Have democrats largely given up on protecting a woman's right to choose?

[cali]

And because so many people played coy in another thread on abortion and pretended not to know what I meant by "choice", let me make perfectly clear that I'm referring to a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

Abortion rights support appears to be of waning interest to democrats. Where are the Dem women of Congress regarding abortion? Why aren't they holding a presser about on the steps of the Capitol about 1/3 of TX clinics being forced to close their doors on Friday? Here at DU, abortion threads sink faster than threads on any other major issue. It appears that a significant number of people don't even consider it an important issue.

What's going on?

[gopiscrap]

1. OMG I hope not it's one of the things that makes the Democratic Party!

[lostincalifornia]

2. No

[cali]

12. that hardly constitutes as an answer. So why aren't dems loudly and clearly

standing up against the erosion of a woman's right to choose? And they aren't.

[lostincalifornia]

28. They aren't? Both Boxer and Feinstein always defends a woman's right to choose. Look at Virginia?

Terry McAuliffe is going to win by a large amount, and one of the reason is because of his view on Women's rights

Except for a few Democrats, the majority stand together on a woman's right to choose

With everything happening in Texas and other states, the repukes are doing a good job of hanging themselves.

[Brickbat]

3. Sometimes it feels like it -- along with other things they used to stand for.

[woo me with science]

54. They are so busy fighting for the One Percent now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023969179

[Arcanetrance]

4. Personally I'll never give up on supporting a women's right to choos

But sadly as an elected party I'd say they haven't given up. But they're much more concerned with being the wall Street lite party

[geek tragedy]

5. On the federal level, it's a court issue. legislation is at the state level,

Lindsey Graham's DOA anti-choice bill being the rather irrelevant exception.

[etherealtruth]

6. No, our society as a whole has given up on women's rights

Certainly liberals/progressives are not standing idly by ... but, the society as a whole, has sent a message that women's rights (including the right to make reproductive decisions on her own behalf) are not worth fighting for.

[etherealtruth]

39. I hope nothing kills you within the next ten years

Yours is a strong and important voice!

[Sheldon Cooper]

99. I can't believe your post got hidden!

Oh wait, yes I can. I'm on DU, the premier liberal website on the internet.

[Warren DeMontague]

149. I know! One should not have to argue with people who don't think women can make

their own decisions about what to do with their own bodies. Not on a progressive website.

Except, oh, wait, unless those women decide to take their clothes off in front of a camera, in which case strike that, reverse it.

Or something.

Anyway, you know what the 12 steppers say; "keep coming back"




Or something.

[BainsBane]

231. No woman here argues with women about their right to work as they please

We point out what the trash are that enslave, use, and abuse those women. Here you snark about our rights to control our health decisions in order to promote your obsession with the commerce in women's bodies. I resent your using our bodies in your game of political football.

I also find it interesting that men here reject the choice argument when it cones to minimum wage work in industries like fast food but employ the same rhetoric in promoting sex work that right wingers use to justify labor exploitation in the low wage economy. Because everyone wants to work without social security, health insurance, sick leave and workman's comp so old men can get off by having sex with underage girls, which is what most prostitution is. Why don't you give up your job and try it if it's such a great way to make a living.

[Warren DeMontague]

232. Uh huh.

The thread's about reproductive rights. The fact that someone immediately decided to contort themselves through all sorts of twists and turns to somehow make it about how something needs to be done about consenting adults choosing to have sex in front of a camera, isn't my fault or problem.

But it's sadly predictable and all too obvious given the particular axes some folks feel the need to grind.

[Zorra]

182. It's very important for real Democrats here to choose their jury blacklist efficiently.

I choose mine by blacklisting high post conservatives who often post conservative propaganda similar to former DU semi-long term RW trolls who have been tombstoned.

Then I go through my list periodically and cull out any who get tombstoned, and replace them with the next most likely usual suspect.

Check your jury blacklist for anyone who has not posted since around Sept. 25, when Skinner declared war on sockbots. Some RWer's sockbot alert punk may have been forced to shut down, and can probably be culled, unless they are left in sleeper mode as a jury weapon.

Remember, if it looks like a duck, and acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck

[pitbullgirl1965]

228. How do you do that Zorra?

How do you find them, and what do you mean be jury blacklisting?

[Zorra]

229. Click on "My Account". On my screen view it is at the top right of the page.

When your account page opens, click on Jury Blackilist. Since you are not a star member, you only get to pick 5 people who you do not want serving on a jury to judge any of your posts. If you are a star member, you can put 15 posters on your blackilist, who cannot judge your posts.

You kind of have to be here awhile to get an idea of who to put on your blacklist, but you probably already have some posters in mind who you would not want on a jury judging your alerted on posts.

[pitbullgirl1965]

230. Thank you!

Yes, I have one anti choicer in mind, and some other idiots.

[Whisp]

119. It's shameful that your post was hidden.

wtf is going on here?

makes me SICK.

[pitbullgirl1965]

227. I can't believe it either.

I'm beginning to hate this place.

[Starry Messenger]

123. Wow, really bad hide. wtf jury??

((hugs)) LL

[awoke_in_2003]

146. The jury system sucks. nt

[idwiyo]

156. Why the hell was your post hidden? WTF is going on on DU?

Anti-women, forced-birther bullshit is allowed to stand, but posts like yours are not?

[laundry_queen]

161. Says a lot about DU doesn't it?

ugh.

[idwiyo]

168. I don't get it at all. WTF did jury see in that post that I can't see?

[Generic Other]

164. Where are the jury members who hid this post

Come out, come out where ever you are and defend your decision.

[idwiyo]

169. I read through that post 4 times and I can't figure why the hell it was hidden?

[Zorra]

174. If I were the admins, I'd be examining those 4 jury members very closely

right now, with the pizza oven already fired up.

[niyad]

165. would like to say that I am surprised your post not only got alerted on, but hidden? but then,

I think about responses seen on this board to women's issues, and, sadly, does not surprise me at all.

we need your voice, loud and clear and strong.

[leftyohiolib]

50. porn says nothing of the sort

Part of the anger is from some men feeling entitled to every woman they fancy. Porn tells them women owe them sex. All women and girls, all the time. And if a girl won't let you scoop out her eye with a hot spoon and skull-f*ck her like you see in those hot porn vids? Rage, rage, rage. She is an object there to serve. How DARE she say "no?" Not all men think like this, but there ARE some sick men who do. I know because I have run into them! unfortunately.

[Arkana]

73. You really think pornography turns all men into violent monsters?

Then you are incapable of being reasoned with.

[Arkana]

79. And I don't disagree that the industry isn't exactly respectful of women.

It's not. For a lot of women (with a few notable exceptions), it's incredibly degrading. But watching porn is not going to turn a normal man into the Rape Hulk without already-latent violent feelings being present.

[ancianita]

88. Men who watch porn are part of the machinery of oppression. They're not feminists, but when it

comes to their physical needs, they don't care. I stand with the Catherine McKinnon position on pornography.

[Warren DeMontague]

101. Odd, and here I thought this thread was about reproductive choice.

Specifically as opposed to passing laws telling people what they can or can't do with their bodies.

Interesting that some are trying to turn it into a justification for passing other laws telling people what they can or can't do with their bodies.

And MacKinnon, along with Dworkin, had no problems palling up with the likes of Ed Meese and Phylis Shlafly- hardly any friends of choice- in their misguided crusade to get their totally unconstitutional law passed.

How a couple anti-porn axe grinders in league with the religious right are some grand friends of womens' right to self-determination, is way the fuck beyond me.

Go ahead and raise the anti-porn bat signal, though, I've said my peace. I'm not playing beyond this post. This thread is about reproductive choice, not "how can we stop people from watching sex on tv"?

[ancianita]

104. I watched McKinnon and Dworkin rip into the Schlafly and Meese crowd, you revisionist.

You don't get to talk about them "palling" with the likes of the right wing back then. They believed that their argument would be heard, considered and respected, which is why they went to Washington and took their fight to publishers.

Go ahead and raise your own "just having my man's say, here" bat signal -- with the usual caveat about your indifference to any response. I couldn't care less.

But you don't get to misrepresent the history of MacKinnon and Dworkin here.

[Warren DeMontague]

114. Right. And here was the main (only) anti-porn Presidential candidate of the last election cycle.

As for what I "get to" do-- I don't need to. the facts- like the FACT that

[font size=5]Dworkin and MacKinnon openly allied with [blink] Ed Meese[/blink][/font]

Are there in the historical record, for anyone who gives a shit (not many do, because regardless of the endless fulminating in a few rarefied circles, smut is not going away) to find.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Bizarre+bedfellows%3A+Andrea+Dworkin%27s+ideological+intercourse+with+the...-a0133250497

[Warren DeMontague]

116. January 22, 1986

On January 22, 1986, Dworkin testified for half an hour before the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography—also known as the "Meese Commission&quot in New York City, and answered questions from commissioners after completing her testimony.[47] Dworkin's testimony against pornography was praised and reprinted in the Commission's final report,[48] and Dworkin and MacKinnon marked its release by holding a joint press conference.[49] Meese Commission subsequently successfully demanded that convenience store chains remove from shelves men's magazines such as Playboy[49] (Dworkin wrote that the magazine "in both text and pictures promotes both rape and child sexual abuse&quot [50] and Penthouse.[51] The demands spread nationally and intimidated some retailers into withdrawing photography magazines, among others.[52] The Meese Commission's campaign was eventually quashed with a First Amendment admonishment against prior restraint by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Meese v. Playboy (639 F.Supp. 581).

[ancianita]

121. This event hardly proves your claim that she "palled" around with the Meese gang. She influenced.

She drove women's issues to get public coverage and discussion. Meese exploited the whole thing for votes in a visible cultural battle around feminism during that time. Meese, MacKinnon and Dworkin were far from "palling" around over the whole commission event.

