a very low tolerance for the point-of-view, but if a particular person makes the point infrequently and in a manner that is not overtly rude then it is not a bannable offense.
I think the key word is "infrequently". Anyone repeatedly going off about how women should not be able to choose for themselves should be banned. And, I think that is what is being said here. "We have a very low tolerance for the point-of-view" says pretty much that anyone persisting in the endeavor of advocating for ant-choice laws would get the Ban hammer.
Is there a link to the post that is causing this consternation?
boston bean
(36,874 posts)And within the thread you can see it was not infrequently that this person posted on this topic.
whttevrr
(2,347 posts)I've only seen a few posts, which in itself is sad, about abortion... and about what is going on in Texas. And, I'm a guy so I really tread carefully in such threads. But not so careful as to leave any doubt about my complete support for a Woman's right to choose. This subject is not tough; a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body. But I heard Melissa Harris Perry say this morning that she was glad to have a panel of females because she was tired of hearing male voices on this subject.
That got my attention. I cannot imagine what it is like to hear men pontificate about what women should do with their bodies... I wish it was never even a question.
I always defer to the Woman's Choice... except when it is a Stockholm Syndrome Right Wing Wack A Doodle Woman who is trying to decide for other Women. That I disagree with vociferously.
You should alert on the posts in question and see what a jury says.
A-Schwarzenegger
(15,780 posts)Are approx. 70 posts (in one thread) infrequently?
The monstrous subthread begins here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3923777
One sub-subthread begins with the poster identifying as a "radical feminist."
whttevrr
(2,347 posts)It looked like flame bait to me. I think I was right in that assumption.
The person in question did admit that ectopic pregnancies should not be carried to term, but then the entire thing became a flame dance? It really wasn't war like... but it did get a little surly and defensive. It seemed to me to be a sub thread about their right to exist here. Contextually, a thread about the parameters of being here at DU should be allowed some leeway. Now if that person came into other threads that are present now and started castigating those lamenting the loss of choice in Texas? I think they should be banned, hidden, or suspended. What is it? 5 hides in 90 days is a suspension?
I think the jury system should be used in such cases. As an Admin I probably would have locked that thread down.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)and the freedom of choice on women to choose. It disgusted me, as a male who knows freedom over ones own body should be sacrosanct... no matter how others feel about it, that freedom effects us all, man or woman. On the other hand, I get really weary when we start silencing views... i think by allowing debate to continue, we can sway public opinion more. We do harm to our pov when we silence others, as much as we dislike what we read or hear. As Skinner noted, there are those who vote with progressives and democrats, and as long as they do, we need to be careful on banning their unpopular views here on DU.
With that said, we are strong, and stronger when we argue against those views which are antithetical to progressive views and freedom of all women. They won't win on this issue... we will.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)As racist and homophobic posts. It is limiting women's choices and freedoms. I don't know why most can't seem to make the same jump.
handmade34
(23,868 posts)it is identical to posting anti-LGBT sentiments or statements demeaning people of color… should not be tolerated
handmade34
(23,868 posts)anti-choice has ABSOLUTELY no place on DU… I do not believe one can be a progressive and "anti-choice" 
!!!!!!!
TxDemChem
(1,924 posts)who are anti-choice. There are only a few in my immediate circle of acquaintances, but I respect their decisions. I'm an atheist, so I know what it is like to be in a minority here.
Anti-choice dems exist and should have a safe place to talk about their ideals, as do religious dems. I don't agree with everything True DUers post here, but I respect that they are expressing their opinions. I would hate for DU to become a bubble like some right winger forums. In general, we all agree that we are dems. But we are all individuals with our own back stories and experiences.
I do not wish to take part in any group/website/forum that requires me to not think for myself or not have a dissenting opinion. I think it is the fact that we are more tolerant of others that makes us dems in the first place. We can respectfully disagree with each other, but we should not attempt to form narrow requirements on which everyone should fit.
I'm sorry if my opinion sounds harsh to anyone, but if it does, please know that I respect your opinion as a matter is conscience. Let the GOP be the party of gray flannel suits; we are better than that.
DLevine
(1,791 posts)If someone calls himself a Democrat, can he spout any RW talking points he wants, here on DU, just because he claims he's a Democrat? There is a war on women going on, it's scary as hell. We could use some support here on DU.
TxDemChem
(1,924 posts)I would love nothing more than a black and white viewpoint on the world, but I am surrounded by a lot of gray. Does it make me scratch my head when I hear a supposed dem praise strict free market ideology? Of course. Does it make me wonder when I hear dems speak out against LGBT equality? Definitely. But that's what I am surrounded by. Do I think they are to the right of me? Absolutely. But in all of these situations, I do not doubt their belief in a Democratic cause. I see people who are not single-issue voters and who are as complex as I am.
