Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is the abortion debate about controlling sexuality?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:21 PM
Original message
Poll question: Is the abortion debate about controlling sexuality?

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
benddem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. These people
care not one whit about the fetus. If they did they'd stop air and water pollution, wars, nuclear proliferation etc. etc and they'd insist that everyone in the country had health insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Exactly
It's all for politics and to get elected. They could give a damn. Bill Clinton cared more then George Bush does. But because Bush claims to have Jesus (bs) he cares more and Clinton "is a bad man". :eyes: I as a Christian am both pro-life and pro-choice. I'm pro-life in the policies I believe in such as air pollution and health care and public education.
I'm pro-choice because God gave me freewill and everyone freewill and thus I shouldn't take it away from someone else. Roe V Wade protects women who do have to have an abortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
2. it is about men controlling womyn's bodies. period. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
efhmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. You are 100% right. Where is that category?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
40. thanks. yes, two polls, the same, and that missing in both??? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. And what of the women who wish to control other women?
There are more than a few anti-choice women out there.

I agree that perhaps the majority (and maybe even vast majority) of men who are anti-choice fit this bill, but we can't gloss over the others with a simple statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #10
39. that is, in fact,
a case of controlled ones wanting the rest controlled too.
not even to mention, the cost of privilege they think they get from serving male-supremacy.

our aunt tommis


peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. And the men who are pro-choice?
Because there were a lot of us at the April 25 march in DC last year. I know, I was one of them. Karen Hughes, a woman, compared us 1.2 million marchers to terrorists.

Really, I thought that the right to control one's own body was paramount, regardless of gender. Obviously laws against abortion are directed against women and as such it's a women's (or womyn's, if you'd like) issue.

But as far as a big conspiracy perpetrated by MEN-in-all-caps, as part of a vast patriarchal agenda, no, I don't exactly buy it. Granted dragging the country back to the 50s is part of the imagined goal, with the control of sexually active, independent women (and everyone else) that implies.

But I think it's equally, if not more, valid to look at the drive to criminalize abortion (along with birth control) as part of the battle to turn the US into a Christian Theocracy, and also as part of the larger battle between the CONTROL FREAKS (also in all caps) among us who seemingly can't live their lives without telling others how to live theirs, vs. the rest of us who would just like to be left the fuck alone to do with our own bodies as we choose.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. "a vast patriarchal agenda" aka, the world. uh, yes. it is. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. 'Kay, if you say so.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Splatter Phoenix Donating Member (626 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. You're not so bad.
it's people like you I admire.

The point is not that it's male or female people controlling the other or same gender.

It's a bunch of assholes controlling the general populous, and "Asshole" is an ambiguous, gender-free term.

I've met plenty of anti-choice females and plenty of pro-choice males, it really depends on the person and their control-freak-esque (or lack thereof) personality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. Thanks. And for the record, I agree there is an anti-woman agenda to the
so-called "pro-life" movement. Clearly, their rhetoric indicates that they don't give a shit about women, except as incubators.

Many of them certainly don't like independent, successful women, and are hugely threatened by them. (They also don't like anyone who's not a white, Christian supporter of the flat tax, so I'm screwed on at least two of those)

They're also threatened by women's sexuality, gay sexuality, free expressions of just about ALL kinds of sexuality.


No argument there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Splatter Phoenix Donating Member (626 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. *Grin*
We should call them the anti-sexuals. And blast the name loud all across CNN and MSNBC.

Of course they don't give a shit for the woman who is LIVING (or for that matter their boyfriend/husband/significant other/resident knocker-upper who might not want the baby either), only for the precious feeeetuuus.

I'm white, at least. Whee.

:hug: Ignore FemiNazi rhetoric. I know enough to know who my true defenders are, and they aren't simply the ones who have wombs of their own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. you're welcome. thanks for your knee-jerk male-defending one. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Splatter Phoenix Donating Member (626 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Fundies
Do not recruit one specific gender.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #52
57. oh good, let's make defending men the subject of a thread on the
rights of womyn

again...


it's just like when blacks dare to say whites oppress blacks and whites all: "not me! not every one of us!"

waste time fast running out.

sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Splatter Phoenix Donating Member (626 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. Forgive me.
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 06:33 PM by Splatter Phoenix
I just don't think being bigoted towards men is any way to repay them for their fathers and forefathers being bigoted towards women, or womyn, or WTF ever.