I'm as aware of your facts as you claim you are.

Your revisionist interpretation of their relationship is what I reject. I lived through those days.

[Warren DeMontague]

124. So did I.

Testifying for Meese's fucking commission was DEFINITELY allying herself with him. Give me a break.

The fact is, that these religious right-wing forces you are railing against in the battle for choice are also pretty universally anti-porn. While millions of pro-choice men (and women) are not in the least bit interested in stopping consenting adults from watching other consenting adults have sex on film.

[ancianita]

125. Fair point. I supported what was said upthread, that's all. You decided to take issue with me. I'll

choose to interpret the Dworkin/MacKinnon battle against porn as the male-dominated cultural context that women swam in in those days. Sure, some of the anti-choicers are anti-porn, but until you can show they're in clearly different groups, I'm seriously doubting the sexual integrity of churchy men. Sure, I can see how people in general see the abortion discussion and porn discussions as separated sand boxes, but they're still in the playground of male control over females, in my world.

Sex on film comes from sex on location, and all the male run systems that set that up.

[Warren DeMontague]

126. I can't speak to "churchy men", since I don't spend a lot of time in church.

I know what I believe, and that's that peoples' bodies belong to themselves, not "God" or the Government.

That applies to pot smokers who want to smoke pot in the privacy of their own home, that applies to terminally ill people who want a dignified exit on their own terms, and that ABSOLUTELY applies to a pregnant woman who is making a decision about her pregnancy.

And it also applies to consenting adults who want to screw in front of a camera, and other consenting adults who want to watch it.

[ancianita]

127. My closing statement about porn is that anyone who produces or consumes it is not a feminist.

Feminism, to the porn industry, is irrelevant. Those who engage in it, from financing it to consuming it, may think they're feminists all they want, but they lie to themselves.

[Warren DeMontague]

128. Then you're writing off a very large segment of the population, both men AND women.

But "Feminist" is a label, nothing more. I'm more interested in facts on the ground than arbitrary categorizations.

[ancianita]

131. Yes, I probably am. It's a large, unconscious population stuck at a certain level of ego.

Feminists have conscious behaviors that don't contribute to furthering any male manipulations or control over women, from childhood to death. Those behaviors, whether they're individual, family based, institutionally validated or whatever, are the facts on the ground. Those behaviors, collectively, make the mental, spiritual, social and legal environment we live in, and are quite observable on the ground.

[Warren DeMontague]

133. Sure.

Or, you could just say that what consenting adults do with their own damn bodies is their own damn business.

[ancianita]

136. In a sexist, financially and legally rigged game, worldwide, "consenting adults" is the

hyperrationalized claptrap of racketeers and their benefactors. It's the old "she wanted it" argument for every exploiter who wants the rest to turn a blind eye. It's stealth rhetoric.

When 51% of this country's population are owning 51% of the property, cash, and governing influence, then I'll give credence to the "consenting adults" claim. Then I'll say that what they do with their own damned bodies is their own damned business.

[Warren DeMontague]

140. And anti-choicers engage in similar mind-breaking pretzel semantics to argue that women aren't

"really" capable of choosing to end a pregnancy. That they (the anti-choicers) know better.

I get that you have areas where you feel entitled to tell other people how to live their lives and what to do with their bodies. I suspect we're done here.

[ancianita]

141. I do understand that the basis of arguing 'capacity' arguments is based on the religious premise

our bodies are not our own -- particularly women's. I also get that hierarchies -- religious, social, legal, etc. -- enable those on higher rungs to thereby be 'entitled' to tell other people how to live their lives. But my argument about "consent" is by power fairly exercised by democratic decision making. Law and order, education and the judicial process are the institutional means by which women can get there. Financially, socially and legally they still have a long way to go. But in religion, women will never be considered the spiritual equals of men, and they simply must stop jumping for its grapes and get on with the faith and grace of just being in the universe.

Take care.

[Major Nikon]

160. Perhaps, but the current trends defy that notion

When porn proliferation is up and intimate partner violence is down over the exact same period it's pretty hard to make a case for it.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/intimate/ipv.cfm

[Warren DeMontague]

175. It's amazing, it only took 6 posts for this thread to go from pro-choice to pro-censorship

...weeeeeeeeird.

[leftyohiolib]

96. you are spouting very generalized radio-pop-psychology crap

first of all there are all kinds of porn out there. not every guy out there is looking for "model perfect, very young women out there performing just for you." some guys are on there looking at guys, older ladies etc.
second women consume porn as well as men (althought i'm told theyre more readers than watchers of it)
thirdly very sick men (as if there arent very sick women out there but ok) dont need porn to go on a muderous rage.

you sound like a very young person reading bullet points that you found on the inet ( or other chat rooms here) regarding the dangers of porn

[ancianita]

61. I read "society" here as MEN. Women certainly are not angry about the gains they've made.

[ancianita]

86. Paid tools of male dominated religions.They're put forward as representing millions when they don't

[OneCrazyDiamond]

71. What about

Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin for example?

[ancianita]

84. What do you think about them. I think women see them as high visibility tools of patriarchal

domination that male owned media push to amplify in media. That's all they are. They're stood up front to bamboozle women so that they doubt women's morality. It's disgusting. The fact that they look good and puppet men-first values is good enough for male chauvinists to use them as tools of male domination.

[BainsBane]

107. True

[OneCrazyDiamond]

117. I think they are women.

As to what they think about their position, I would quote Jefferson (a true liberal)
Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

Your comment attributed anger in men generally. I pointed out 2 low bar exceptions.
I try not to lump people together. That is the start of xenophobia IMO.

[ancianita]

122. I see no attribution to anger in men generally. Domination uses all kinds of ways and means...anger

wasn't foregrounded in my statements.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

153. my bad

I read into "Women certainly are not angry about the gains they've made" as men are.

[BainsBane]

106. There exist female misogynists

Women are raised in a culture that teaches hatred toward them, and some internalize it. They most often manifest that misogyny by lashing out at other women and displaying a desperate need for male attention. We've probably all met women like that at some point in our lives.

[ancianita]

129. I've met self-hating women who've internalized misogyny. But misogyny = women hate + power.

That's my take on misogyny. What I think you call female misogyny is what I'd call stockholm syndrome, a cryptic coloration adaptation to misogyny.

[BainsBane]

135. Your point about power is important

And you may well be right about their hatred of women as an adaptation, but when someone stands in opposition to human rights and basic respect for me, I don't much care if they are male or female.

[ancianita]

137. I hear you. But you can't forget the constructs that empower them to get away with it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

244. met? hell, some of them live here and are very comfortable. VERY COMFORTABLE.

[In_The_Wind]

246. I know I've met one or two over the years.

[Cannikin]

7. Looks like the 20 week ban is too popular to fight.

The poll numbers don't seem to support continuing to fight it without it being used against them during the campaigns. I'm afraid abortion & guns are going to be more of an issue than usual, because the GOP has nothing else to run on except divisive wedge issues. At least, that's what I gather from my state reps when they bicker among themselves on Twitter.

[leftstreet]

8. They'll use their opposition when its expedient

Just like they did with Iraq

Both parties do the same thing

[Prism]

9. If it weren't for DU, I would be very underinformed on this issue

As far as all these states quietly, almost surreptitiously shuttering clinics and making it as difficult as possible for women to get proper reproductive care.

For some reason, it doesn't seem to be pinging nationally.

I sometimes wonder if the national Republican outrage about birth control pills and health insurance wasn't a bit of theatrical sleight of hand to mask what has been happening on the state level.

[HappyMe]

10. No, I don't think anyone has given up.

I live in NY, so I don't think that any email from me to any Texas legislator would hold any weight.

[cali]

13. you miss my point. I don't see high profile dems being very visible

on the issue.

The TX disaster has been met with silence.

[HappyMe]

18. Maybe because it's an individual state issue

in this instance. If it were a federal issue there would be a huge outcry.

[ancianita]

83. You're right. Even though I've posted about TX several times on FB. Planned Parenthood is our last

stand at state levels. In letters I've written to DWS, I've pointed out her failure to enfold and develop more state level female candidates. No response. If she's paying attention to women's issues on the national level, I can't tell.

[Warren DeMontague]

152. Nancy Pelosi

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/nancy-pelosi-texas-abortion-law_n_3614101.html

[calimary]

65. I certainly haven't given up! But the trends I see are discouraging indeed!

But dear HappyMe of New York - you should definitely maintain your militancy even if you're not in Texas! Doesn't matter! Have you donated to somebody's campaign there? Here's what I told the Heidi Heitkamp people in North Dakota (and other House and Senate people in other states than mine - California):

"I realize that I'm not from North Dakota. HOWEVER, she was VERY happy to take my California money when her Senate campaign was soliciting donations! Therefore, that entitles me to call you now. As one of her donors and benefactors, I DO INDEED have a right to weigh in now, and to let her know I'm not happy with ... (fill in the blank here. In that particular case, it was her disgusting statement of absolutism on ABC's "This Week" program, I think, shortly after the Newtown tragedy, about not outlawing people's precious fucking assault weapons)."

If you EVER donated to any of these out-of-state campaigns, if you've got relatives or close friends or other loved ones living in that state, if YOU used to live in that state, then dammit, you DO have EVERY right to be heard! ESPECIALLY as a campaign donor. I figure - if they take your money, then that's the price THEY have to pay. And I would mention that UP TOP, within your very first breath, if you call 'em up to register your opinion. If they took my money, then they're gonna hear from me. Otherwise, don't accept my out-of-state donation.