I see the dems as "other." While we may not agree on every point, we all agree that the GOP does not represent us in a broad sense.
tavernier
(14,277 posts)It is very simply, as it states, pro choice. I detest abortions and wish every conceived child had a chance to live; but I'm a nurse and know of families who have been asked to make a choice between the life of mom versus child. That chice should be between mom and her doctor and whomever else she chooses to involve.
question everything
(51,704 posts)The majority of DUers are men and many men do not feel as strongly about choice as women are. Perhaps if men could get pregnant...
I think that anti-choice falls in a similar category as smoking and gun control. Most of us are against all three, but we do tolerate the opposite opinions. Or, rather, we just don't bother to read such posts.
I think that there are several groups about choice and feminism on DU. These groups are supposed to be more restrictive - not sure - so perhaps if an anti choice threads starts there - it should be removed.
And, of course, you can always request a jury decision about a really flaming post.
As I am getting older, I just conclude that it is easier to just ignore offending comments. And on DU, you just "let it sink."
I am sorry.
handmade34
(23,868 posts)anti-choice dogma… human rights are what the Democratic party is about… anti-choice is repressive, demeaning and destructive to our society… we must fight it and fight to keep the right to control our own bodies
Squinch
(58,397 posts)to sink because of disinterest based on the fact that most DUers are men.
What we are talking about here is not something in the same universe as smoking.
What we are talking about here is the ability of 51% of the population to make one of life's most fundamental choices, a choice that influences every area of their lives, for themselves. To be allowed to be the ones who decide what happens to their own bodies.
If this is a "let it sink" issue here, like smoking, then it cannot honestly be said that DUers understand what it means to respect the rights of others.
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)I think that is quite an unfair assessment of male DU members.
Isoldeblue
(1,135 posts)I would detest having to defend myself for having had two therapeutic abortions. Not because I wanted them, but because I had to as an emergency medical procedure. My two sons would not have had their mother to raise them, otherwise. So I was grateful that I had the "choice" available to me.
On another note, there are few women who are happy about getting an abortion. I felt a great sadness after each of them, as do most women. But there are situations where it is the best solution.
Whatever the reason though, it does not matter, Women have an absolute right for any reason to do what she wants. And no one has the right to judge them for that.
I enjoy DU and feel that anti-choice posts have no place here, considering the type of forum this is. It is insulting and completely insensitive, arrogant self-righteous and sanctimonious. So I would always vote to have the post deleted/hidden and if the poster continued with those sort of posts, to be banned. I also want to feel comfortable here, about certain issues. This one tops them all, for that wish.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)We should be able to handle less than100% unanimity. Plenty here will put most pro-life statements into the ground pretty easily.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)This is where my main concern is. It feels like this right doesn't meet the bar that other civil rights do for some here. This is where my DU world has been rocked.
I cannot imagine it being ok to spout racist comments or homophobic comments, all that seek to limit rights..... so why is it ok with such a fundamental woman's right?
leftstreet
(38,873 posts)I ask because I really don't know
There are members here who have horribly bigoted attitudes towards women, LGBTs, the impoverished (!!) but so long as they don't fuck up and draw the wrath of the majority admins don't appear to have an auto-banning policy.
But maybe they do and I'm not aware of it
boston bean
(36,874 posts)leftstreet
(38,873 posts)If a spam bot starts posting advertisements I think it gets auto-banned
But are there policies for auto-banning users opposed to equal rights? (Aside from name calling, pejorative slurs, etc which get sent to juries)
boston bean
(36,874 posts)in opposition? That is more my point. Do I think DU catches all racist and homophobic posts, no. But you would never hear those kinds of comments, like we heard surrounding this issue. My post is basically a plea to try to get admin yo reconsider this.
I'm not sure it's working.
Squinch
(58,397 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 2, 2013, 10:30 PM - Edit history (1)
not often, maybe every month or so, and if they did it with very polite words, would you expect their posts to be hidden? Would it bother you if the posts were not hidden?
Because plenty here would but most racist or homophobic statements into the ground easily too.
REP
(21,691 posts)Does befriend the most odious trolls, such as OperationMindFuck, though.
Squinch
(58,397 posts)she wants to apply the term "murder" or "homicide" to the pro-choice position that is part of the Democratic party's platform.
But that's been deemed OK. Because the admins think she's polite.
This is just unbelievable to me.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)boston bean
(36,874 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)boston bean
(36,874 posts)boston bean
(36,874 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Spying, torture, maiming children with drones, what constitutes child abuse, etc, etc. Is this the sole issue that cannot be debated on this board to any extent?
boston bean
(36,874 posts)Anti gay marriage, or racist comments.
There are some issues that receive an more no tolerance level. I would hope that those seeking to take away a woman's right to choose would at least rate.