Gandhi would not approve of a lack of forgiveness, and neither do I.

And haha. Not all whites do oppress blacks. That might surprise you, but perhaps 10% of the human population on the planet is decent.


Edited to add I hope you don't act as ignorant to my twelve year old brother when he grows up into a man who respects females and treats them kindly. He hasn't got a mean bone in his body.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #58
63. it is bigoted to say the fact that anti-choice is about controlling
womyn's bodies?

or to say that patriarchy is a global problem?
or that patriarchy is men dominating womyn?

and, btw, while not all whites oppress blacks, any who stop all progress to protest that they don't ARE oppressing blacks in doing that.

bye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Splatter Phoenix Donating Member (626 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. It is bigoted to blame men for your problems. Period.
Painting them in the light of evil.

I wave Condi Rice in your face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #63
68. So is "Stopping all progress", in your mind, roughly equivalent to
challenging any of your assertions in any way, shape, or form?

Wow, way to foster discussion. Again, I refer you to the topic of the OP.

Clearly, if you want a thread about patriarchy being a global problem of men dominating womyn, you're capable of starting one- but it wasn't the original topic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. Um, people on this board go positively APE-SHIT
when, say "Christians" are slammed for the behavior of a narrow band of fundamentalist theocrats. Certainly, their upset is understandable. But those people, Pat Robertson et al, are actually claiming to represent Jesus and "Christianity".

Now the "Pro-life" movement, which is made up of a lot of right-wing women (I can provide links, if you'd like) as well as men, does not claim to be acting in the interests of "men", or the "patriarchy", or whatever, and yes as a man I seriously resent the implication that somehow I am responsible for their bullshit.

Actually, the topic of the thread is whether or not controlling sexuality is the goal of the anti-abortion movement. (I happen to think it is, at least one big component) If you're complaining about the thread being hijacked-- in response to a post you yourself made, maybe you should check the OP and try to move it back in that direction. Just a suggestion!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Splatter Phoenix Donating Member (626 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. It's all your damn fault.
Let's take up a collection to get you a sex change so you'll no longer be evil.

How much can it cost, anyway? Couple thousand? That's not bad, you know, to rid ourselves of a...*shudder*...man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. Jeez, I don't even like to go to the dentist.
No thanks! :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. ...what's a "knee-jerk male-defending one"?

I guess the fact that I have testicles negates the fact that I bothered to fly 3,000 miles to participate in the March last year. Did you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #54
59. the one we spend half of all our time having to nurse men through. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. Another one line answer
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 06:37 PM by impeachdubya
shockingly devoid of informational content.

And no response. Didja make it to the march, or not? Jus' wonderin'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #61
66. "devoid of informational content" is all you want to get from it. sad. bye
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Splatter Phoenix Donating Member (626 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. This means you weren't at the rally. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #2
75. you mis-spelled "some"
*some* men controlling women's bodies.

The other men's sexuality will be suppressed as much as women's sexuality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
serryjw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
81. You're ALMOST right
Edited on Sat Oct-01-05 10:51 AM by serryjw
It is about CONTROLLING woman....period. IF woman are not free to control their reproductive rights then they will always be slave to it. Accidents happen.
This maybe a be a flame statement, BUT I don't believe men should have a say in the abortion debate. THEY will NEVER be faced with this problem and it should ONLY be between a woman's doctor and her God....not a man (even her husband). In most states a married woman can not have a tubal ligation w/o here husbands PERMISSION!Pharmacists are fighting state by state to have the RIGHT to NOT fill B/C prescriptions.......what's next?