Besides, once they leave North Dakota or Texas or anywhere else and go to Washington, that then makes them EVERYBODY'S property. That makes them national. Because they then have to work with other Senators and Congresspeople and staffers across state lines, and they do need to be reminded that there are other issues at play here, too - on which they're damn well expected to perform to your satisfaction and take your issues into account. ESPECIALLY IF THEY TOOK YOUR MONEY.

DO NOT LET THEM SHUT YOU OUT. Especially if they accepted your money for their campaign coffers.

HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE ANYWAY!!!!

[HappyMe]

80. I have not contributed to any campaign fund in Texas.

I don't have a lot of money to throw around, so I tend to concentrate on local candidates. I do send emails to Wisconsin as I lived there for 20 years and my sons are still there. I suppose I don't send them out as frequently as I should.

Once a person is in DC, they do hear from me. I figure they're fair game then.

[adirondacker]

11. I had a discussion Ten years ago with a female friend from VT...

She was thoroughly frustrated and disappointed that younger woman were not engaged in the politics of choice, and predicted that their rights would be overturned. I remember thinking that she was "overreacting" and we could never go back... Smart woman she is.

[LittleBlue]

14. There is less interest when it's a state issue

If there was a federal law in defiance of Roe, there would be a major outcry.

When it happens in another state, especially the red ones which are anti-abortion by big margins, we are powerless.

According to this poll attitudes in the country have shifted a lot in the past 15 years. So it may also be as you say, that the party isn't as pro-choice as they used to be.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx#1

[Savannahmann]

15. The Republicans played this very smart.

They restricted access under the guise of protecting the women. To the average voter it seems reasonable. Sometimes, things happen, complications happen. I went to a local doctor to have a mole removed. It was a procedure in his office. But if something had gone wrong, if I had started bleeding and they had been unable to stop it, if I had gone into cardiac arrest, the Doctor could have had me admitted in the Hospital before the ambulance arrived. The hospital ER staff would have had my file pulled up on the computer, and known my medical history in seconds.

That is the image that is created by this law. I am a woman, and exercising my right to choose. Something goes wrong, a complication that no one expected. It is beyond the ability of the Doctor on site to manage, and I need a Hospital right now to save my life. The Doctor should be able to do more than dial 911 is the message the Republicans put out there.

Last week, the President told us that those people having their insurance canceled had crappy insurance and didn't know it. The Republicans don't have to say that about the Clinics that are closing. The message is clear. Those clinics had crappy doctors and the patients didn't know it.

Now, before you all jump on me and scream that I hate women and I want them to have their right to control their bodies taken from them. I don't. I'm not suggesting it in the slightest. I'm don't feel that way, I don't think that way. But like a chess player who sees himself out maneuvered and in real danger of losing, I admire the brilliance of the opponent. I want to learn from this defeat, and make sure I don't lose again. I want to make sure that this is the last setback we suffer. Before we can do that, we have to learn what happened, and how we got beat.

The image the Republicans have created is clear. If your Dental Surgeon has to have privileges at the Hospital to remove wisdom teeth in his office, why shouldn't your Abortion Provider be at least that competent. It misses a lot of facts, and it disguises the issue. But it was played smart is all I am trying to say.

[ancianita]

92. As a believer in playing 'the long game' of politics, I very much appreciate your outlook on this.

[nashville_brook]

16. women issues constitute the one "culture war" area that we've given up on

We've rallied behind marriage equality, immigration, racial equality and even MMJ at the state level.

Reproductive rights (which are truly an economic issue in addition to cultural) have been left on the back burner.

It stinks.

[redqueen]

32. +1

[Warren DeMontague]

120. Part of the problem is that pro-choice people in blue states don't see an issue.

The impact of the war on reproductive rights is being overwhelmingly felt by women in states like Texas.

[nomorenomore08]

177. Which (I hope) will help turn Texas blue even faster. But in the meantime...?

Shows that some version of the "50 state strategy" is needed on this issue as well.

[Warren DeMontague]

179. I agree. I think a 50 state strategy is needed on a lot of things.

Because as long as a minority in the House can hold the entire government hostage, we're not going to get anything done at all.

[nomorenomore08]

181. If we can't get things done on the federal level, then some sort of end-around play is needed.

Such as breaking the Republican stranglehold on some of these state legislatures.

[fredamae]

17. Wall Street Dems are afraid

they'll piss off their Corp Donors/Owners as much as the GOP, imo---
Or else we'd have seen a Whole lot more progress on many issues.

They might support "us" in private--but won't make waves in public.
So they stay mostly silent--except Clinton. She made her position very clear.
And Maybe they want her to take the lead-to stand out now. idk-but I have noticed waning support from "Democrats" for a 51% majority in the electorate.

[tridim]

19. No. That would be the Republicans, Cali.

[nomorenomore08]

178. But as usual, the Dems aren't fighting them hard enough. And going along to get along

on this issue - when we've seen how fanatical the other side really is - is pure foolishness.

[leftyladyfrommo]

20. Abortion is such a divisive issue

that many groups just don't want to bring it up. It can tear a group to pieces faster than just about anything.

So you stay away from it in order to get other stuff accomplished.

But we need to get a lot more focused on this issue and fast. Women are losing their rights. And not just the abortion issue, either. There just seems to be such a push back right now from the whole male population. And it's world wide. Look at all the rapes and violence against women all over the world.

Weird shit. We need to get on it.

[boston bean]

21. it's acceptable to spout anti choice comments here on DU as long as it's infrequent and respectful.

As a democrat on a democratic message board, I personally don't want to see it here, and I know many others don't as well, especially not condoned by admin anyhow. I could give two hoots whether there is some anti choice person posting on DU, they need to keep their flaps shut about here though. I don't want to know about it or see it. I would hope we would have admins support on this very important, life or death womens right.

As for it being respectful, how is it ever respectful to comment that you believe no woman should have choice, except the one choice that poster deems acceptable.

Microcosm of the party, I sure hope not.

[PeaceNikki]

24. Reproductive choice is a part of party platform. Being against gay marriage here is bannable,

so should being anti-choice.

[boston bean]

26. Why should DU ever be a comfortable place to post anti choice sentiment?

It should be looked down upon, it should be a hard fast rule that there is no room for that here.

If some anti choice poster wants to post on DU, don't post anti choice crapola.

What has been allowed is backwards and puts women who value choice in a really tough spot, especially when the owners of the site aren't willing to take the stand, to make it known it is not welcome.

If the anti choice poster decides they can't post here in good conscience, then so be it. Why should democrats who are with the party on this issue, face the dilemma as to whether they should continue posting on a site that goes against a firmly held belief of the Party and most members here.

[PeaceNikki]

27. amen

[etherealtruth]

36. Agreed

With that I note that individuals may have certain personal prohibitions ... I can respect someone leading their OWN life as they see fit... Its all about choice. Whether or not you believe a woman is an autonomous being capable of making health and reproductive decisions for her self. If you don't share the belief that women have the right to self determination (ie are anti-choice) I don't see how that is acceptable here.

[oldhippie]

49. So is recognition of the 2nd amend as an individual right .....

... but there sure is plenty of discussion against it here. Should it also be a bannable offense?

[PeaceNikki]

67. A) really fucking stupid comparison. B) you should look closer.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/democratic_party_gun_control.htm

Right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.
Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012
Reauthorize assault weapons ban, close gun show loophole

We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.18 , Jul 10, 2004
Strengthen gun control to reduce violence

Democrats passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since 1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent. Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks. We should require a photo license I.D., a background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun. We support more federal gun prosecutors and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime

[oldhippie]

68. That's what I thought

Thanks!

[Gormy Cuss]

33. Extreme fringe leftwingers aren't welcome here

but extreme fringe right wing Democrats get a pass, so long as the issue is abortion or something else not explicitly prohibited by the TOS. Can't argue against LGBT equality or the existence of the state of Israel even if you are personally against both of those things but it's okay to argue against reproductive choice for women. Just be polite.

[boston bean]

35. I'm not long for this place, check out ATA. I am beyond discouraged, and I just don't

think I can be a part of a website that thinks so little about women and their rights. He doesn't get it. I don't know if it's just stubborness, or if he is absolutely clueless...

I don't think I can remain here in good conscience when such a fundamental womans right can come under attack here.

[Gormy Cuss]

40. I have, and I'm debating whether I want to stick any longer. n/t

[boston bean]

42. see this:

At Mon Nov 4, 2013, 12:11 PM, an alert was sent on the following post:

No other comment will be forthcoming regarding my other question?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=3933

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This poster is one of the very FIRST ones that complains and objects to the word bitch. Every time it is posted, this poster wants the post hidden. Now, she is being hypocritical and ask a jury not to hide. This is disruptive, and inppropriate. If bitch is not good for others, it is not good for her and deserves a hide. This makes DU suck.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Nov 4, 2013, 12:27 PM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Voting to hide for more reasons than the alerter stated.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'm not hiding a post over an accusation of hypocrisy.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Shouldn't be hashed out in a thread...via private mail or elsewhere.

CONSEQUENCES OF THIS DECISION

You will no longer be able to participate in this discussion thread, and you will not be able to start a new discussion thread in this forum until 1:27 PM. This hidden post has been added to your <a href="/?com=profile&uid=173223&sub=trans">Transparency page</a>.

Just FYI, I don't think I've ever discussed the b word the way the alerter claims. Would have been true though about the c word.

[HappyMe]

62. Sorry, but I can see why that was hidden.

It looks to me like you were putting words into Skinner's mouth, and using one that you yourself find offensive.

[boston bean]

90. in your opinion. Glad to know it.

[oldhippie]

53. It may be time for a self-imposed break .....

Getting a post hidden in ATA and being snotty to skinner may be a sign that you are getting too emotionally involved. Sometimes it's good to take a step back and a deep breath, and continue the fight another day.