DLevine
(1,791 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)What defines positions that can be argued vs those that cannot be?
DLevine
(1,791 posts)you will be PPR'd if you advocate the position that gays should not be allowed to marry.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Interesting. You can argue torture and extrajudicial killings here but you can't dicker with these social policies.
DLevine
(1,791 posts)I'm just adding my 2 cents regarding anti choicers being allowed to advocate that position on DU. You can take up the other stuff with Skinner. FYI, I am anti torture and anti drones, but that's not what this thread is about.
leftstreet
(38,873 posts)Both parties. Neither one has come up with shit-all to address economic injustice or military policy, so they drag voters to the polls based on social issues
Which could explain why half the eligible voters don't vote
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)But to be fair, no one is a small child in Pakistan that has to worry each morning if they'll be blasted by a double-tap drone killing, but there are many here who can personally relate (and be affected) by US domestic social policy. IOW, we can't empathize with shit if it doesn't affect us, and we don't get our panties twisted up in knots if its not our children getting drone bombed. So anything that we don't give a shit about is fair game.
Of course, that doesn't quite explain why there are tolerance for the free trade policies robbing people's wealth here.
Squinch
(58,397 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)“I never have believed that Jesus Christ would approve of abortions and that was one of the problems I had when I was president having to uphold Roe v. Wade and I did everything I could to minimize the need for abortions. I made it easy to adopt children for instance who were unwanted and also initiated the program called Women and Infant Children or WIC program that’s still in existence now. But except for the times when a mother’s life is in danger or when a pregnancy is caused by rape or incest I would certainly not or never have approved of any abortions.”
“I’ve signed a public letter calling for the Democratic Party at the next convention to espouse my position on abortion which is to minimize the need, requirement for abortion and limit it only to women whose life are in danger or who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest. I think if the Democratic Party would adopt that policy that would be acceptable to a lot of people who are now estranged from our party because of the abortion issue.”
boston bean
(36,874 posts)Seems like he still understands that.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The point was about espousing rhetoric that is not pro-choice, and former President Carter has certainly done that.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)I can see where you are going here, but the Democratic Party supports roe v wade. Jimmy Carter uses his religion to guide him, and I don't appreciate some of his comments. But his position is not totally anti choice. trying to provide options like family planning and adoption to decrease abortion is not in opposition of pro choice, as it gives more choice.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)He supported a proposal to change the platform with respect to abortion.
"I’ve signed a public letter calling for the Democratic Party at the next convention to espouse my position on abortion which is to minimize the need, requirement for abortion and limit it only to women whose life are in danger or who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest."
That is not a pro-choice position.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)but it is. Throw any batch of bullshit out there and there will be some people who will buy it.
Do I think abortion, as far as legality and access goes, ought to be up for discussion here? No, women's choice should be non-negotiable, whatever a person's personal thoughts on abortion may be. But thinking back over what GD has looked like this year, it appears that there are a lot of theoretically non-negotiable points being allowed here now. Why would this issue be any different?
Jasana
(490 posts)What part of that sentence don't you "liberals" understand? Go free speech it out with other terrorists that bomb clinics and kill doctors.
mercuryblues
(16,178 posts)Women's issues are always up for interpretation and debate? I don't give a rat's ass how nicely they say it, it is as fucking offensive to me as being anti gay marriage is.
If a person feels that choice should not be an option, they should respect women enough keep that opinion to themfuckingselves.
The RW has enough help in denying women rights over their own bodies, they shouldn't be able to go to a purely Democratic site and find support. No matter what.
Would being against Civil Rights be acceptable here, as long as the debate was "nice". How about voting rights? Are those up for debate?
Or is it just issues that concern women and their bodies?
Any anti choice post should be an automatic hide, no debate, no question.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)that posts saying women should not be in full legal ownership of our own bodies are allowed here.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)the possibility that somebody will say something on an internet message board with which I might disagree doesn't even make the list. Complaining about a single sub-thread, much less a single post, is like complaining about overhearing a conversation in a train station.
My position regarding what gets posted is this: I don't care. I don't feel the need to tell people what to say. I don't feel the need to measure the motivations of others against my own ideological litmus test. I don't feel the need to dominate others for my own egotistical aggrandizement. This website belongs to Skinner and he can run it as he sees fit. I think he's doing a fine job and he doesn't need me to be fucking around with his livelihood.
My position regarding the right of women to choose is this: Female control of reproduction is an important component of civilized society and without it society suffers. While control of that decision is not absolute, it should in no case be dictated by governmental fiat either by making it outright illegal or unavailable through denial of health services.
My position regarding the OP is this: It's an exercise of self aggrandizing manipulation that should be beneath anyone who embraces liberalism. Back off BB, this ain't your playground.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)I linked to an ATA thread.