Albertsons Censors Seventeen
Planned Parenthood Expresses Outrage at Albertsons for Censoring Seventeen Magazine
Sexual Health Article Leads to Removal of Publication



http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/porta...

http://www.naral.org/yourstate/whodecides/trends/issues...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. Here's my take- because "a say" can be interpreted different ways
Edited on Sat Oct-01-05 06:05 PM by impeachdubya
It's not a flame statement but it could probably deal with a little clarification, because while I understand what I think you meant, it can be misinterpreted.

I'm pretty sure that your intent wasn't to imply, for example, that pro-choice men aren't welcome to our opinions and activism on the matter.

Here's how I look at it: Every Woman has the right to an opinion or final say about the morality of specific abortion-- but only in ONE circumstance, i.e. her own body. Men, on the other hand, don't have the right to it in any, at least as long as we're not the ones getting pregnant. Which isn't to say men can't believe, as I do, in broad principles of bodily integrity and self-determination, i.e. as a consenting adult what one does with one's own body is none of the business of governments, busybodies, control freaks, churches, or would-be moralists from the right OR the left... insofar as one doesn't harm anyone else and everything, again, involves consenting adults.

This is a simple, across the board, socially small-l libertarian principle.

Now, legally, I agree with you- although I wouldn't, personally want to be in a marriage where my wife wouldn't talk to me about it before getting an abortion, I certainly don't believe that sort of thing is the provence of government. Bottom line, from a legal and medical standpoint, the woman whose body it is (irregardless of whether or not she has a "god") has to be the one -and the only one- empowered to make that call.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
serryjw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. Touche!
Bottom line, from a legal and medical standpoint, the woman whose body it is (irregardless of whether or not she has a "god") has to be the one -and the only one- empowered to make that call.

Exactly! I can't stop men from having opinions as long as they are not considered when I have to make MY decision. It is OUTRAGEOUS that 7 men in black robes make desions on MY BODY. Yes, I would hope we are all in relationships where something so personal would be discussed with partner, BUT unfortunately, not all relationships are like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. That's my take on "parental consent" laws, too.
If you want a situation where your kids talk to you before becoming sexually active (much less needing an abortion) then raise them in a situation which fosters trust and open communication.

Don't legislate it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
serryjw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #87
88. Touche 2!
...Not to mention her father is the biological father of the unborn child! Isn't incest fun!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #81
89. i do agree, serryjw. it is one route of mankind controlling womonkind.
i spent some time deciding whether to write "bodies" there. i chose that only because, while controlling womonkind is the broad goal of patriarchy, anti-choice is specifically to control our bodies, as baby-making instruments.

so, broadly, i do agree with you.

i also agree with you about men being involved in this debate that should be a private issue per individual womon.
yes, i would wish that individual womyn would, could discuss the choice with individual partners, but that is not about legislating womyn's privacy/choice.

thank you!


peace!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. Its about Controlling us with divisive and distractive side issues
Divide and conquer....they are dividing us with these kinds of issues...

To Fool is to RULE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Yep
Exactly. Same thing with gay marriage. If you ask a group of Christians are you for gay marriage majority of them would say "no" probably, but if you ask them about civil unions you'd get a different answer. I've talked with other conservatives on another board about this and me and one person began arguing and far away but after just talking we agreed more then we disagree. I think as a country now we're in the "us vs them" mentality which is really sad cause I think we as a country agree more then we disagree. Politicians like the republicans now days use issues like this as a wedge so they can get elected but in reality they could care less anyway. It's all an act just like with Bush. If he really followed Jesus he wouldn't be there today because he wouldn't have stolen the election away from Gore in 2000 since stealing is a sin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. BTW, during those 2000 recount days....Bush showed no class at all
A CLASSLESS ASSHOLE emerged outta that Florida Swamp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
4. Since white women are having more abortions
than other races, the white men want to stop any decline in white numbers
for fear of the inevitable uprising. They want those babies for their
demographics. It is about controlling feminine power as well, much
like a rapist in a crime of violence, to tie a woman down and make her
bear an unwanted child. It is a form of enslavement of women. But
that is what those white slave men are all about and have always been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rkc3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. Nope. It's about fund-raising and pandering the bible-thumping
nutters in this country.