[boston bean]

55. You're reasoning would never be the reason if I decided to take a break.

I've already stated my reasons why.

[Gormy Cuss]

58. I'm pretty sure that bostonbean doesn't need to be told she's too emotional

because as a woman she's heard that attempt to silence her views many, many times.

[oldhippie]

59. And, of course, no man ever gets emotional over anything .......

.... not ever. (Except maybe those that go around shooting up places.)

[Gormy Cuss]

66. Please point to your posts on DU telling men that they're too emotionally involved on a topic.

I'll wait.

[oldhippie]

74. Nope. Can't. Haven't told any women that, either ....

Maybe you missed the "may be?"

(But if you ever visit the Gundgeon, you'll see plenty of men being too emotionally involved.)

[Gormy Cuss]

75. Okay, so link to the posts where you've told men they may be too emotionally involved.

Not posts where you think they were, just your posts where you tell them that. Again, I'll wait.

[oldhippie]

78. Nope. Sorry .....

I'm going now to get up my new pickup truck. I've already spent way too much time here and I'm sorry I ever opened this thread. I live and learn.

[DLevine]

60. +1. nt

[Squinch]

132. I'm with you. There is no point. The difference between how minority and gay rights

are treated on the one hand and how women's rights are treated on the other, is more than enough information.

[idwiyo]

143. If you want a primer on how well gay rights are respected, do a search on Chelsea Manning.

You are in for a HUGE damn surprise. I saw more than enough bigoted posts left to stand.

[BainsBane]

247. There were many members PPRd during that time

More than I've seen before or since. A number were long-time DUers.

[Zorra]

89. Yes. I am also very distressed by this phenomenon, and I think many other DU women are as well.

I have always felt that anyone who is so ignorantly RW that they advocate to deny women our individual and collective choices about what to do with our own bodies should be banned from DU for expressing that opinion.

If this keeps up, DU may soon become an overwhelmingly male majority site, except for some "internet women", and the very few anti-choice women who make up the extreme right of the Dem party. We've already lost many lesbian members since 2008.

I'm LGBT, and I agree with you that women are on the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to having our rights as human beings recognized, and sincerely and fully acknowledged and respected. Trust me, LGBT still get dissed here all too often, but the tolerance for women getting dissed is somewhat more.

I'm gone beyond done being treated like a second class human because I'm female; I don't want to be around anyone, anywhere, who feels free to treat me that way anymore. In my daily life, I do everything I can to limit my contact with RWers who just naturally believe that women are second class citizens, and that's the way it has always been, and the way it should be. I really don't want to have to deal with them here, and if the anti-choice trolls are permitted to have free rein to insult us by insisting that they know what is best for us, and that they should have the right to determine what women can do with their own bodies, I'm outta here. I don't want to be subject to having authoritarian RW religion shoved down my throat here, or anywhere else.

It makes me very sad to see the idea that women are second class citizens incubating and proliferating, being reinforced and promoted once again, especially here, at what I believe the Democrats here feel should be a stalwart liberal bastion of equal human rights, and democratic rights free from the control of religion.

The right wing appears to have infiltrated, and successfully infected, DU with the deadly conservative troll retrovirus. Maybe this disease can be quarantined, and a cure found soon.

Below: Right Wing Republican Male Religious Assholes In Ohio Sign Legislation Authorizing Republican and
Church Control Over All Women.

[DLevine]

91. I agree with everything you said. It's disheartening. nt

[ancianita]

93. I agree with you, too.

[Sheldon Cooper]

98. Excellent!

[laundry_queen]

163. I agree with you also.

This DU woman is distressed, too.

[bettyellen]

220. well said Zorra, I agree that DU has a shameful record when it comes to supporting choice.

[idwiyo]

144. Yeah, but you know, women are really just incubators with legs. Nothing else.

Clamps of cells have more rights to our bodies than we do, apparently.

[msanthrope]

145. Well, the DU poster in question identifies herself as "extreme leftwing"----

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3642084

She's anti-DP, too. So much for labels.

[Gormy Cuss]

154. I'm not talking about specific posters, just specific viewpoints.

And "pro-life" is an extreme, right wing viewpoint because it inherently precludes women from having any say in what happens to their own bodies. For someone to describe themselves as extreme left wing while being pro-life is ridiculous.

[Arugula Latte]

41. Anti-gay rights posters are (rightly) banned but anti-women's rights posters

can stay and spout their crap. Another example of the double standard.

[etherealtruth]

45. It is quite disturbing

As you stated those with obvious bias and prejudice against gay rights have been (VERY CORRECTLY) silenced (banned or encouraged to shut the hell up) ... having obvious bias prejudice against women/ women's rights appears to be "A-OK"

[Bluenorthwest]

159. If that was true, half of DU would be banned. I frequently see the 'gay marriage is unthinkable'

poster here. Would you like a link or two?
"Gay marriage is for me unthinkable, but Civil Unions have my 100% vote. I believe that marriage is something done in churches, and the Bible does speak negatively about homosexuality."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1352110

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023164919#post31

So the double standard you think you see does not exist.

[boston bean]

184. Blue it is spelled out in the TOS.

I agree much gets by, but at least it's not officially condoned to spout anti gay marriage bs, like it is anti choice bs.

And that was hard fought for here. And things could be better, I agree.

Anti choice deserves the same treatment by the owners of this site. So there is a double standard.

[nomorenomore08]

186. The important thing, either way, is there are too many assholes and idiots around here

who toe the line just enough to not get banned. And I suppose the rest of us, by and large, are too apathetic to give them the kick in the ass they deserve.

[Vashta Nerada]

44. IMO, anti-choicers have no business posting here.

If being anti-LGBT is a bannable offense, so should anti-choice.

[idwiyo]

82. Can't wait till another forced-birther "respectfully" calls me a murderer!

[Squinch]

130. Just a matter of time. Because you know, they're welcomed here.

[idwiyo]

142. Yep. It's a biiiiiiiiiig tent!

[nomorenomore08]

183. Did someone (and not a troll) *actually* say that to you on this website???

[idwiyo]

249. Directly to me, no (or not yet). Indirectly, Yes.

Read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3925187

That's what is trying to pass itself for "left-wing" this days. Pure, unadulterated forced-birther.

[nomorenomore08]

250. Shouldn't be put up with here. I agree.

[idwiyo]

251. Well, according to Skinner, as long as forced-birther is "polite" about it, it's OK.

Never mind it's not alone. There are a lot of others like it around here.

[nomorenomore08]

180. Way too tolerated around here. I absolutely agree with you.

Just like marriage equality - which is a gender equality issue in its own way as well - this should be a no-brainer.

[kestrel91316]

22. Too many women (and men) have no clue what an end to abortion rights

would really mean, so they don't care. They don't understand that it also means an end to contraception, because the christofascists aren't stopping with abortion.

[ancianita]

97. You're right. They're not stopping there. This 20+ week ban is their foot in the door.

[frazzled]

23. "Nancy Pelosi Speaks Out On Texas Abortion Law"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/nancy-pelosi-texas-abortion-law_n_3614101.html

Let's be a little fair here. There is nothing Congress itself can do about these state laws except to wait and see what the Supreme Court does with them--that is, whether they can be upheld or not under the CURRENT, SETTLED LAW OF THE LAND (Roe v. Wade). (And it looks as if SCOTUS today decided that at least one of these state laws was indeed unconstitutional, by virtue of having refused to hear an appeal.) Congress can't pass laws saying x and y type of abortion is legal throughout the land--because abortion is already legal. It's the attempts at the state level to restrict the law that are at issue.

But our Democratic leaders do speak out on these issues when they come up, as evidenced from this example article of Nancy Pelosi's reaction when the law was first passed.

[wercal]

31. I think the issue could be nationalized

It could be the 'Defense of Abortion Act'....similar to the (I think now defunct) 'Defense of Marriage Act'.

[maddezmom]

38. Thanks for this

The Women I know in Texas haven't given up and Wendy Davis hasn't given up.

[KellyGofAL]

56. Thanks, frazzled

I agree: Let the case go to the Supreme Court and hope for the right decision. I'm not a disengaged, pot-smoking porch potato (but I can't wait until I retire and do the latter), but I also don't believe in hand-wringing over the thousands of little blue-red battles that go on across the country every single day. We are winning, folks. The tide is turning against the aging, baggy GOP elephant and I'll bet the 2014, and alleluia, the 2016 elections will find a line of extreme Congressmen heading for the door. I do hope the door hits them in the ass, knob first.

[niyad]

167. welcome to DU. sadly, the thousands of little blue-red battles ARE important, because they are

part and parcel of the stealth campaigns the reichwingnutjobs have been engaging in for the last 30 or so years. from school boards to local to state to national is the way they have been working, and those who ignore the "little" battles do so at OUR peril. they COUNT on us not paying attention, until the morning we wake up to "the handmaid's tale".

[freshwest]

252. +100

[DanM]

25. More have to get involved earlier in Dem races . . .

. . . if we want to stop the drift to the right.

We have to get involved, in numbers, in the primaries and ensure strongly pro-choice candidates come out of that process. By the time of the general election, when we only have a choice between not-great and worse, it is too late.

[wercal]

30. The GOP strategy has been local

It doesn't seem likely the Roe v. Wade will be overturned...so plan B has been a local, incremental overturning.

Stricter regulation of clinics, ratcheting down trimester requirements, parental notifications, etc. It has been an effective strategy.

I still think the Dem strategy to oppose this would be at a national level...but that takes political courage.

Its still a very effective wedge issue, used by both sides. For many people, their party affiliation is squarely aligned with their abortion position...they are one issue voters. But their is a lot of wiggle room for people who consider themselves to be political moderates to support the incremental approach.