I do happen to care about a website I spend time and money on and how it's run.
Was looking for some real support from other members to get admin to reconsider their policy on this.
Seems it was more important for you to try and put me in my place versus standing up for something you say you believe in.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)although I notice you didn't link to the thread actually in question.
Just because you spend time and money here means you have bought a product. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere.
There's not an anti abortion ass anywhere I can't whip and I don't need to ban people for expressing their opinions to keep me from having to face the possibility of having to actually do that. You, apparently, are not interested in actually dealing with the issue but rather would wrap yourself in a TOS of your own design and assert authority rather than simply deal with people as people.
If anything I'd rewrite the TOS to ban people who indulge in authoritarian shit stirring. Fortunately it's not my job to write the TOS, so I don't worry about it.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)You asked for opinions. You got mine.
haele
(15,092 posts)Too many anti-abortion proselytizers assume that abortion is an easy choice, that most abortions are for wayward high school girls, college students or other partiers who use abortion as "birth control".
Because pregnancy and birth to the majority of them is something they either don't experience, or an medical condition that was relatively "easy" for them, one in which their personal decision was such that they felt justified in.
The problem with such people is that they assume that every other pregnancy is just like the ones they experience. That what they, personally, are willing to endure and sacrifice is what every other woman is supposed to endure. They may be able to provide a safe, though economically stressful, home for an unexpected child, or they may be able to mentally go through putting a baby up for adoption after carrying it to term, they may "have the faith" to go risk health and perhaps death to bring a risky pregnancy to term, or be willing to carry a damaged fetus to birth, even though it might not survive, or live a few short, costly years in agony or severely disability.
But not all women are willing or capable to do these things. And, frankly, attempting to forcibly "counsel" any woman who is facing any of the above and is already weighing what she might be able to stand to sacrifice her future for is the height of hubris and selfishness for the counselor. It's one thing to ask a woman to consider her options, and support her decision - it's another thing to badger and subtly threaten her because "she's not taking responsibility for her actions" or "Think of the Baaayyybeee - you're killing that sweet, precious little future boy or girl..."
Most anti-abortionists are perfectly happy to let the poor woman "take responsibility" - usually as long as they get to gloat over her misfortunes because she "had sex" while they oooh over the precious little baby they wanted. That is, if they don't throw figurative rocks and remove any support nets the woman might need because she wasn't capable of being a mother, had a baby she couldn't afford, or wasn't at the place in her life and relationship with the father to be ready to raise.
It's all about "abortion as birth control". The anti-abortionists personal "control of births", that is.
Funny thing - for those who are anti-abortion for religious reasons, their God is usually the most blatant, busiest Abortionist around.
How do they know that their God didn't want the woman to have a baby at that time, and would be perfectly fine with, in fact, encouraged her decision to have an abortion when she became pregnant due to her natural cycle and that time wasn't the time "He" had in mind. Modern medicine certainly saves "Him" time and effort.
Haele
Kermitt Gribble
(1,855 posts)And a forum for Democrats where, daily, you can see people making posts against things that, for decades, have been the core of the Democratic Party platform: pro-choice, labor, civil rights, Social Security, etc.. IMO, our tent has become too big when it allows rw positions that counter any of the traditional Party issues.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)and the right to total and complete ownership of your own body is a civil right. To choose whether or not to take on the risk and hardship of a pregnancy. I don't even understand how people can argue that people should not be able to control whether they are pregnant or not.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I agree with you, the tent has gotten so big that it shares zippers with the republican tent.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Jasana
(490 posts)I don't talk about it much but I don't think black men should have the right to control their own bodies.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)I get why they are uncomfortable, even if they are scientifically wrong.
But they do not get to impose that opinion on other women's health choices and our laws. Period.
The bullshit that the Democratic party needs to take a pro-life stance is so idiotic, morally, politically and pragmatically, it cannot be serious. The average American does not want to interfere with women's choice.
kcr
(15,522 posts)But sadly I don't think they'll be changing their answer on this. It's a huge flaw. Women's issues get a backseat on DU and always have.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)against a woman's right to choice will get an earful from the members of this site.
goldent
(1,582 posts)So I'm not sure how anyone can give an informed opinion. But the notion that having opinion X unconditionally results in a ban does not work for me, except for a few X like "prefers Republicans over Democrats."
boston bean
(36,874 posts)That it was anti choice.
goldent
(1,582 posts)But if I take skinners word for what was said (that it was not rude, etc.), then I agree with him that you don't ban someone simply for having that view.
My opinion.
boston bean
(36,874 posts)goldent
(1,582 posts)Still managed to get my opinion in 
Vattel
(9,289 posts)It is possible to be progressive, feminist, and believe that abortion rights should be limited.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Would he not be welcomed here?