It's been said here a million times - if repubs wanted to get rid of abortion, they would have passed a law that passes Constitutional muster. All attempts have been fruitless and when they fail, as they are expected to do, they cry foul.

It's also a little about forcing their morals on the public - something the people who founded this country left England to escape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. They would've done so with Reagan I think
This is why I try not to worry about it so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rkc3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. It isn't something we should not worry about.
As long as the repubs corner the market on things like abortion and gay marriage (your post above), they'll continue to bring out record numbers of idiots to vote for them.

Even in the light of all-time record energy prices and soon to be rising bankruptcies, these yahoos are still thinking - at least gays can't have abortions.

Maybe that should be the message for the next election. "While the repubs were making sure gays couldn't get married, they were letting corporations run our contry and steal our tax dollars."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
7. It's all about control
Period. They want to control everything everyone does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
12. i have always been confused about the RW'ers
logic.... the reasoning behind the opposition to the morning-after pill was quite revealing. A woman being interviewed on Nightline who was from one organization that lobbied the FDA to not approve the over-the-counter sale, said that it should not be available because if a man were abusing a young girl, and said pill was available to her...that man would be able to continue the abuse without fear of detection. The absurdity of the argument vs. the safety and effectiveness of the contraception method has no parallel. This woman would prefer that no one have access...just in case a potential victim in some place and time, could become pregnant, thereby ending the abuse.
The other argument was that it would have the effect of more teen-age sex. As though no teen should have contraception available to them. They don't like sex...they don't like women having sex...and if women have sex they would like to punish them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeTheChange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. I've always been confused as to why people have a tendency..
to pick the most ridiculous opinion that opposes theirs and label a whole group of people with that opinion. That's like a RWinger saying Ralph Nader's opinions are what confuses them about the LW.


I chuckle when people jump all over Limbaugh or Coulter in one thread then are the doppleganger of them in another.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LizMoonstar Donating Member (392 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. hey, I'm confused right now!
what are you talking about? (no snark intended, serious question)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeTheChange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #17
29. Im just so tired of the broad brush statements..
We have this horrible Us vs Them mentality right now..

But at the essence, we are all humans, all right and all wrong.. all unique in our opinions and the diversity of them.


I dont think everyone on the right wing shares the sentiments of the one nutball they decided to interview. Just like every dem doesnt share the sentiments of Zell Miller, or even Diane Feinstein.


I think we make a serious error when using the broad brush..

but that is just me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. what broad brush?
The right wing does not refer to the republican party....but the Right Wing of the Republican party. Now, surely, you must realize that Roe vs. Wade is a pet peeve of theirs? Okay so far? Now, I re-itereated the only reasons given for opposing the over-the-counter sale of this form of contraception. What is your problem?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Come again?...
I did not pick the most ridiculous opinion... what i posted were the 'only' reasons given. Am i suggesting there is a whole group of people with that opinion? Well, she was a lobbyist so...she was speaking for more than herself. And as for Coulter and Limbaugh...i have never been a fan, so have no idea of what you speak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbonds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
13. Exactly, people seeking an abortion must of been having sex for fun.
And we know how god hates fun.

Yes, it is all about controlling sexuality. Although I think there are people that buy into the rationalization that the fetus is a human.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
15. F*** Yes!
First they ban abortion.
Then ban birth control.
Then criminalize extramarital sex (except for Congress of course).
Then make premarital sex on equal footing as statutory rape.
Chastity belts could be on the table.
They only give you a break when you hit menopause when your fertility is no longer an issue.

Fact of the matter is they don't want you having more fun in bed (or elsewhere) than they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Opusnone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #15
26. Wholly agreed on the menopause line!
Why else would Bob Dole be pitching Viagra and hard on pills for middle aged men be so heavily advertised? They don't want anyone under the age of 50 to have sex without procreation. As I have said in other posts CONDOMS WILL SAVE THE WORLD!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kailassa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
18. But if it's Their daughter ...
My parents are "good right-wing christians" against abortion. So when I got pregnant at 13, through no fault of my own, they gave me a box of sleeping pills to end it all. I was just lucky that I was given 2 weeks to think about it, while they organised my life insurance, and either God answered my prayers or stress caused a miscarriage.