At first glance, most parents would support parental notification laws....and I admit, as a parent, I'm one of them. I would definitely want to know.

At first glance, most moderates would support stricter regulation of clinics - we've all seen the campaign commercials that paint the clinics as unsanitary hell-holes. Who would oppose cleaner conditions?

At first glance, most moderates support non-funding of clinics with government monies. There was some last minute posturing and promises and revisions to ACA, required by Democrats, before they would vote yes...so this is a political reality.

And at first glance, most moderates support the time limit changes. The common theme is 'why didn't she get an abortion earlier'. Now we are entering into murky waters - babies are surviving pre-mature 25 week births...and some women don't even know for sure they are pregnant at 25 weeks. So, the most contentious issue, and where the biggest fight will be is the time limits.

Now, if you are looking for a politician to support a 38th week abortion, completely elective with no extenuating circumstances...you can probably count on one hand the number of national level politicians who support that. That is just a political reality - the abortion position of many on this board will not be supported in full by the Dem party. It is politically very dangerous to argue in favor of third trimester (political speak terms 'late term') abortions. I am quite confident that this reality will not change for the next 20 years.

[nomorenomore08]

185. No one I know of is really arguing in favor of unrestricted third-trimester abortion.

And no halfway respectable OB/GYN is going to perform one except in cases of fetal death, severe deformity, or danger to the mother. These are the difficult, tragic cases handled by Dr. Tiller, and that's what got him killed in our idiotic, fundy-infested society.

[SoCalDem]

34. I fear that many have. Democratic issues must always be in a state of litigation., while

Republican issues are treated as the word of god..never to be questioned.

Hyper vigilance is tedious and generations after the ones who created the change ,often become complacent and are not taught in school just HOW these laws came to be, and that they have to continue the effort.

"Whew, that's done ! " attitudes are why we lose important things

[polichick]

37. Dem leaders drop anything that RepubliCons scream over...

Abortion rights, climate change, gun laws, the safety net - even the word "liberal."

You name it, if RepubliCons have a tantrum, Dems drop it and "move forward."

[jsr]

157. +1

[MyNameGoesHere]

48. I felt that men were not to have an say in

the choice of a woman and it is up to women only. Ok granted. your issue, your fight. I will not have a say in it.

[nomorenomore08]

187. You can have any opinion you want...

But your power to enforce it stops (or should stop) where someone else's body begins.

On the other hand, I've always thought that men very much had a stake in women's reproductive rights. After all, most women would rather not carry an unplanned pregnancy to term - as demonstrated by the number of abortions, especially where it's safe and legal - any more than most men would want to be a father unexpectedly.

[MyNameGoesHere]

191. Well

yeah. But this OP wants to make a point and I won't oblige them.

[nomorenomore08]

195. Suppose the OP were re-phrased as "Democrats haven't stood up to Republicans enough

on the issue of reproductive choice"? Would you be more inclined to support it then?

[MyNameGoesHere]

197. Sure but I don't need prodding

I already know that I can't rely on a party to get anything done.

[nomorenomore08]

198. Fair enough...

[DireStrike]

51. This is the limit of what our system can do.

When right wing organizations are funded by billionaires, and left wing organizations are infiltrated by the FBI, we will always lose the ground game.

Roe still stands, but we will lose state by state.

[tsuki]

57. Yes.

What is going on? Young women don't seem to care.

[ZRT2209]

63. no

[BillyRibs]

64. I hate to say it

But Many are like Fly shit on a window. First breeze blowing from another direction and they are GONE!

[ancianita]

69. Yes, why aren't we and the Congress' women demanding more visibility on women's problems?

On women's end, maybe the problem has been not enough lawyers, guns and money.

On the women leadership end, perhaps too much leadership nurturing and not enough leading. Female feminists haven't developed a deep leadership bench fast enough to keep up the monitoring of their progress. Too much of their 'winning' has been complacently taken for granted from the family to governmental levels.

Male chauvinist leaders, pushed by churchy donors, see any women's groups out there as threats to their governing power and domination. Or male chauvinists with too much time and money on their hands -- the Wall St. and Vegas casinos get boring after awhile -- simply see a legal WIN to go for, an issue to dominate, and they stalk until they dominate. Winning is a sport that is at the heart of the world definition of manhood. Male leaders can always go after those who seem to put up the least fight.

Male feminists perhaps haven't gained enough by standing by women, but one would think that they might convey that peace with all women would be important to all men.

[Dawgs]

72. Come on cali. You should know by now that DU is not the place to discuss issues. n/t

[AlbertCat]

76. Hey... don't ask me!

I'm a man. And I have been told several time on DU that men have so say whatsoever in the process. (Just leave some sperm in a petri dish, or something.... I guess)

So, girls, you're on your own.


Right? Right?

[nomorenomore08]

188. -1

This whining over trivial slights - when women in the real world are having their basic human rights threatened by religious fanatics - really leaves a bad taste in the mouth (and I'm a guy). Just saying...

[mythology]

202. It goes both ways though

Telling men that they should have no opinion doesn't exactly encourage them to try to help protect a right to abortion.

Look at this thread, there are people saying that if you are in porn, you can't be a feminist because some porn is perceived as degrading to women. If you start out focusing on telling people why they aren't part of your group, then don't be surprised if when your group needs help, those people aren't there.

Instead focus on areas of common ground, or explain the societal benefits to a right to an abortion. I'm not saying tell guys "if she gets an abortion you won't have to pay child support" but talk about the way that teen pregnancy intersects with poverty, talk about the right to have autonomy over your own body.

Personally I know if my life, I'm more likely to help somebody who doesn't tell me that my opinion isn't wanted just because I may not hold their exact position, or only wants me when it's convenient for them. I've got too much to get done in my life to spend time on those who treat me like a pariah until they need me.

[idwiyo]

81. I'd say Yes. Looks like without anti-choicers, also known as forced-birthers,

Democratic party just wouldn't be "complete". Or something.



You know, it's not enough when fucking RW arseholes spout anti-choice BS, now one must also accept same fucking crap from arseholes who insist they are "left" and "they so care about ALL life" (tm)!!! Never mind those hypocrites only give a shit about foetus. Once it's born they don't give a flying fuck. Just ask how many unwanted children they adopted (other than white, healthy, blue-eyed newborns), how many they are currently fostering, how many poor single parents they invited to stay at their houses, how many homeless families share their homes with them, etc, etc. Never mind volunteering their kidneys, liver, bone marrow or part of their lungs to help already existing people waiting on transplant lists.

The answer of course will be ZERO, to all questions. Fucking hypocrites.

[get the red out]

85. Well, they are scared of the Theocrats

You would think this was Saudi Arabia sometimes by the homage given to the theocrats in our society by all politicians.

[Savannahmann]

95. Those with religious beliefs make up a vast majority of the nation, and thus the voters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

The thing about faith, and we all have it even if not in a religion, is that you take action based upon that faith. You and I may believe in our hearts that our ideals are best. It may be the environment, or a philosophy, but we have reasons, but in the end it is faith that drives us.

Those with religious beliefs are no different. They honestly believe that God wants some things from them. We may mock members of their groups, like Fred Phelps, with good reason. The thing is this, a tremendous majority of them mock him too. So lumping them all in with Rev. Fred is asinine, but many of us do it anyway.

They honestly believe that abortion is wrong, and they vote. They don't all vote for Republicans, if they did, we would never win an election. But they vote for blue dog Democrats more than liberals, and they vote based upon their beliefs much as we do.

So how do you talk them out of the idea that a life, even one that is nothing but a bit of tissue no more viable or sentient than a tumor is not a life? We are talking about faith, and an ideal held by a majority of Americans. We don't convince them by shouting at them, no one has ever been convinced by being shouted at. But for some reason that seems to be the only method we use, shouting and screaming that the people who think it's a life are hate filled morons who just want women to stay in the kitchen.

They don't accomplish anything shouting murderer to women who are going into the clinics either. They don't realize the futility any more than we do.

What we do accomplish is polarizing those people so they won't listen when or if we ever make a better argument. They don't accomplish anything except to polarize those women they are shouting at until they will never listen to the shouters. Neither of us is discussing, both of us are just shouting. We need a better argument, we need a better discussion.

The reason the Blue Dogs especially shy away from the issue is obvious, they want to be elected. They want to get their house seats, and if they come out with the shouters on our side they lose to a Republican. Then we lose the House, and instead of Speaker Pelosi, we're stuck with bonehead, or worse Ryan holding the Gavel.

We need those blue dogs, as much as we deride them, because without those blue dogs, there is zero chance we will take the House back. Then President Obama's second term is a waste, and all opportunity is gone.

[get the red out]

100. I am one of those with "beliefs"

I did not say all religious people, I said "Theocrats". It is in NOT making the distinction that the problem lies. I will gladly fight for my right to believe as I choose, but I do not support a government that enforces that.

Theocrats need to be called on their anti-democracy crap, and people need to be sold on the benefits of the separation of Church and State. The benefits are huge for people of belief as well as those without. We tend to have no separation between the two right now, all "Church" is assumed to be all "belief", all people with beliefs; but that is not the case.

[Zorra]

110. So, you don't believe that "Women have the right to make their own choices regarding

what they do with their own bodies" is a good, sound, reasonable, rational argument for choice?

Does insisting that we have every natural right to make choices about what we do with our own bodies somehow indicate that we are just a bunch of hysterical women and supportive irrational men screaming unreasonable arguments at poor, benevolent RW authoritarians?

Tell us, sir, what more reasonable argument could those of us who believe we have the right to choose what we do with our bodiies posit than that? Do you think that there is any reasonable, logical argument against that?

We already know all about conservatives, and their arguments, in every realm of existence.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
~John Stuart Mill

[Savannahmann]

118. First, I don't agree with the ideas of the people I mention.

I want that perfectly clear. I don't agree with them, I believe in my heart, and have said so up thread, that a womans right is hers, not mine.

I am merely highlighting what we are up against, so we can figure out how to talk to them, and hear their arguments, and then have a discussion. We can't convince them by shouting. They can't convince us by shouting. Right now, that is all we are doing, shouting at each other instead of talking to one another.

I don't know what argument will work with those who are not part of the ten percent or so that place church first in their lives. I don't know what argument will work, but I recognize that the status quo isn't working. I am not suggesting we take a womans right to choose away, not by any stretch of the imagination. I am just saying that we aren't convincing those voters we need to vote for us.

What argument will work is a question we can all consider. We have some very smart people here, and those smart people should be able to come up with an argument to educate, as well as inform, those people we need to vote for us. Because right now, we aren't reaching them, and our Blue Dogs are left with two bad choices. Support the party and lose the very next election. Vote against the party, and win the election, but be derided by the rest of us for their choice. If they lose the election, then the Republicans win, and we all lose along with that Blue Dog. But having a Democrat we can't count on with this issue isn't much of a win.

I'm not saying I know what the argument is to convince the majority, I'm saying that we need a better plan than shouting. Because we're not winning the argument with that plan.

That's all I'm saying. We need to figure out how to talk to them, and actually have a discussion. Because we can convince more people with a rational discussion than with anything else. I say that because I believe that the majority of voters are rational, and if you can stimulate their minds, we can get their votes. Without their votes, we are going to lose the argument anyway. So we might as well talk, and listen, and discuss.

[Zorra]

138. See, we differ here. Years ago, when I was still a bit naive about conservatives,

I thought it would be possible to make conservatives change their beliefs by presenting well reasoned, logical arguments, accompanied by indisputable factual sources.

It simply has never worked. It is a useless, unproductive endeavor. You cannot convince irrational, superstitious people of anything by using reason, logic, and fact. A person must be capable of using reason and logic in order to perceive that something is indeed a rational, valid point.

Conservatives, in general, believe what they want to believe, logic, reason, and fact be damned.

If I say to conservatives that women have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies, they still believe that they have the right to force women to do what they want them to with their bodies, because they believe that it is their god's will that they should have legal dominion over what women choose to do with their bodies.

You cannot have rational debate with tragically superstitious individuals. It's very similar to debating with severely psychotic individuals.

Our real hope for justice and equality lies not in convincing conservatives that they don't have the god given right to control women's bodies, but in a future liberal, rational, egalitarian, and just Supreme Court majority that understands the absolute necessity of complete and unequivocal separation of church and state in all matters of law.

Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

BERKELEY – Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

Fear and aggression
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Uncertainty avoidance
Need for cognitive closure
Terror management

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.

[Savannahmann]

148. Everyone who pulls the lever for an (R) Candidate doesn't think that way.

We need only convince a small number. In many districts less than 1% of the voters. In most districts less than 5% of the voters.

I'm not talking about trying to debate Fred Phelps. I'd rather eat a raw turd than give him the time of day. I'm talking about speaking about the issue to influence those few we need to vote our way.

Everyone who votes Democrat is not a Liberal, and everyone who votes Republican is not a rabid conservative.

[Zorra]

151. I won't go there anymore. I only discuss politics with Leftists or Independents.

I have a life, and i'm not going to waste it on trying to find the one republican with a heart in the midst of ten thousand terminally deranged conservative bigots.

[idwiyo]

225. It is impossible to arrive to an agreement with authoritarian fanatics (religious or not).

It's all about desire to control, to FORCE others to obey what they believe is right. There is nothing else in it. If it was otherwise, they wouldn't try to force their beliefs on others.

As an example, I can tell you about conversation I had once with an Elder from Jehovah Witness congregation. I knew a number of Ladies who belonged to that congregation and we used to have tea almost every Friday for several years while I was living in that area. We never talked religion, unless I wanted to know something and asked to explain it to me.
One day they brought and Elder with them. After we were introduced, I politely asked if it bothers or offends him that I am an atheist, Pro-Choice, and Childfree. His answer was "Jehovah made you what you are and he has a place for everyone, who am I to question his will?".

That Elder was safe and comfortable enough in his faith to be able to accept me as I am without feeling the need to force his faith down my throat. He had a good laugh when I told him that he is Pro-Choice just as I am, if he doesn't believe in forcing his beliefs about abortion down my (or anyone else's) throat.

I also happened to know a Gentleman who is very devoted Muslim. He keeps begging me once in a while to accept Allah, because he doesn't want me to burn in Hell after I die. Yet same very devote Muslim person never tried to force his beliefs about abortion on me, or to tell me I will burn in hell for it.


Unfortunately for us, your typical forced-birther is NOTHING like the people I described above. They are extreme hypocrites. Don't think so? Have a look at this article:



"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion"
When the Anti-Choice Choose

By Joyce Arthur

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the solution she would deny to other women -- abortion.

"I've had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, 'You're not going to tell them, are you!?' When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn't want this to interfere with it." (Physician, Texas)

...

[ancianita]

87. They're outnumbered and too relentlessly embattled. They need more male feminist help.

Too many male democrats have given up on protecting women legally; I think that's a part of what seems like a deteriorating effort.

The world of making money doesn't reside with women, as too many men see it. Women and their issues are simply big balls and chains on their efforts.

Men don't see women as strong enough to help them fight their own battles with the rich to fairly run the planet. Women are left to raise children the best they can with whatever they can gain for themselves. There's no profit in helping women. There's more profit in keeping their labor free and their freedom controlled.

[Prophet 451]

94. I think it's partly complacency

I think that as Roe was decided forty-odd years ago and, as far as most people are concerned, there's been little happening on a national level. Most of the anti-abortion legislation is really happening down in the states and that doesn't attract national media attetnion (with a few notable exceptions).

[MineralMan]

102. Not this Democrat.

[Warren DeMontague]

103. No. Most Americans are pro-choice. However, when a Democrat is in the WH people get complacent, I've

noticed.

Unfortunately Red State legislatures have been busy passing extremely bad laws on this. I guarantee you it is an important issue to a great number of people.

[Laelth]

105. I think most Americans know which party is more likely to defend a woman's right to choose. n/t

-Laelth

[Rex]

108. IF that were to happen, the Democratic Party would have no soul

or meaning imo. On the civil rights front, Dems main goals should be to defend woman and minorities from injustices and inequalities imo. No 'if's' 'ands' or 'buts' about it.

And before someone jumps all over me for not including white men...we have 24/7 representation...the GOP.

[closeupready]

109. It's not a discussion one can have here, really.

And that's not what party politics is about anyway, as we all know. If you are a Democrat, you support a woman's right to choose, unconditionally. There is no other acceptable position.

In theory, on the other hand, one should be able to talk about abortion just as people talk about any other issue.

Suffice it to say that my friends here overwhelmingly support unconditionally a woman's right to choose, and so thus, do I.

The fact that I have concerns about it is neither here nor there, nor do I feel this board is the place to have that discussion.

[cbdo2007]

111. It really isn't that big of an issue anymore.

Sure, you can look around and see cases in the news or certain specific areas in the country where it is an issue at some moment in time, but it isn't an issue the country as a whole is dealing with on a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly basis. We won the abortion fight. Now it is just used as an emotional issue and as a fear mechanism for certain groups to make money.

Additionally, many people turn it into a "women's issue" when it is so much more complex than that. It is a society issue, a couples issue, a men's issue, a relationship issue....and yes a women's issue, but when people act like it is only an issue that effects women, when that is an extremely dumbed down viewpoint on the subject, then that causes people who would normally be interested and want to have an intelligent conversation about it to just not think about it and focus on other things instead.

[closeupready]

113. This x 1000.

[kiva]

112. I think a lot of young people,

especially young women, do not believe they will ever need an abortion. They've grown up in a culture where single motherhood is no longer a taboo (yea!), many have the support of their friends and family, and they really cannot imagine a situation where having a child would impact their lives in a negative fashion.

Secondly, many have absorbed the conservative meme that abortion is murder. A lot of young women - including a few in my family - are not religious, haven't been in a church a half dozen times in their lives, but still can't separate the notion of a fetus from that of a baby (poor science educations, IMO) and see the procedure in that light.

I don't know if we can reverse this trend of limiting a woman's right to choose, I'm afraid it won't end until enough women have their lives turned upside down by an unwanted pregnancy they could not end.

[fried eggs]

115. We spend a lot of time on fringe issues and fighting each other

Some of that time could be spent registering people to vote and educating them about what the right wing is doing to this country.

At the same time, a lot of people are experiencing idiot fatigue. If the citizens of these rogue states keep voting certain assclowns into office, they kind of deserve what they get. If they don't like it, vote the fuckers out!

[Squinch]

134. If DU is any indication, the answer is "yes." Democrats have given up.

[WilliamPitt]

139. I haven't.

Wendy Davis hasn't. A lot of us haven't.

BUT. (!!!)

Hint: the so-far quasi-successful attack on women's rights in all forms happening in many states is happening because those states are falling into Teabagger hands...

...BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO SHOULD FUCKING KNOW BETTER DON'T VOTE IN OFF-PRESIDENTIAL-YEAR ELECTIONS...Y'KNOW, THOSE ELECTIONS WHERE 90% OF THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT IS ELECTED.

There's a reason I yell "2014 2014 2014 2014" around here all the fucking time. Ermahgerd Hillary Derp Derp Derp, let's all get crazy over an election in three years and ignore the one that's A YEAR AND A DAY AWAY, when THE CRAZIEST 30% OF THE FUCKING COUNTRY will select one hundred percent (100%) of the House of Representatives, a whole shitload of state legislatures, a whole shitload of Governors, and a whole lot of OTHER REALLY IMPORTANT LOCAL OFFICES BECAUSE 70% OF THE COUNTRY IS TOO FUCKING FUCKASS LAZY TO RAISE THEIR HAND EVERY TWO YEARS.

You can blame Democrats. Go ahead. They're not voting in these elections, either.

FUCKING VOTE.

Decisions are made by those who show up.

[grantcart]

213. +1

[ismnotwasm]

147. Apparently so

Sad

[Warren DeMontague]

150. I am pro choice.

And mine is the majority opinion in America.

[In_The_Wind]

155. I'm pro-choice.

[Ms. Toad]

162. For many people who are truly pro-life, abortion is not an easy issue.

By truly pro-life, I mean people who find war, capital punishment, lack of access to resources which support life, and so on reprehensible.

Calling what a woman carries in her uterus just a fetus, embryo, or a clump of cells, is disingenuous. Every parent-to-be I know, anticipating the birth of a wanted child, thinks of what she is carrying as a child long before the day of birth and so do those around her. Every parent-to-be I know who miscarries a wanted child, particularly later in the pregnancy, grieves the loss of his or her child - not a clump of cells.

I support a woman's right to choose at least through the second trimester, but the rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty used on DU and in discussions outside of DU to disparage people who struggle with the reality of abortion, because it really is difficult to reconcile with a deeply held pro-life view, and the condescension which ignores the reality of how we all think of what a woman is carrying - except when we talk about abortion - make it a discussion which is not possible to hold on DU.

The question is not as black and white as the insistence in recent discussions (not just on DU), and I choose not to engage in a discussion which insists I am imagining the grey. Frankly, until we acknowledge and can have honest respectful discussions about the grey areas, I think the threat to women's right to have safe and legal abortions will always be one bad election away.

[Squinch]

170. I don't see people insisting that you are imagining the grey. What I see is people saying this:

struggle away with the difficulty reconciling abortion with your deeply held view. Work it through and come up with your ethic. And live by it.

I will do the same according to my deeply held views.

But do not dare to presume that you have the right to insist that I live by your ethic. And I will not dare to presume that I have the right to insist that you live by mine.

That is the definition of pro-choice.

[Ms. Toad]

196. If you don't see it, then you are not reading very carefully.

Just look at the responses to my post, or anyone else who expresses the opinion that at some point before birth we are talking about two lives. But read any thread here and you will not see anything other descriptions of what is being aborted as a clump of cells, a fetus, an embryo, a parasite. None of us think of a wanted child in those terms.

That position is intellectually dishonest, and insisting on it prevents any progress beyond whoever has the most votes controls the right to an abortion.

I don't know that we'll ever reach agreement as a country - even if we manage to have an intellectually honest conversation. I do know that we won't ever get beyond a most-votes stalemate as long as we insist that being wanted magically transforms a fetus/clump of cells/embryo/parasite into a child.

[Squinch]

203. We don't need to reach an agreement on anything other than that you don't have the right

to dictate what happens in my body, and I don't have the right to dictate what happens in yours.

You are defining these positions as intellectually dishonest. I see no evidence that they are intellectually dishonest. All I see is that they disagree with your opinion. That does not equal intellectual dishonesty.

People disagree with you in these issues. That is why you do not get to decide for them. That is why they do not get to decide for you.

You do not have the right to determine what other women do with their bodies.

[Ms. Toad]

205. The position which is intellectually dishonest

is insisting that what a woman is carrying is only a clump of cells/fetus/embryo/parasite merely because what she is carrying is not wanted - when the reality is that the moment it is wanted it is universally referred to as a baby or child, given a name, having "pictures" taken of it, its personality described, and so on - even by people who support a woman's right to an abortion.

[Squinch]

206. This is precisely why YOU can't decide for me.

I am not going to argue this with you. You are convinced that your opinion of what constitutes a baby is the only correct one, and that any one who uses the term baby when referring to a fetus is dishonest.

My opinion is that your opinion on this is a moronic semantic game.

So once again, all we need to agree upon is that you have no right to decide for me and I have no right to decide for you.

[Ms. Toad]

208. The problem is, it isn't semantics

It is using different language to distance ourselves from the reality we experience when a pregnancy is wanted to make the thought of an abortion more emotionally palatable.

[Squinch]

211. Your psychological interpretation of their word choice is irrelevant.

Your need to impose your opinion on others is irrelevant.

The only thing that is relevant is that you do not have a right to dictate what happens to my body.

[bettyellen]

221. it's that you are imagining that there is universal agreement with you on this- and youre wrong.

I certainly do not, nor all the women I know. You need to get out more, because you;re opinion isn't the end all. But you certainly seem to think it is.

[idwiyo]

171. Bollocks. There are no damn "shades of gray" for me. Forced-birthers are called that for a reason.

While prospective parents think about embryo/foetus as a child, I think about it as a parasite because I do not want it in my uterus.

Her body, Her choice. It's that simple. No buts about it.

Edited to add:

Those "truly pro-life" are nothing more than dishonest hypocrites.

How many unwanted kids did they adopt? How many do they foster? How many single parents did they invite to stay in their house? How many strangers did they save by donating bone marrow, giving away one of their kidneys, part of the liver, and part of the lung? Let me guess... ZERO.

All that bulshit the spout about "sanctity of life" is nothing more than bullshit.

[nomorenomore08]

189. +1

[Ms. Toad]

194. I am on the bone marrow registry,

I volunteered to be a live donor for a liver transplant - although another donor was chosen. I regularly donate blood. I have three adopted siblings (my parents have the same values).

any more questions?

[idwiyo]

215. Zero adopted unwanted childern, zero fostered, zero homeless single parents living in your house.

I donate bone marrow and blood, and I am hardcore pro-choice. What are you? Another forced-birther who wants to restrict MY right to have an abortion when I need it?

[Ms. Toad]

236. Try reading my initial post.

This comment was a specific response to someone who suggested that people who are truly pro-life do ZERO of those things. It was not a statement on my position with regard to the law.

But condemnation, like yours, proves the point my initial post was addressing about why discussions about abortion sink like a stone, and why there is a perception at least that this is not a burning issue. Many people are not comfortable with abortion because it really is hard to reconcile a legal necessity (safe and legal abortions) with a truly pro-life approach toward all life - and many of those people who are truly pro-life are not the Republicans or Tea Party idiots, but those of us who believe the death penalty is wrong, who support the right of people to choose to live and work where they want - regardless of an accident of birth, who oppose wars and taxes which support wars, who support a strong safety net for all people, a living wage, and so on - in other words people who are to the left of most Democrats.

Calling us names whenever more complex discussions of abortion come up means that we don't join discussions here (and the echo chamber discussions of abortion sink), and there are plenty of other things which need our attention in the world which do not require us to support (or appear to support by association) rhetoric about the contents of a woman's uterus which does not ring true outside of discussions about abortion.

[JTFrog]

239. "we don't join discussions here"

The hell you don't. And not politely or infrequently as "suggested" by Skinner. You adamantly defended another prominent anti-choice poster here while we were on MIRT.

I think it's absolutely disgusting that we are subjected to anti-choice views on this website, especially when one of them has gone as far as calling women murderers and they are still allowed to post here.

[Ohio Joe]

241. It is sad how many are anti-choice

At Wed Nov 6, 2013, 10:13 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Try reading my initial post.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3988552

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Enough of this "pro-life" anti-choice crap on DU. I'm pretty sure this isn't what Skinner meant when he said as long as they don't voice it often and are polite about it. It is rude, insensitive and highly inappropriate to aggressively attack pro-choice democrats as being "intellectually dishonest". Echoing right wing talking points is NOT appropriate for DU.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Nov 6, 2013, 10:29 AM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: A thoughtful reasoned post. The 'alert' was reactionary.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Women need to have control over their own bodies. No other option fits into community standards as far as I am concerned. Hide. Ohio Joe
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I may not get along with Ms. Toad but I find her to be a honest person. I am not going to vote to hide this because you don't like what she has to say. This is not in any way over the top.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I see no rudeness and/or insensitivity.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Zorra]

172. Will you take personal responsibility? Would you put a gun to the head of a young woman

who was desperate, who you found seeking an illegal late term abortion at an underground medical clinic, and tie her up and drag her at gunpoint to go to a police station, so that she could be arrested and convicted of seeking an illegal abortion, and then imprisoned until after she gave birth?

Let's be clear: The black and white issue here is a woman's personal right to determine what she can do with her own body.

Struggle with it all you want, but it seems apparent that the overwhelming majority of us here don't really want to hear arguments from authoritarians who believe that we are not self-aware enough to make our own personal decisions concerning our own needs regarding our bodies and our lives.

It is very probable that there are several conservative websites where anyone can voice their pro-forced birthing concerns to their hearts content.

No one has the right to force birthing upon any woman against her wishes.

And there is no denying that it is forced.

[Ms. Toad]

193. Try a little reading comprehension.

I made a clear distinction between legal rights and ethical questions which keep many of us out of the discussion, because of condescension, scorn, heaped on those of us who do not accept the intellectual dishonesty of pretending it is a child when it is wanted and a clump of cells when it is not.

The question in this thread is why aren't talking about it/why isn't there the vigorous advocacy. That is what I was responding to - anyone who does not buy into the "it's just a clump of cells" line of thinking is attacked. For some of us, because of other strong Democratic values around respect for life, and who value integrity in discussing complex issues, it isn't that simple. But precisely because of responses like yours, we can't have that discussion here.

[Squinch]

204. No. Precisely because of responses like YOURS we can't have a discussion here.

YOU are the one who has decided that anyone who isn't agreeing with you is intellectually dishonest.

