Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How do you negate this talking point I've been hearing since last night?

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:50 AM
Original message
How do you negate this talking point I've been hearing since last night?
That if you support Roe v. Wade or the right to choice, then you are being political or demanding a political response for a nominee when asking. By this rationale, those who would differ from this are somehow neutral or apolitical. They are trying to set the position of anti-choice as the norm in these types of statements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
johnlal Donating Member (974 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. Court precedent
Justices of the Supreme Court are supposed to have respect for court precedent. Roe v. Wade is not a political argument. It is settled law handed down by the highest court of the land. If a nominee already has disrespect for court precedent, it could signal a deeper problem- a lack of respect for civil rights decisions on a number of issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Not Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. "...lack of respect for established law" = activist judge
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
2. Ask them, "If your daughter was raped by an escaped prisoner..."
"...who was of a different race, and ended up pregnant with a malformed, brain-dead fetus, should she be able to get an abortion?"

If they answer "yes" they are pro-choice (and probably racist).

If they answer "no" they aren't worth debating. They are in a total Kool Aid situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickinSTL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. If they answer "yes" they are pro-choice (and probably racist).
uh, that's an unfair characterization.

My answer would be yes...but not because of the race of the child, but the RAPE aspect (oh, and the malformed, brain-dead thing)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #3
12. I put the "different race" in there to further make their heads explode...
...not to try to tie anyone who would choose abortion in that circumstance to racism. My question was designed to be posed to a diehard RWer, many of whom I have found to be mild to virulent racists.

Sorry for the confusion. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shugh514 Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:06 AM
Response to Original message
4. Roe v. Wade should be defended
as a Right to Privacy. Right to Privacy includes the right to make health/medical decisions without government interference. If Roberts does not agree, he should not be confirmed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrFunkenstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
5. Law of the Land, Law of the Land - Most Don't Want RVW Overturned
Polls show most people don't want to change it, even if they oppose abortion. Only an activist judge would overturn it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brainshrub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
7. Roe v Wade is a human rights issue, not a political issue.
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 08:45 AM by brainshrub
Protecting Roe v Wade is not a political issue, it's a human rights issue. Attempting to overturn RvW is like fighting against Brown v Board of Education.

Look at RvW from a historical context: For millennia, women were treated like chattel with no control of their bodies. In the United States, Women did not have the right to sue, contract, keep their earnings, or keep the financial property accruing from any real property (such as rent, profits, or sale price) until 1860. It wasn't until 1920, with the passage of the 19th Amendment, that women were able to vote. As late as 1971 employers were allowed to refuse to hire women with pre-school children.

Women, and their bodies, belonged to their fathers, husbands or the state.

Thanks to the hard work of Liberals, today we take for granted that women are equals. RvW cemented women's rights and set up a legal bulwark against the government, or anyone else, from passing laws that treat women like property. Every anti-harassment law, every domestic violence law and a large chunk of civil-rights law has it's roots in RvW.

No wonder white conservative males hate it so much!

If you care about human dignity, if you believe that all people are created equal and if you think your daughter shouldn't be beaten by her husband, your duty as an American citizen is to support RvW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
8. Haven't heard this identified as a "talking point"
But I wouldn't be surprised - Religious Reich figures have been saying that RWW supporters "play politics with the lives of little pre-born baby boys and girls" for years now. Sheesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
9. It's the same argument they used against the GLBTers
who forced the Gay Marriage thing before the last election.

I am definitely and emphatically against women losing the Right to Choose. It is mysogynistic, regressive, insulting, and goddammit, people like me fought for years for it. Try walking a mile in the other guy's shoes. Then, if you think we are being obstructive or selfish, at least it comes from an informed place, and is not just a "talking point".

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mntleo2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
10. What Is Wrong about Being Political?
They are being political, why is it that they can be political and the opposing side cannot? Isn't this about politics? I mean it is a political figure appointing a judge and that political figure is being, well, political with his choice, this is a given. He had to consider who on his side would vote for this guy and guess what? THEY ARE POLITICAL FIGURES TOO!! What do you mean am I being political? Of course I am being political.

God these people make me mad. I am sick, SICK of being on the run because of these sorts of accusations. I always try to turn it back on them: "What is wrong with having an agenda? Yeah sure I have an agenda, it is left and it is what I believe in. So what? At least I am being up front about mine, what about you???" "Fair And Balanced" is pretending you don't have an agenda. Look. Every freaking body has an agenda. HELLO????

This would be what I would say, my take.

Cat In Seattle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
11. I think you can ask all the other questions and assume how he would
vote on Roe vs Wade given what he has said. They can phrase his quote about Roe vs Wade without putting a question mark on it - for the official record. Given what he has said, it would be redundant to have half of the Committee keep asking about it for the record. They can hammer him off the record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
13. You mean politicians in the Senate- are GASP- political????
No one will ever accept that! I guess we better stop talking about issues so we dont look "political."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
14. The distinction between law and politics is a phony one. And I have two
words for anyone who disagrees: Terri Schiavo.
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 Fri Apr 25th 2014, 02:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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