I don't believe there is a single person who is totally against abortion who is not a smug hypocrite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LizMoonstar Donating Member (392 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #18
27. wow, that royally sucks. sorry to hear that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Angry Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
19. Sexism = Item #5 in 14 Characteristics of Fascism
5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=librar...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Withywindle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
20. Definitely yes!
Although that's not all there is to it.

For many of these "activists", the life of a "fallen" sexually tainted woman IS worth a lot less than the "sinless," innocent "angel baby." They don't care about actual people (this is consistent with RW attitudes about poverty and health care and war), only theoretical clean white souls for Jaysus.

Don't ever let them sugarcoat that. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kailassa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. But even Jesus
very much enjoyed the company of a woman who was "experienced", to say the least. Or so the bible tells us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LizMoonstar Donating Member (392 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. i was raised that sex is something god gave us to bring joy into the world
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 02:23 PM by LizMoonstar
back when my family was Methodist. that we wouldn't be able to do something so neat if god didn't want us to do it.


then again, i believe that Jesus was conceived when Mary and Joseph had sex their first time and god decided to choose their fetus for his purpose. (as a friend tackily put it, Jesus was a 'hole in one'...)

but what do i know, i'm a wacky pagan!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Withywindle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #21
37. Oh of course.
But that type of fundie memorizes and quotes everything in the Bible BUT the Gospels. Jesus's actual teachings and example are very very inconvenient for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lexingtonian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
25. control is not precisely the issue

IMHO, it's about reimposing the mores of medieval agrarian village life.

It strikes me as an indirect attempt to live in the past.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. It's the Fundamental "Good vs Evil" simplicity of the RW.
You cannot bring back Prohibition or make abortion illegal again. It doesn't work. WE must realize that personal morality cannot be criminalized anymore, and our personal freedoms cannot be legislated away. Truth and Nature have a way of rising no matter what.Let's not let their stupidity reconstitute a false and harmful attack on common sense. Women(and Men) must decide constantly the path their lives will take and they will live with the consequences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertha katzenengel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
28. I can't vote in this one because I've been on both sides.
I see it from both sides -- I can't help it.

It's about both controlling sexuality and about stopping "the murder of innocents."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
31. None of the above-- Here is the Big Picture
(altho a few of the posts here are hinting at it: "divide" "control" etc.) (and AngryGirl #15 raises the Fascist aspect of control)

All of the RongWing wedge issues hinge on the same objective:

MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO OF TRADITIONAL GENDER ROLES AND DOMINANT MALE POWER STRUCTURES.

OK?

Women's rights, the Right to Choose, Gay Marriage-- IT'S ALL THE SAME ARGUMENT, FOLKS. Why don't all those groups get together and really kick some Republican, Christofascist hypocrite ass?

I raised this on a gay marriage thread and was told by the OP that gays and blacks were discriminated against in a totally different way than women are. :puke:

As long as these groups remain divided and focused on their own belly buttons, solidarity and success will not occur. A strong, new human rights and social justice movement will encompass all of these.

The difficulty is that some MEN have trouble seeing the forest for the trees. Their vested interest in the status quo (that they may not even be conscious of) prevents them from seeing the Big Picture.

The Powers That Be maintain their power through traditional gender roles and the existing social structure of dominance and control. Anything that challenges that structure is verboten. (Hitler used the Motherhood and Country schtick in his propaganda).

(IMHO this is a huge blind spot in the call for the "human right" to marry the same gender-- and the naivete may succeed or it may not. CA Legislators were thrilled when they passed a bill-- then the Austrian Dope vetoed it).

Thank you AngryGirl for pointing out:

19.Sexism = Item #5 in 14 Characteristics of Fascism
5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LizMoonstar Donating Member (392 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. this line of reasoning always makes me think fondly of Shulamith Firestone
At least as I understood her Dialectics of Sex:
Gender inequity is the root of discrimination, therefore it doesn't just affect women. And most men are not the problem, organizations (of any kind) set up to keep rich old white men in power are the problem. Most men are getting screwed by them too, it's just too subtle for them to see because they can identify/idealize the ones doing the screwing.