YOU are the one who has decided that everyone must share your opinion that a fetus is a child.

YOU are the one with the condescending and scornful attitude.

You do not have the right to decide what happens in my body. There is no discussion needed. You do not have the right. Period.

[Ms. Toad]

207. Sorry -

I just don't buy that you don't think of a wanted pregnancy as a child at some point before the moment of birth.

Aside from conversations about abortion, or in medical settings, or as a joke, I have never heard anyone talk about what the contents of a pregnant woman's uterus as a fetus, embryo, clump of cells, or parasite. We're just not wired that way.

Yet whenever the question of abortion is being discussed, we start using language which distances us from the reality we all know when we are talking about a wanted pregnancy. It becomes just unwanted tissue.

It isn't that you have to share my opinion about the contents of the uterus - it is that everyone I have ever encountered talking to/about a wanted pregnancy outside of the context of abortion does, but in order to justify abortion - in discussions about abortion, and only in discussions about abortion, those same people call it something else.

[Squinch]

210. Sorry, but whether you "buy" what I am saying or not is completely immaterial.

Your opinion that anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest is irrelevant.

Your conclusions that people's semantic choices determine the nature of the fetus are unimportant.

Your opinion when it comes to what happens with my body just doesn't matter.

Because you have no right to dictate what happens with my body.

[idwiyo]

217. What discussion? It is a CLUMP of CELLS to me, it is MY body, MY choice. I don't force my choice

on you, so keep your nose out of my vagina and my uterus, and your beliefs to yourself.

I am not interested in having conversation about what you believe. I am VERY interested to know what gives you an idea you can force me, or anyone else to live by your standards.

Sorry, your so called "pro-life" stance is nothing more than pro-foetus, as you already said you have done absolutely nothing to help already existing unwanted children, and single parents who now need help because either didn't have access to abortion, or bought into forced-birthers bullshit (there are a hell of a lot of them living on the streets in US right now)

[Squinch]

238. AND HERE WE ARE AGAIN, HAVING TO DEFEND THE PRO-CHOICE POSITION!

ON A SITE THAT CALLS ITSELF PROGRESSIVE!

This is idiotic! I cannot believe this is allowed!

And nothing will be done about the fact that people are posting positions that include the co-opting of MY body against MY will.

Because, hey, while they say that all who disagree with them are liars, and women's bodies should be subject to their decrees, they aren't being impolite.

[idwiyo]

216. +1

[Warren DeMontague]

176. And the way to reconcile the shades of grey is to leave the decision making up to the person

who is pregnant. No one else should be second-guessing it.

[nomorenomore08]

190. +1

[Ms. Toad]

192. I was responding to the question of why

discussion threads here drop like stones, and why there is at least a perception that it is becoming an issue that is not at the top of Dems agenda. Dems include the traditional peace churches - and other individuals - who support equity and justice and many of whom feel strongly enough about the sanctity of life to have served jail time rather than pay war taxes or take up arms.

The grey area - where life begins (and it is intellectually dishonest to say when abortion is concerned that life begins at birth, yet to feel/talk/act as if a wanted pregnancy is a child at least at some time before birth), and what to do when there are two lives in the balance, one of whose life depends on the other - needs to be discussed with honesty if we are ever to get past the stalemate that currently exists, where a single bad election could end Roe v. Wade.

But the rhetoric and venom directed at those of us who hold consistent positions regarding life, for whom this is not a black and white question, make that discussion impossible.

[nomorenomore08]

199. Hey, as long as you aren't trying to infringe upon anyone else's right to reproductive choice

you can hold whatever opinions you want. And if you don't like the idea of abortion, then you should be advocating for policies - affordable contraception, proper sex ed - which reduce its necessity.

[Ms. Toad]

209. Is there a reason you assume I haven't been?

But there is another discussion thread on DU which denounces the concept that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.

[nomorenomore08]

212. No, you're right that I shouldn't assume.

But the problem with the "rare" part is that it plays into right-wing framing of the issue.

[idwiyo]

218. Never mind "rare" is pure bulshit. Lots of women use vacuum aspiration once a month to control

menstrual cycles AND in case birth control failed (or instead of birth control). I used to do that too. Perfectly safe, perfectly legal (even in countries where abortion is illegal, mind you), works like magic. WTF is wrong with that? NOTHING.

Simply speaking, there should be as many abortions as there are women who need one and as often and as many times as they need them. Period.

[nomorenomore08]

233. Maybe I shouldn't ask, but I'm curious - how exactly does one do that ("vaccum aspiration")?

Seems like the sort of thing that would require medical equipment and a doctor's supervision.

[idwiyo]

245. It very much depends. I did it at the clinic but it is possible to do DIY.

Some info:
http://www.sisterzeus.com/MenExt.htm

Outside US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_extraction#Outside_the_United_States

http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2013/07/01/richard-smith-menstrual-regulation-and-the-sacra-rosa-escaping-religious-rigidity/

[nomorenomore08]

248. Very interesting. Thanks for the links.

[Ms. Toad]

237. And that is precisely my problem with black and white thinking.

If "they" choose the black side, then we have to choose the "white" side. And all we're doing is a game of see-saw, where the side with the larger quantity of voters wins.

[boston bean]

201. Who is making any woman get an abortion.

Secondly, pro choice is just that..... your own personal choice. If it was left at that and anti choice nutters would leave everyone alone to make their own decisions, these debates that you find so difficult to participate in wouldn't be happening.

[Warren DeMontague]

214. And yet, the vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester.

To pretend that somehow Democrats (those of us not coming from church, maybe?) are out there advocating for abortion right up until the moment of delivery, is ludicrous.

The idea that women are running around pregnant for 8 months and then breezing into planned parenthoods to abort because they "look fat" or whatever, is a right-wing trope. A red herring.

So I feel comfortable leaving the decision, and the moral parsing, to the person whom is most qualified to do so: The woman whose body it is. The problem is that you think it is a 'question' for you, when you're not the one who is pregnant.

[idwiyo]

219. +1 and Thank You! Well said.

[idwiyo]

222. By no means, feel welcome to discuss what it means as apllied to YOU ONLY.

There are a lot of hardcore pro-choice people who will never have an abortion for ethical reasons, yet they unequivocally support MY right to do as I am pleased with MY body.

Accidentally they don't wax poetic about "sanctity of life" or how "pro-life" they are. Maybe because they know that one's foetus is another's clump of cells, and are sure that I (and others like me) unequivocally support their right to have a child, instead of abortion.

[niyad]

166. sadly, it seems that the answer is yes.

[steve2470]

173. Both DU and the Democratic Party should be strongly pro-choice

I'm not ok with anti-choicers being here, but not my website.

[Nye Bevan]

200. Abortion opponents are very, very motivated voters.

If someone sees abortion as murder, they are most certainly going to turn out at the polls to try to stop it.

You can be kind, and call it political pragmatism, or harsh, and call it political cowardice. But I'm sure these pols do a cost versus benefit analysis. They reason, what are the pro-choicers going to do, vote for the Republican?

[TheKentuckian]

223. Yep, along with about everything else but the next election.

There is also a bit of a hidden schism within the party, with some that are fine with the right but only for those with the money. For those less resourced they seem pretty comfortable with leaving them behind as we saw during the health care debate.

Natural consequence of everything being a commodity and the demotion from citizens to consumers and of late sheep for the shearing and then the table, commodities for consumption ourselves.

[Recursion]

224. I noticed in grad school most of the undergrads I knew didn't make it "their issue"

I don't know whether they were genuinely more anti-choice, or just figure "it's settled so we don't have to worry about it" (which is dangerous but common). My vague spider-sense was that a lot of them were uncomfortable with abortion and liked not having to deal with it as an issue That doesn't bode well, if the sample is accurate.

[pitbullgirl1965]

226. unfuckingbelievable LIberalLoners post was hidden!

Why?!!! Their post is the damn truth. I sent my complaint to admin. It's obvious DU isn't friendly to women, and between the LL post being hidden, and refusing to ban rabid anti choice member Th1onein, why do we stay?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

234. no they haven't. got it?

[In_The_Wind]

235. I haven't given up on a woman's right to have an abortion.

[hamsterjill]

242. I haven't either. It is my "one issue" voting standard.

I will not vote for any candidate who does not support a woman's right to control her own body.

[In_The_Wind]

243. I've never voted for someone who is against a woman's right to choose. I never will.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

240. The abortion battle has largely shifted to the courts and the states

and Democrats are primarily fighting a tough and often losing battle in most states due to Republican-dominated legislatures cranking out new restrictions by the shovelful and sending them to sympathetic Republican governors for their enthusiastic approval. Lesson: We need to get more Dems elected in the states to promote more abortion rights protections or at least hold the line against more abortion restrictions. I would add too that a lot of people seem easily misled into supporting abortion restrictions by being led to believe that anti-choice politicians have sincere motives about the restrictions that they're pushing and/or that some restrictions seem "common-sense" to some people without really looking at the effects or implications. Talking about making doctors have admitting privileges seems, on its face, to be "reasonable" until you consider the fact that it's often hard for them to get them from religious-owned hospitals hostile to abortion in the first place. Plus, a lot of anti-choicers are able to always make some people just feel all "gooey" about fetuses that they forget about the women carrying the fetus and the effect that carrying through with their pregnancy might have on them and/or that fetus. I don't know that Democrats have given up on it so much as the Republicans being a little more successful legislatively and judicially in getting their anti-choice agenda enacted. Republicans have essentially figured out a way to restrict abortion nearly out of existence in some areas without destroying Roe V. Wade entirely, which would, contrary to logic, actually be a disaster for them. I would like to see some attempts in the future of getting Roe V. Wade codified into federal law or some kind of national "Freedom of Choice Act" enacted.