Opinions please

[Deep13]

88. Well, I used to be right-to-life, but have been pro-choice for a long time.

It occurred to me that the embryo was at best a hypothetical human being where the women, who's interests are ignored in the RW perspective, are clearly persons. I also rejected the idea that women alone assume the risk (a defense in a personal injury case) of pregnancy by engaging in sexual conduct. It also became increasingly clear that women could never have personal autonomy until they were allowed to control their own reproduction. The logical implication, therefore, is that patriarchy uses the rhetoric of pro-life to control reproduction by controlling female bodies.

Frankly, I no longer see it as a balance of interests, because most abortions happen early in the pregnancy when there is no way that the embryo can be considered a person. The only way it can be is if we assume embryos have souls. Since I am convinced that no one does, this is not a valid reason. One can argue that a very late term abortion creates a need to balance interests--that was part of the Roe v. Wade ruling, but even then I am inclined to let the individual decide rather than the state.

As far as what is off-limits for DU discussion, back in '04, the DU management said they would ban me if I kept saying that the political issue of gay marriage was damaging the Democratic brand. (Yes, I turned out to be mistaken.) I was NOT against gay marriage, I just noticed how the RW was using it as a wedge issue. So, if something like that can be off-limits, then arguably the Constitutional right to an abortion can be too. I would not look for too much consistency, however. It is pretty clear that DU is nothing more than commercial media, that is, a device for delivering an audience to advertisers. I still remember the grossly misogynistic remarks of many of the pro-Obama people in reference to Hillary Clinton in 2008.