My favorite radical feminist, because she reminds me that one can hate the patriarchy and love men without contradiction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Now we're talking
and that's what I meant by "that they may not be aware of" because they are embedded within it, just as we are all embedded within it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ismnotwasm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. There you go
I voted no, because I felt the issue to be far more complex. To simplify, I will say it's about controlling women's bodies. But I know there are many other factors that go into this issue, and you summed it up nicely.
It's why I have my stupid user name.
sexism, is alive and well as well as racism and all kinds of other "isms" So I say "ism" meaning an active behavior not-- "wasm"--kind of a joke--like these issues that have been resolved or are going to go away soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #36
70. Good one, ismnotwasm
Some of the issues isms are treated like wasms-- yet the solidarity of issues into a cohesive movement has been lost-- even forgotten, it seems.................. and we end up with arguments about 'Dems don't stay On Message like the Repugs do" (as a complaint, on DU!!!!!!) instead of recogntion of the common goals, common enemies, common cause.

Also, some OP titles end up (intentionally?) phrasing issues to throw out red herrings or inflame. Not real constructive.

Great name, by the way :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
35. I clicked yes, though it's also about other things: killing women.
Less population to take care of in the eyes of a few sick bastards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
38. If it was about controlling sexuality,they'd go after porn & birth control
too...


Oh, wait.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal In Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
41. I've always thought that is what it is EXACTLY about. They don't want you
to have an abortion, but if they ever need one, they have ways of getting around laws that prohibit it. (Especially back when it was illegal.)

It's not quite the same thing, but Limpballs brags about circumventing the law against things like Cuban cigars and (today) he was saying that since Beluga caviar was going to become illegal, he would still find a way to have it at his parties (because it is just a MUST!) Honest, he says this stuff.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sandpiper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
42. Of course it's about controlling sexuality
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 05:26 PM by Sandpiper
The anti-abortion campaign is part of a larger campaign to controll what consenting adults (especially women and gays) do with their private parts.


The same crowd that wants to criminalize abortion also wants to:

1) Limit access to birth control/contraception

2) Teach "abstinence only" as sex education

3) Codify discrimination against homosexuals into the Constitution


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StatGirl Donating Member (263 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
43. The exceptions for rape and incest prove that it's about control
If they really cared about the life of the fetus, the circumstances of conception would be irrelevant. Even with incest, the chance that the baby will be normal & healthy is very high.

It's about punishing women for having consensual intercourse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nobody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #43
77. They're not really "pro-life"
Because there are two reasons that are good enough for them. However, if ever I am raped, I am not going to release my police report to the general public so that we can have a referendum on whether or not Nobody can get an abortion. I am likewise never going to share my medical records with complete strangers so that they can argue with me over whether there is enough of a threat to my life to justify abortion in their minds.

They don't get to live my life and they don't get a vote on how I live it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VOX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
45. Yes. The Church has always been a sexual regulation society...
And for the most part, it is The Church that is foursquare against abortion. And who runs The Church? Men. According to strict religious doctrine, men are supposedly in charge of the whole mess.

The Church (most organized religion in the West) has always demanded to be in charge of sexual behavior. It spells out whom you can marry (and cannot), and when you can marry or even be remarried. And if something goes astray from these rules, it's usually framed by religion as the woman's fault. It was Eve who talked Adam into eating the apple, it's the female prostitutes who were stoned to death, it's women who must cover their bodies, etc. :grr:

Controlling women's bodies -- whether by laying down laws about abortion or using something as crude as the chastity belt -- has historically been man's way of "controlling" sexuality. Of course, church elders have always had some of the kinkiest sex on the planet. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stubtoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #45
84. Wasn't the sexual regulation policy of the Church ...
basically inherited from pre-Christian tribal paternalism regulating stuff like the inheritance of land and herds? Direct line through the male.

