Women's rights are human rights.

[Skidmore]

kay, hear me out, and let us start from that statement. I was out for the past hour or so running errands. I met a dear friend who is a very active Dem and is also pro-life. For the first time ever we actually talked about reproductive choice. I guess we have always given each other their belief but never shared them with each other out of respect. I wish we had this conversation much earlier. Don't knee jerk jump my case on either side. We talked about a lot of things, like consistency in pro-life stances--death penalty issues, investing in the born child, hunger, end of life decisions.

Now this lady is a young mother and very active in her church. She does not want the government in her church or her church involved in her government. Detests the Robertson/Falwell types. Her sticking point with the Dems is abortion, which she doesn't necessarily feel the need to outlaw, just doesn't want to be the defining issue of the party. Okay, that said, I asked her to explain--I wanted to learn from her. That's when the gates opened. She's worried about women losing rights, too--all kinds of them. These are the same worries I have as well. If abortion is legal and safe, that is desirable. Remove the church from the state and it becomes a decision of conscious for women--between them, their partner (if any), their doctor, and whatever deity they worship. Her take was that the RW will never take RvW away.

Women's rights are human rights is where we ended up. The right to safety, the right to happiness, the right to justice, the right to speak, the right to be educated and to work, the right to have a choice, the right to vote and participate in society. Now I know that this is not a fully thought out reconciliation of the two camps, but it is a starting place for a discussion. I do agree with my friend that many of the other issues get drowned out and she could see my point about how reproductive choice is integrally a part of being an independent person. Now, I don't believe that there is no point at which we can't arrive at some agreement as a party. She is not asking the party to write off RvW, she's asking that we also attend to other hard won and equally important womens rights.

Now before people think I've gone to the dark side, I would like you to think past this one issue and let's factor in the other aspects of personhood for men and women, and what equality means.

Someone loan me an asbestos suit, if it gets too bad.

Over and out.

[acmejack]

1. Nothing there to argue with.

Keep cool, skids.

[Lars39]

2. Can you break up the paragraph for my bloodshot eyes?

:hi:

[Skidmore]

3. Is that better?

[Lars39]

4. Yes! Thank you.

[leftstreet]

5. Why are you afraid of getting flamed?

:shrug:

I must be missing something.

[MrPrax]

6. What's stronger though...

I have always thought that dumping the 'womens' rights schtick was probably more advantageous in the 'choice' debate--a much more expansive inclusive argument should be put forward, regarding privacy and self-automony which is assumed under 'human rights' frameworks and cherished, even by religious types who assume that people will continue to be polite to them.

The strongest arg. is public interference in private decisions and smearing sympathizers with extremists in the that movement.

[entanglement]

10. So you want to take women out of women's rights, do you?

}(

[MrPrax]

14. Yup...

'basic rights' assumes all these rights, when you start to qualify them...they become so watered down that a) nobody sees it in their ultimate interests to defend them, and b) the exceptions made will only create contradictions...

I know you think you are being clever...but 'rights' don't need an adjective in front of them, like 'religious rights'...my point (again) was that you have to make political battle inclusive...if not, all is lost.

[Katherine Brengle]

15. Choice does not envelope abortion alone

I wrote an article last week about this issue. In it, I said that "choice" is about respecting a woman's ability to make her own health decisions. Then I said that being pro-choice doesn't mean that you are personally in favor of the prodecure of abortion anymore than it means you are personally in favor of the procedure of breast augmentation.

My sister was proofreading the piece for me, and we got into a discussion after she read that sentence. She commented that our stance on "choice" has been defined far too narrowly. ALL Americans should have complete control over their health decisions. She also made the very good point that if we could widen the argument to include ALL Americans and ALL health decisions, we also pave the way for the right to die and open pathways for the transgendered community.

I think there is some serious merit to reworking our delivery on choice.

[MrPrax]

16. So you are agreeing?

The 'choice' position was originally sought because it is compatible with basic civil rights and appeals to anyone worried about 'moral' interjection into their personal freedom.

Why bother to let the camel's nose in the tent...you don't like abortions, don't have one.

Like you said, a man or woman might have a 'problem' with 'abortion', but the maximalist position is obviously the one to take as it accommodates all the other rights as well.

I know that religious folks wouldn't want someone like myself running their lives ;-) So it is in THEIR best interests to play nice as see that the 'choice' position is really the ONLY position compatible with the rights framework that protects them as well.

BUT in all fairness, at the point, their 'free speech' is used to limit or abolish the gains we've all made for women, minorities, the disable, gays/lesbians, workers, all good people...then then that is the point where their churches are burned...

I ain't going back, I signed up for a free society, not a theocracy.

(maybe women and men should just say that and then 'kick' a shell into the chamber)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

7. I worry about women's rights in general more than abortion

as well.

Because of fundamentalism. And not just the RW, but the half the world where women are still the property of men, and the fact that this appears to be spreading.

We think we have a culture clash here in the US over abortion and women in the service, etc. But I think even the most fundie RWer will still agree with women having equal pay, equal justice, divorce rights, right against rape, no honor killings, the vote. We call them the Christian Taliban but I don't anticipate stoning and soccer field beheadings in this culture.

One of these days the two religious worlds are going to collide. I don't know how or when. To me, there is a real sense of cognitive dissonance that we fight over here for these rights while there are still women living in bags. I am not saying I have any solution and I am not even criticizing. I'm just saying I believe "we ain't seen nothing yet" when it comes to women's issues.

[Lars39]

8. If they can keep you perpetually pregnant, the rest is gone.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

9. You've said a mouthful

and said it well.

Let's carry it over.

Womens' rights are gay rights are workers rights are racial rights are HUMAN RIGHTS.

As long as we persist in defining which "rights" we're willing to work for, we're screwed.

It is all, simply, human rights.

And the other side knows this, and fears it mightily.

For when we realize that all those rights fall under the broad umbrella of human rights, then the Wrong Wing's sun begins to quickly set.

Which rights are violated when we, you and me, us, the United States burns alive a pregnant mother in Fallujah? Was it her "right to choose?" Sorry. She didn't have it, unless, perhaps it was a choice between white phospohorus and napalm.

What if that woman in Fallujah was a pregnant, lesbian, arabic day-laborer? Does it matter? What was violated was her right to go on being a human instead of being "raptured" by the United States.

You're right, Skidmore. Only when we begin talking about human rights will we begin to march out of our respective ghettos!

:applause:

[Skidmore]

11. How can we convince the party to broaden its focus and

frame this debate? Let the Rs focus on narrowly defining rights. Let us take it to a broader constituency--all humans. It is an argument that is at once parochial and global.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

12. To be honest,

I don't know if we can.

A start might be to gather our various "rights" groups together, well in advance of the '08 cycle and the platform committee meetings, and try to get a common statement of solidarity. Such an effort is, admittedly, a long shot. It will be like pushing a wheelbarrow full of frogs.

We also need a sane discussion of the practical effects of overturning Roe. While I believe the Repigs, collectively, dread the idea, they're being dragged to it by their vocal minority. I believe we will see Roe overturned. Ultimately, we need to be ready for an assault on Griswold v. Connecticut, as well, for that case is the genesis of the Right to Privacy.

We need to be ready when that happens. We need to build and fund and have in place on that day an "underground railroad" that will provide for the needs of poor women in "slave" states by transporting them to "free" states for reproductive health.

We need to craft and push a "Right of Privacy" amendment to the Constitution.

But, just as I noted with my example in the previous post, I believe we can get this effort started with a strong, principled, multi-faceted stand against the war. There is not a single "rights" oriented group whose basic tenets are not under assault as a direct and proximate result of the war, be it the "War on Terra" or the "War on Iraq" or the coming "War on Iran."

There is no greater threat to all our rights than this lust for war. And there is no greater opportunity to break out of the ghetto.

[Lars39]

13. .