In other words, women became property in order to control their sexuality, in order to insure that there would be no "illegitimate" kids to inherit the family farm. Or herd, or kingdom, etc.

Bring back the Goddess!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
47. No, not mostly.

There are probably some people who oppose abortion because it makes consequence-free sex easier, but most anti-abortionists oppose it because they genuinely believe that life begins at conception and abortion is morally equivalent to murder.

They're not monsters, just mistaken. It would be lovely to believe that the people who disagreed with us were cynically lying about their motives, but in the main I'm afraid that's not true.

Misrepresenting your opponents makes it harder to understand them. Failing to understand them makes it harder to beat them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. If it wasn't about sex & controlling people, they'd be on the FRONT LINES
in terms of promoting safe, effective birth control. Ensuring that health plans covered it, and pharm. companies supported research into it. Real Sex Education and contraceptive availability in schools. ANYTHING that would reduce the incidence of surgical abortion, as birth control effectively used plainly does.

Instead, what do you see? Support for "brave" pharmacists who lecture women and hold their prescriptions hostage. A "Human Life Amendment" that would criminalize the pill. A Judicial agenda that includes not just overturning Roe v. Wade, but Griswold v. Connecticut, as well. And major "Pro-Life" organizations in the USA that are ACTIVELY anti-birth control.

Don't believe me? Get into an argument with a pro-lifer, and count the minutes before you get arguments like "people can CHOOSE not to have sex and keep their legs crossed!"

Not about control, my foot.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
55. No, its about the clash of cultures
The abortion debate and other issues are at the heart of an issue that is tearing our society in two.
This is largely reprinted from another thread but it is relevant to this situation.

We have a problem in this society. Post Modernism demands that we allow all cultures and beliefs to have an equal say in the process. This is the only way you can have a diverse society function. Shut someone down and they will reject the system and if their group is large enough they will bring it to its knees.

Thus we have all gone along in this society arm in arm. Admittedly we have had problems. We have had to learn that some voices were being unjustly silenced. So we expanded our understanding of rights. And we continued to progress.

But science and understanding progressed too. As it did so it began to knock the pillars out from under some beliefs. Those that could not weather such an assault died out. Their followers absorbed by the society. They joined other groups or became individual voices in the society.

But some belief systems were able to keep their hold on its adherants despite the pressures from society. And they learned how to use the tools of Post Modern society to drive a wedge into it. They try to posit that their beliefs and ways are threatened by the advances society has made and the teachings of science.

But because we cannot in good conscious unlearn the things we have we cannot allow them to drag us back into the dark ages. So they abandon the social contract and begin going after control of the society. Something has to give. Post Moderernism does not work in a progressive society for the simple fact that Post Modernism allows for individuals to not accept the things learned as a Post Modern society. It contains its own seeds of destruction.

So here we are. In a society that does not allow us to jetison any idea or culture being threatened by an idea that wants to jetison another idea. We have no way to directly confront this within our current social model.

The reason they are rejecting the social model is that their way of life is threatened.

Thus we have a situation in the abortion issue where society is forced to take a side. It cannot simultaneously support both views. The antichoice crowd insists their their morality take precidence. The choice crowd refuses to go back a step. Its all part of the clash set forward hundreds of years ago when humanity decided to speak up for itself and cast aside the reigns of dogmatic moral authority in the guise of the Church.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phylny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
69. The people I know who are anti-choice are the ones who believe
that life begins the moment the egg joins the sperm, and that there is no justifiable reason for an abortion, even to save the life of the mother. Even if the mother has other children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikefromwichita Donating Member (45 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
71. motivations
Some RTL people operste from very base motives others display a great deal of compassion self sacrifice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #71
72. Hi mikefromwichita!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nobody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
73. If it truly was about the fetus
There would be more attention given to making sure contraception is widely available, cheap, easy, and effective.

There would be emphasis on early childhood education, and making sure all people have access to affordable health care.

There would be insistence on making sure everyone had accurate information about reproduction.

There would be no lying to the public about the causes of breast cancer.

Instead the antis do the opposite. They lie to us, browbeat the education system into not teaching the facts of reproduction, they block access to contraception, and then after a pregnancy comes to term that would have and could have been prevented, they turn their backs and refuse all help to the struggling parent.

As an aside, I'd like to point out that the women who yammer on about how women should be subservient to men should be the first to embrace that lifestyle. Who are they kidding? When their world comes to be, they will not get to keep their jobs as talk show hosts and right wing shills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nobody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #73
76. I'd also like to add ....
That the antis like to lump women into one group that always wants the same thing. Or does the same thing. Like women are not individuals.

They assume that every woman is pregnant and wants to abort. Therefore the antis have to force them to go through with the pregnancies so that the human race will continue. 6 billion and counting. No danger of that any time soon.

They assume that every woman would jump in bed with every man if they didn't have pregnancy to act as a deterrent. Notice how often they blame rapes on the rape victims.

They assume that every woman wants to or should become mothers. Notice that this contradicts the first assumption. These are the same people who claim that all women must love children to the point of obsession. The woman who gets a baby shoved in her face and gets annoyed is not a "real" woman. They're the same kind of people who claim that women wanting equal pay for equal work or the right to vote or the right to have a credit card in her own name are not "real" women either. They're similar in that I ask the same question: If it's unnatural to do otherwise, why do you have to force me into it?

News flash that DUers got long ago: women are individuals and we are people and we are deserving of basic human dignity. Every woman intimidated out of seeing a doctor has had this basic dignity stolen from her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #76
78. bottom line = sexual control is abusive
Edited on Sat Oct-01-05 09:36 AM by marions ghost
Controlling women's sexuality may have economic and political implications, but it is also a socially sanctioned abuse of women, pure and simple.

Nobody, you put it very well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
74. Orwell's "1984" on sexuality:

"She began to enlarge upon the subject. With Julia, everything came back to her own sexuality. As soon as this was touched upon in any way she was capable of great acuteness. Unlike Wintson, she had grasped the inner meaning of the Party's sexual puritanism. It was not merely that the sex instinct created a world of its own which was outside the Party's control and which therefore had to be destroyed if possible. What was more important was that sexual privation induced hysteria, which was undesirable because it could be transformed into war fever and leader worship. The way she put it was: "When you make love you're using up energy; and aftewards you feel happy and don't give a shit for anything. They can't bear you to feel like that. They want you to be bursting with energy all the time. All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour. If you're happy inside yourself, why should you get excited about Big Brother and the Three-Year Plans and the Two Minute Hates and all the rest of their bloody rot?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
79. the ''powerful'' have always been about controlling sexuality.
it can get convoluted -- i.e. removing the feminine from religion , etc.

but by controlling sexuality one controls womens bodies and their brains.

sexuality control is about telling others what to think down to the smallest detail.

then you have to refer to freud and think about the repression impulse -- i.e. repression can be a good thing, but it can also be a very bad thing.
the use of repression in this instance goes to creating a thought control format as well as inducing guilt, self loathing, and a whole host of other pathologies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
80. You need a third choice - yes and no
For some it obviously is all about punishing people for having sex. For others though, it really is an honest visceral reaction against killing a child and bewilderment at a society that would bring a woman to that point. For me, I can't understand abortion BUT I can't see a way to legalize against it that doesn't cause more harm than good. This is something that needs to be addressed person by person, not with the force of law. By the way, while everyone's been fighting over a woman's right to choose, where are all the day care centers, child support payments, alternate high schools, aid for the disabled, respite care centers, group homes etc. etc etc etc that might make it possible for a woman to choose? It's not a choice if it's the only way out of an impossible situation!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
supernova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
82. It's about controlling women through controlling their sexuality
All that stuff about sex only within marriage, sex only for married heteros, sex only for procration. Women keeping thir verginity till marriage.

This is all about controlling women so men don't have to control themselves.

To those men and the looney women who support those lame-brained ideas, I say FUCK YOU!!! :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dastard Stepchild Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
86. It's about religious morality....
an insitutional philosophy that identifies as one of its roots the desire to control sexuality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Oct 20th 2014, 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC