If you're opposed to abortion, don't have one.

[11 Bravo]

If you're opposed to gay marriage, don't enter into one.
If you're opposed to pornography, don't watch it.
If you're opposed to flag burning, don't burn one.

But stay the fuck out of my life.

It's comical, Repukes who spend their waking hours bemoaning alleged claims that Dems want to institute a "Nanny state" wish to control the most personal and private aspects of our behavior.

P.S. If you support the war in Iraq, then take your chickenhawk ass to the nearest recruiting office and help fight it!

[shadowknows69]

1. Bingo

That is pretty simple isn't it? Bravo 11 for President!!!

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. That's the bumper sticker I have on my car along with

Florynce Kennedy - “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”

Ditto your sentiments! Stay the fuck out of my life. It's none of your damn business what I do with my body.

[Yupster]

100. "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be sacrament."

What kind of sexist twaddle is that?

Yeah that's a really funny one. Make fun of those men.

Any good racist bumper stickers you'd like to share with us too? Or is it just men you like to insult.

[truebrit71]

101. Oh puhleez....gimme a break...

...Grow up! Sexist?.... :puke:

Men rule the world, ergo we make the rules, ergo we tell women what to do with their bodies whilst doing whatever the hell we want with ours...So, if MEN got pregnant, we would be able to have as many abortions on demand as we wanted and you women would get to stfu about it...

Nothing sexist about it...

[cyborg_jim]

188. Men tell OTHER men what to do too you know

[11 Bravo]

105. I'm a man and I agree with every word of in_cog_ni_to's post.

I'll take it a step further. If men could get pregnant, not only would abortion be a sacrament, but there would be "Biggest Clot" contests on ESPN.

[kath]

114. Great article -- "If Men Could Menstruate", by Gloria Steinem. An oldie but goodie.

http://www.mum.org/ifmencou.htm
{excerpt}
In short, the characteristics of the powerful, whatever they may be, are thought to be better than the characteristics of the powerless - and logic has nothing to do with it.
What would happen, for instance, if suddenly, magically, men could menstruate and women could not?
The answer is clear - menstruation would become an enviable, boast-worthy, masculine event:
Men would brag about how long and how much.
Boys would mark the onset of menses, that longed-for proof of manhood, with religious ritual and stag parties.
Congress would fund a National Institute of Dysmenorrhea to help stamp out monthly discomforts.
Sanitary supplies would be federally funded and free. (Of course, some men would still pay for the prestige of commercial brands such as John Wayne Tampons, Muhammad Ali's Rope-a-dope Pads, Joe Namath Jock Shields - "For Those Light Bachelor Days," and Robert "Baretta" Blake Maxi-Pads.)
Military men, right-wing politicians, and religious fundamentalists would cite menstruation ("men-struation") as proof that only men could serve in the Army ("you have to give blood to take blood"), occupy political office ("can women be aggressive without that steadfast cycle governed by the planet Mars?"), be priest and ministers ("how could a woman give her blood for our sins?") or rabbis ("without the monthly loss of impurities, women remain unclean").
Male radicals, left-wing politicians, mystics, however, would insist that women are equal, just different, and that any woman could enter their ranks if she were willing to self-inflict a major wound every month ("you MUST give blood for the revolution"), recognize the preeminence of menstrual issues, or subordinate her selfness to all men in their Cycle of Enlightenment. Street guys would brag ("I'm a three pad man") or answer praise from a buddy ("Man, you lookin' good!") by giving fives and saying, "Yeah, man, I'm on the rag!" TV shows would treat the subject at length. ("Happy Days": Richie and Potsie try to convince Fonzie that he is still "The Fonz," though he has missed two periods in a row.) So would newspapers. (SHARK SCARE THREATENS MENSTRUATING MEN. JUDGE CITES MONTHLY STRESS IN PARDONING RAPIST.) And movies. (Newman and Redford in "Blood Brothers"!)

{more}

[defendandprotect]

195. Do men feel cheated by nature . . . ????

Hisotrically there was a time when men were cutting off their penises looking for the hole which would enable them to deliver a child --- !!! So they say . . ..

[WillyT]

132. Damn... When Was The Last Time You Got Pregnant ???

We could make a mint here !!!

:bounce:

[Justpat]

158. How old are you?

That was a popular saying from the 70'd during the abortion debate of the time.

The truth of it still rings true for me today.

[Yupster]

162. I'm past middle age

and you're right.

There were a lot of sexist and racist sayings commonly used back 30-40 years ago.

Luckily most people are more careful about blanket insults to sexes or racial groups today.

Seems like men are the exception though, and it's still okay to insult them at will.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

167. Really.

[MonkeyFunk]

168. oh good lord

the trolls don't even try anymore.

Back in the day, they at least put some effort into it.

[Justpat]

175. LOL.

You got that right.

[Rex]

3. Sounds about right.

[DangerDave921]

4. OK - devil's advocate

And if you're opposed to SUV's, don't drive one.
If you're opposed to guns, don't own one.
If you're opposed to global warming, use less energy.
If you're opposed to discrimination, then don't discriminate.

But don't tell me what I need to do.

My point is that we cannot make a unified world out of each one of us simply doing whatever the heck we want as individuals. Let's say I don't want to sell my home to a minority. Should that be allowed under your theory of "stay the fuck out of my life." Of course not! There are some things that I'm sure you think everyone should do. So it's not always a matter of simply doing what you yourself want. The RW'ers can use your same logic against you.

[11 Bravo]

5. Please note that my examples consist solely of private behavior ...

actions which affect no one other than those directly involved. Your's, without exception, describe behaviors which affect others. But thanks for playing "Let's Parrot RW asshat Talking Points."

[Stinky The Clown]

7. There's a home version of that game. You're not giving them out?

Cheapass!

[hfojvt]

44. pornography is private behaviour? A lot of our feminist allies don't think so.

Is abortion any more private than infanticide? Only people involved are the children and parents. Heck, you don't even need a clinic or a trained doctor, just a hammer.

If you don't believe in crushing baby's skulls with hammers, then don't do it.

What are you playing? "Let's repeat a tired old invalid leftwing argument."

[Warren DeMontague]

62. No, a small vocal minority thinks that consenting adults shouldn't be able to look at pictures of

other consenting adults fucking. A VERY SMALL minority, around here. I can dig up the polls, if you need me to.

Just like a very small minority here thinks buys anti-choice dogma that a fertilized egg=a "baby" the second after conception, and that the "rights" of that microscopic cell supercede the rights of the woman in whom it resides.

[Freddie Stubbs]

99. Many will argue that abortion does affect another person

[ihavenobias]

112. Abortion DOES effect the other person!

The best argument to me is less about choice and more about how horrible our foster care system is and how there aren't long lines of people waiting to adopt *minority* children.

In other words, giving the baby up is not a *viable* option for many women who find themselves financially and emotionally unprepared (and often alone) to care for a baby.

The sad truth is, we have far too many kids who grow up in poverty and general squalor. How often do these kids (either in foster care or in poor areas) grow up with molestation, physical and verbal abuse, drugs, gangs and general violence, etc.? How many can help themselves get out of a situation with no/few good role models and so few opportunities (or a lack of knowledge on how to take advantage of the few available opportunities)?

It seems that many people who claim to be pro-life also fight tooth and nail against so called "entitlement programs" (and against comprehensive sex education). They resent that their hard earned money is spent on food, shelter and health care (S-chip, Medicare, etc) for people they consider to be "lazy deadbeats" who could magically bounce themselves out of poverty IF they really wanted to.

Yet these same pro-lifers (again, some, not all) seem fine with spending their hard earned money on food, shelter and health care for for the millions in jail (not to mention the money spent on an arrest, public defender, judge, jury and so on).

www.theyoungturks.com
Does this make any sense? Why wouldn't you rather have your money go toward things like head start, after school programs, job/parenting classes, general life skills classes (budgeting, etc.), comprehensive sex education and so on?

It's clear to me that the best anti-abortion program is one that changes the socioeconomic conditions that often create unintended pregnancy, as well as crime.

[Warren DeMontague]

119. Right. The problem is, that logic is based upon an axiomatic opinion.

The opinion says that this:



is the exact same thing -and should be treated by law as the exact same thing- as this:



Now, some people undeniably believe that this:



is a "baby", and deserves rights under the 14th amendment, and that the rights of this "baby":



supercede any and all rights the woman in whom this micron-sized, single-celled "baby" has taken up residence might claim to have.

However, most people agree that there is a continuum of life, existence, and consciousness on the spectrum from this:



to this:



And despite right-wing blather that claims that women are running around pregnant for 8 months and then aborting because they "look fat", the vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester. Reality since Roe v. Wade recognizes the fact that a fertilized egg is NOT THE same thing as a "baby". If people believe they are the same thing, they are entitled to that opinion and as such, as the op says- if you don't like abortion, don't have one. What they cannot do is impose their opinion that a fertilized egg IS a "baby" on everyone else, particularly people who may not share that opinion.

Likewise, I can say that I believe my sperms are little tiny people, but that is a far different thing than writing the law to prosecute every man who ejaculates as a mass murderer.

[Yupster]

103. I'm with you except for abortion

Your abortion line is an example of how two sides make no attempt to understand or deal with each other, but just talk past each other.

On abortion there are tens of millions of good people who say that abortion is entirely the choice of the woman because the fetus is in her body. There are also tens of millions of good people who say that abortion kills a living human being who is at his/her most vulnerable.

There is also probably the largest group of good people who see validity in both points of view which is why it is such a difficult issue for so many.

Your point of saying "My point of view is right and if you don't agree, then screw you," in my opinion is harmful to the argument and counterproductive.

It's an example of talking past people rather than to them. Very harmful for a bumper sticker in my opinion. It shows you either dismiss other people's views as invalid, or you are ignorant that there are other valid views out there.

[Warren DeMontague]

129. But the point is, yes, other people can have those views- for themselves.

That's the whole point.

The hard-core dogmatists are the people who say that at the second of conception a sperm and unfertilized egg magically, immediately, transmogrify into a "baby". Right-wing noise to the contrary, women aren't running around pregnant for 8 months and then aborting on a whim. The vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester. Most People believe there is a continuum of existence from fertilized egg at conception on one end, to baby at birth on the other. The situation post Roe v. Wade reflects this viewpoint.

If people who believe that a fertilized egg at the second of conception is a "baby" want to act on that belief for themselves and their own bodies, that's fine. What pro-choice people object to is the attempt to write that opinion into law, so that every woman who uses the birth control pill (most major "pro-life" organizations in this country consider oral contraceptives to be potential abortifacents and as such morally indistinguishable from abortion) is a "murderer". I suspect you might object if people who held the "opinion" that each of your sperm was a tiny person with equal rights to you wanted to make that the law of the land, so with each ejaculation you were committing murder billions of times over.

Are there valid, reasonable views out there? Yes, and they are pretty much exemplified by the way things have stood in this country since Roe v. Wade. Abortions take place for the most part in the first trimester. There aren't any pro choice people who argue that a fetus at 9 months is the same thing as a fertilized egg; obviously, there's a difference. But anti-choice dogma rests COMPLETELY on the axiomatic assumption that a fertilized egg IS a "baby". The extremists aren't the people who say "leave things the way they are, leave the choice up to individual women"- the extremists are the people who want to throw birth control pill users in prison and give rights to single cells.

[Yupster]

134. Is the OP position saying leave things the way they are?

I misunderstand it then.

To me the slogan "If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one," is a much more hardline position than that.

It doesn't say first trimester abortion, or abortion legal under Roe v Wade. My reading of it is abortion should be a woman's choice, regardless of the timing and cuircumstances, and if you don't like it then shut the **** up.

Maybe I'm understanding it wrong, but it seems like a very inflexible and dismissive viewpoint to me. Just as hardline as any right-winger.

[Warren DeMontague]

139. I think the idea - the assumption - that women are going to run around pregnant for 8 months and

abort at the last minute for the hell of it, that somehow that's something women want to do... is incredibly ridiculous.

The political debate in this country around abortion is about Roe v. Wade. I mean, maybe I'm understanding it wrong, but when I hear a phrase like "don't like abortion?" I assume that it is directed to the people who are trying to make abortion (and the birth control pill) as it stands today, illegal.

Have you seen any pro-choice rallies where women have demanded the right to abort at 9 months? I sure haven't. But I sure as shit have seen anti-choicers who want women put in jail for having miscarriages they can't properly explain, I've seen anti-choicers who want to criminalize all contraception (and all non-procreative fucking, eventually) and I've read the HLA plank of the GOP platform, which would outlaw the Birth Control Pill if the rhetoric of the anti-choice groups who wrote it is taken seriously.

[Yupster]

146. I don't think we disagree a whole lot

I don't think either one of us would ascribe to a radical position on the issue.

The difference seems to be that I see a bumper sticker such as "Don't like abortion, Don't have one," as pushing a radical position saying abortion is no one's business but the woman involved. That means no restrictions on the practice at all such as time, method, age, etc. It's just no one's business.

I've seen that position posted on DU dozens if not hundreds of times.

I see your position as saying that the radical positions come only from the anti-abortion side, and there is no radical position on the legal abortion side because no woman would support an absolute free right to an abortion with no restrictions at all.

I would argue there is that position and it is argued right here on DU often. I should add that I have tried not to participate in abortion debates as much as possible the last few years as I usually just get insulted for being a man.

On edit -- take a look at post # 2 -- "Stay the fuck out of my life. It's none of your damn business what I do with my body."

To me, that is a radical - and not a helpful position to take. There are radicals on both sides for sure.

[Yupster]

147. duplicate post n/t

n

[EOTE]

153. Bravo!

You put into words very succinctly how I feel about some of the responses to this thread. I am staunchly pro-choice, but I do take issue with how many on the pro-choice side 'talk past', as you say, the other side, just as they do to us. Doubtlessly, there are many good people on both sides of this issue.

My father, who is very pro-choice as well, even disagrees with using the term 'pro-choice' to describe those who agree that abortion should remain safe and legal. Instead, he suggested, much to my surprise, that pro-abortion would be a more accurate moniker. I was almost offended that he'd suggest such a thing, but I was very interested in hearing his reasoning. "No one is 'pro-abortion'" I said to him, "every pro-choice person I've ever met wants abortion to be as rare as possible, they simply want it to remain available and legal for the good of women." He agreed with what I said, but still insisted that pro-choice was somewhat of a disengenuous term. He used the example of people who claimed that slavery or even segregation was a state's rights issue. He said that it would have been just as disengenuous for those people to say that they were "pro-state's rights" or "pro-choice" rather than saying that they were "pro-segregation" or "pro-slavery". I understand what he's suggesting, but I'm still not certain I agree with him. Regardless, it certainly gave me something to think about. However, one thing I really think I learned from my conversation with him is that it's perfectly possible to remain very dedicated to keeping abortion safe and legal, yet still see fault with how our side frames the debate and even show empathy for those on the other side of it. I think as a party, we might be better off letting the anti-abortion side know that we don't disagree 100% with them, and that we want the same things for the most part (for abortions to be as rare as possible while still accounting for the health and rights of women).

[IronLionZion]

111. 11bravo, if this was simple don't you think it would have been resolved long ago?

The fact is that people do seem to think it affects someone other than yourself. and some people think they ought to protect you from yourself...

Just because RWers say it, doesn't mean it's invalid.

I'm with you by the way. Freedom :patriot:

[beevul]

128. What?

"Your's, without exception, describe behaviors which affect others."


Maybe you can explain how someone owning a gun is a behavior that affects others?

Not firing a gun. Not having the gun stolen. And not "could affect".

Im all ears.

[northzax]

131. Ah, but if you believe

That a fetus is a life, then don't you have an obligation to protect that life, just as you have an obligation to protect the life of an infant, even if it's not your infant?

[smalll]

10. Here's another point for the devil's legal team -

the pro-lifers believe that the fetus is a life (hence their name.) So they would say that your line is equivalent to, "If you're opposed to murder, don't kill people."

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Nice try. Your freedom ends where mine begins.

But if you can come up with a cogent argument FOR legislating people's personal reproductive choices, telling consenting adults they can't look at pictures of other consenting adults fucking in the privacy of their own homes, spending $40 Billion a year to keep a relatively harmless plant illegal, etc. etc. do tell.

Beyond that, none of your arguments are relevant. Guns and SUVs aren't illegal. No one is being forced by Al Gore to use less energy, although it's a good idea (as is proactively trying to solve our energy needs with renewable, non-petroleum answers). Discrimination by definition involves someone else.

But it's always fun to watch the get-involved-in-other-people's-personal shit control ninnies juggle red herring arguments to back up their position, because apparently simply coming out and saying "I feel ENTITLED to run your life for you" isn't an option.

[Vektor]

91. Interestingly...

...all the points in the OP resonated with me, but yours did as well.

Especially the first two. And the third to a degree. It gets a little dicier when you start implying that all citizens should not be expected to not discriminate.

But still, I don't think your post is really the antithesis of the OP. For the most part, the personal freedoms advocacy lesson still resonates in your post much the same as it did in hers. I don't really see "Devil's Advocacy" there at all.

I think for the most part we should "be able to do what we want" provided it is not illegal. Discrimination IS illegal, at least when it comes to housing, employment, etc. People may wish to personally discriminate in their own minds, but as soon as you openly do it to an employee, co-worker, etc, the law gets involved. So that one is at least somewhat off the table as far as a "personal freedom." There are laws against it, so it's more than just a "personal choice." We cannot debate the merit of changing the laws to prohibit discrimination - they are already in place. Guns, abortion, SUV's etc...we still have a right to those things for the most part. Abortion rights are in danger however, but I digress.

As for the other issues - yours and the OP'S - It's up to all of us to make the moral choices we feel best suit us - and live with those choices and the possible backlash from others who disagree with those choices. The alternative is having the govt. start "relieving" us of our rights one by one. And to be fair, I don't advocate gun grabbing any more than I advocate the "womb grabbing" that the anti-choicers so heartily support.

[Mme. Defarge]

116. If you're opposed to torture ...

don't torture anyone!

[Warren DeMontague]

160. I'm opposed to the sort of tortured logic that can't tell the difference between making decisions

that affect one's OWN personal space, life, and body-- and doing something to other people against their will.

:shrug:

[Mme. Defarge]

169. With respect,

since I believe that it is self-evident that life begins at conception, from my point of view this is not an inconsistency.

[Warren DeMontague]

172. Self-evident to whom? You, maybe. What if it is "self-evident" to me that your unfertilized eggs are

"people" with "rights"? Does that mean I can pass a law saying you're a murderer every time you menstruate as opposed to getting pregnant?

What if it is "self-evident" to me that sperms are little "people" with rights, too? Can I prosecute every man who ejaculates for upwards of several billion "murders" per event?

Sperms and unfertilzed eggs are "alive", just as surely as a fertilized egg is. The second before conception the exact same genetic material is present, the exact same potential for life is present. All that hasn't happened is the two gametes merging.

But- okay, so you say life begins at conception. That is, as you put it, "self-evident". Now, I happen to think that is a purely religious opinion to draw the line there, one which you're certainly entitled to for yourself- but it is a whole nother ball of wax to enforce your opinion by law on other people.

Essentially- this is important- you are arguing that this:



is the same thing as this:



and should be treated BY LAW as the same thing. With rights under the 14th amendment given to single cells. Correct? I mean, this is the position which flows from the "it is self-evident that life begins at conception, period" axiom.

So let me ask you this, respectfully... because your personal belief apparently lends itself to opposition to abortion being illegal for other people..

What about IVF clinics? IVF clinics produce more fertilized eggs (or, if you will, "lives", "people" or "babies") than can be used by their clients. Those fertilized eggs are routinely destroyed. Should this be illegal? Are IVF clinic workers guilty of "murder"? If it is "self-evident that life begins at conception", seems like those IVF clinic workers are mass murderers. No?

And what about the birth control pill? IUDs? Anti-choice groups argue that both can interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg (remember, it's "self-evident that life begins at conception", right?) should the birth control pill be criminalized? Are women who have IUDs guilty of "carrying a concealed murder weapon"?

Having the opinion that life begins at conception and applying it to your OWN existence and decisions is one thing. Writing that opinion into law and granting 14th amendment rights to single cells is insanity.

[Mme. Defarge]

174. If it takes an intervention

for conception to occur, and an intervention to terminate a pregnancy, it seems to require a pretty tortured logic to make the case that life does not begin at conception, not to mentions a rather consumerist point of view of the value of human life.

[Warren DeMontague]

176. Like I said. Sperms and unfertilized eggs are alive, too.

What intervention is required for conception to occur? Sperm meets egg. Like I said, the exact same genetic material, the exact same potential, is present before and after conception. Just in two locations as opposed to one.

And nature is the most prolific abortionist of all, you realize. Something like 1/3 of all pregnancies spontaneously abort. So it would seem that it doesn't require an "intervention" (what, precisely, do you mean by that word?) for conception OR termination to occur.

See, most people accept that there is a continuum of existence from sperm, unfertilized egg, to fertilized egg, to blastocyst, to zygote, to fetus, to baby. Contrary to right wing noise, women aren't running around pregnant for 8 months and then aborting because they "look fat". The vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester. You say it is "consumerist" to advocate choice. Saying "life begins at conception" and writing that opinion into law, what would you call that? I call that putting government in charge of telling women they have to remain pregnant against their will. That means making pregnant women the de facto property of the state. That also means the woman who discovers midway through a wanted pregnancy that her pregnancy has gone horribly wrong and may endanger her health or fertility has to go on bended knee to Bill Frist and a bunch of televangelists she's never met and beg to please, sirs be allowed to MAKE HER OWN FUCKING HEALTH DECISIONS. You call my view "consumerist", I call your view nothing short of fascist.

And you didn't answer my question: The Birth Control Pill? IVF clinics? IUDs? Are they all guilty of murder? What do you propose be done about 'em?

[Mme. Defarge]

177. The concept of intervention is helpful

in this case. Think about it. And, by all means, let us impeach the felons in the Executive Branch of our government.

P.S. I'm glad you're here!

[Warren DeMontague]

182. Thanks.

I still think that there's a vast chasm between holding the opinion that life begins at the second of conception, and attempting to write the same into law.

Peace.

[Mme. Defarge]

184. Thank YOU!

How refreshing to be able to have a civil conversation about a very sensitive issue.

Now, let's get those bastards!

[Stinky The Clown]

6. The debate ought to be a "Nanny" state or a "Ninny" state

Cuz Repubicans sure are ninnies.

[AspenRose]

8. WORD

:applause:

[Islander Expat]

9. If your opposed to marijuana smoking, than don't smoke it.

e0m

[Warren DeMontague]

85. I would have trouble arguing with that. And I'm not opposed to it, even though I don't do it anymore

But I'd be more than happy to see our government pay off the deficit with tax revenue from legalized marijuana and hemp, along with the savings of $40 Billion a year in our "drug war" aimed primarily at pot.

[Islander Expat]

135. I don't want the government to get a gawd damn dime off of what we grow in the garden

none of their fucking business. Why does everybody want to see the government making money off of us?

[Warren DeMontague]

151. People can home brew a certain amount of beer or wine every month

for personal use. It's been that way since prohibition.

If people want to produce beer or wine on an industrial, retail, scale and sell it, they are subject to government regulation and taxation. Same as with any other product.

I would suspect that if the country ever gets sane enough to legalize marijuana, a similar situation would apply. It sounds reasonable enough to me. :shrug:

[Islander Expat]

161. Hell no, almost nobody's going to pay to buy something Granny would grow for you in her garden

It's a seed, you put it in the dirt and water it, and WALA! In 4 months you have free bud!

Now, I can see a huge spike in mail order seed sales, but its going to be a green revolution, not a government tax windfall.

Thats why is illegal now!

[Warren DeMontague]

163. Maybe so. But there are a lot of lazy people out there who would just prefer to buy it at the 7-11.

You can install your own home theater system, change your car's oil, or set up a wireless network fairly easily, too. But some people still pay other folks to do stuff like that for them.

Shit, look at California's medical marijuana laws.. presumably everyone with a doctor's recommendation can grow their own pot- but the medical marijuana dispensaries still apparently get a lot of patients.

Sure, many folks would grow their own. But I think if you combine tax revenue from retail pot sales with the savings of $40 billion a year (not incl. incarceration costs) that we would save by ending the idiotic "drug war", you'd still see some real government revenue gains.

[spanone]

11. many people want you to live as they do, or as their god tells you too

that's why we invented america in the first place, to get away from that shit

[stirlingsliver]

12. Smoking? Transfats?

Just curious here:

When you say "Stay The Fuck Out Of My Life", would you also say things like:

If you are opposed to smoking, then don't smoke

or

If you are opposed to transfats, then don't eat them.

??????

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Clearly you didn't read the whole thread

This very point was quite ably refuted upthread.

Nice try, though.

[stirlingsliver]

21. Nice Try

Nice dodge.

This very point was most certainly NOT refuted upthread.

[Stinky The Clown]

23. Sayeth Post Number Five:

Quoth The Clown: "Please note that my examples consist solely of private behavior ...

actions which affect no one other than those directly involved. Your's, without exception, describe behaviors which affect others. But thanks for playing "Let's Parrot RW asshat Talking Points."

[stirlingsliver]

27. Newsflash. Newsflash

Smoking and the consumption of transfats are private behaviors.

Especially when done in one's own car or in one's own house.

So sayeth me.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. Fat and smelly with clogged arteries costs me.

Said as a former fat, smelly person who is now a heart attack survivor.

[stirlingsliver]

35. So?

So what?

Are you suggessting that because another person who is fat and smelly with clogged arteries costs you something, you should be able to tell that other person to stop smoking and to stop eating transfats??

Is that what you are saying?

[Warren DeMontague]

37. And people who ride motorcycles or engage in sex with multiple partners incur health costs, too.

Alcohol drinkers. Bungee Jumpers. Skateboarders. All kinds of things some people do, and other people might not approve of can cause expensive health problems.

The bottom line is, either we as a society ACCEPT that the sensible thing to do is fund a SPHC system that covers everyone, period, even though that means at some point everyone is going to be paying for someone else's stupid behavior that they may not approve of--- or we play this never-ending finger wagging combined with accounting game where MY personal good or dumb choices (I don't drink. I don't smoke. I could probably stand to get more exercise, even though I'm in fairly decent shape) are okay but YOURS need to be micro-managed.

Edit: I realize we may agree on the fundamentals, here- so my point isn't nec. directed at you, H2S.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. You're not suggesting I oppose single payer health care, are you?

Cuz if you are, you're talking out of your ass.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. No. My point is that either we can play the game where we pick and choose which unhealthy

lifestyle choices we want to force people to give up because "we don't want to pay for your ********"... a never-ending game, because like I said- the people who don't drink may smoke, the people who don't smoke may eat a lot of fatty food, the people who don't eat a lot of fatty food may have sex with lots of random people, and so on... or, we can accept that the responsibility of society to cover everyone includes the fact that people are going to make choices that aren't always so smart, but that's part of the total nut of universal coverage.

That said, I think taxes on things like alcohol and cigarettes are legit. Tax trans fats & HFCS, too. And legalize and tax marijuana, which would bring in far more revenue for a SPHC than potheads would incur.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. Yes, as a matter of fact, I would. Are those statements really ridiculous?

Is the drug war going so well that we're going to add trans fats and cigarettes to the $40 Billion a year we already spend going after pot smokers?

I don't think smoking should be illegal- that doesn't mean I think smokers should be able to smoke wherever they want. It's legitimate for states and municipalities to ban it in indoor, public spaces IMHO.

Trans fats? Yeah, they're bad for you- so you want to put people who eat them in jail? :shrug:

[rox63]

96. As long as your second-hand smoke affects other people, smoking is not just a personal behavior n/t

[Ahpook]

13. Spot on:)

Fairly simple idea isn't it?

[Catchawave]

14. I like what Jim Webb said.....

"The government stops at my front door"

[DangerDave921]

95. No, it does not

Illegal activities don't become legal just because you're inside your house.

[Warren DeMontague]

125. Right. Thank God we piss away $40 Billion a year to keep dangerous potheads like Willie Nelson

from getting high inside their own homes. :eyes:

[truebrit71]

102. Not any more it doesn't....unless he's describing a country OTHER than the USA...

...either that or he hasn't been paying attention...

[DerekG]

16. There are profound schisms between those four issues

Only reactionaries would take umbrage with flag burning or gay marriage, since neither action could be said to claim "victims."

Underground pornography and abortion are another matter, as both could be construed as violence against helpless parties, whether they be impoverished, desperate women or the unborn. For anti-pornographers and pro-lifers, your pronouncement would sound a lot like: "If you don't like slavery, don't own any."

I won't be around for a debate--just playing devil's advocate.

[TahitiNut]

17. If you're opposed to assault rifles and handguns, don't buy any.

:shrug:

[Balbus]

18. Stupidest fucking statements I've heard in a long time...

I'm pro-choice, but if it ever becomes a legal battle I hope to hell you're not a lawyer for my side.

[11 Bravo]

38. I missed the part where I attempted to frame my opinion as a legal brief.

It's an internet message board, Ace. And if those are the stupidest statements you've heard in a long time, you need to get out more.

[Warren DeMontague]

83. Actually, you missed the part about how some people are pro-choice.. with an asterisk.

They're pro-choice* as long as they, personally, approve of the choice. If not, they are more than happy to try to run other people's lives for them. At which point they will abandon the simplest, most straightforward argument- that of personal freedom, which can reek of the dreaded "l" word to many who hold it away from their sainted noses like doggie doo on a stick.

No, then they will talk about "community" or "fairness" or "mitigating inequality" or the amazing inability of adults who seem to be consenting to actually, really consent to X,Y, or Z... and if that fails, heaven forfend, it's time to drag out that old standby, the shopworn geegaw about "protecting the children". :eyes:

[Thickasabrick]

42. I don't get why you think the original OP's statements are stupid.

Clarify please?

[AuntPatsy]

19. Short and to the point, nothing else need be added.

[pnwmom]

20. AND support birth control programs, don't try to limit them.

And that includes the morning-after pill.

[IronLionZion]

22. If you're opposed to guns, don't get one

If you're opposed to spanking children, don't do it
If you're opposed to sex, don't do it
If you're opposed to drugs, don't do them


The problem with Repubs is that they do all those things, they just want to control the rest of us. Repubs have abortions and gay sex and watch porno all the time. There's only one reason why the teenage daughters of anti-choice Republicans go to the abortion clinic and it's not to plant a pipe bomb. Red-state teenagers have just as much sex as blue-staters, they just don't use protection because their parents didn't want them to have sex education.

Somehow red-states do have higher divorce rates though. My theory is that when people have to "wait until marriage" they choose to get married early just to have sex. Utah has some shockingly numbers for young married couples.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. When you're talking about spanking children, you're involving someone else in the process.

But that said, I don't think spanking -unless it really rises to the level of abuse- should be illegal. I do think in many cases it's the mark of a shitty parent.

I could give a fuck for gun control- I realize that is one subject on which we liberals are supposed to turn into rabid control freaks, but the issue is a loss leader for our party and frankly this country is way too attached to its weaponry to ever give 'em up. I say let gun control go.

As for drugs, the drug war is a sham. Consenting adults should be free to do what they want with their own bodies, as long as they're not harming anyone else, neglecting their kids, getting behind the wheel, etc. At the very least, pot should be legalized, regulated and taxed.

"If you're opposed to sex, don't do it" ....and? Was this intended as sarcasm? I don't get it. Seems like a perfectly straightforward statement, to me. :shrug:

[Thickasabrick]

43. Parents who beat their kids suck IMO

[Warren DeMontague]

59. Damn straight. nt

[IronLionZion]

109. My parents must have sucked then. nt

[IronLionZion]

110. no sarcasm, it was straightforward

there are right wingers who want laws concerning sex: gay sex, oral or anal sex, sex education in schools, contraceptives, etc.

If you look at some of the laws down south you might be shocked that what you do is illegal. They likely won't enforce the laws against oral and anal sex, but they are still illegal. There was a time when interracial sex was illegal, as was transporting someone across state lines for sex.

[Warren DeMontague]

121. Actually, you were right- until the Lawrence v Texas decision.

Unless I'm mistaken, the SCOTUS struck down those state laws banning consensual sodomy between adults. And good on 'em.

[David Zephyr]

24. Conservative, Anti-Abortionist John Fund pushed his girlfriend into aborting his "baby"

And he stressed it had to be kept secret because of his anti-choice public statements. And he still gets away with it and works for The Wall Street Journal.

[AuntPatsy]

34. Is this really well known to be fact?

[defendandprotect]

26. You've got a problem there with pornography, which is akin to propaganda against females ---

and obviously does harm to women in framing them as whores ---

[Warren DeMontague]

29. Even if what you say is true, do you think "Propaganda" should be illegal?

I think pro-censorship arguments are harmful propaganda, because they do harm to consenting adults by framing them as incapable of making their own damn decisions about what kind of consenting adult entertainment they can choose to enjoy or participate in.

Therefore, ANY argument even slightly critical of porn should be illegal (and producers AND consumers of such arguments should be treated as criminals) because I don't like the way I think those arguments "frame" people I've never even met.

[defendandprotect]

41. Well, look at it this way, perhaps . . . . .

Would we permit drinking fountains which say "whites only" . . . ????

Yes -- I think that propaganda which does harm to a class of people --
along gender, racial, or lines of sexual orientation --
should be recognized and the public educated to that reality.

"Illegal" . . . ?
In some part the Canadian Supreme Court has recognized that propaganda
does harm to the equality of females . . .
but I don't think they made it "illegal."

Granted there are also differences in propaganda ---
When organized as in states which had Segregation,
then its great harm is itself undeniable evidence.

It is quite easy, as well, to recognize the Bible as organized patriarchal
propaganda against all females.
And, of course, other patriarchal religious writings.
We can also recognize the great harm that those writings
have caused females around the globe.

Religion, of course, is a private belief system -- heavily organized.

Pornography is private business --
which presumably should come under some regulation as to business laws?

Would we permit any business now to make profit from demeaning African-Americans,
or homosexuals as a group of people?


As for some other parts of your argument here . . .

QUOTE: I think pro-censorship arguments are harmful propaganda, because they do harm to consenting adults by framing them as incapable of making their own damn decisions about what kind of consenting adult entertainment they can choose to enjoy or participate in.

Therefore, ANY argument even slightly critical of porn should be illegal (and producers AND consumers of such arguments should be treated as criminals) because I don't like the way I think those arguments "frame" people I've never even met.UNQUOTE


I would not call efforts to stop Segregation "pro-censorship" . . .
nor would I call efforts to stop homophobia "pro-censorship" . . .

As for consenting adults . . . does education and awareness make them less consenting?
We recognize an every day need to educate even adults in regard to political awareness,
legal and Constituional rights, investments vs scams -- and even in regard to human sexuality.

How things work and what benefits us and what does not benefit us --
individually and as a society -- are common themes made available to us every day
via one form or another of media -- books, TV, internet.

As to your extremes re "criticism" and "argument" -- nonsense, naturally --
they are far from the discussion re organized propaganda of an industry primarily
engaged in demeaning women.

Naturally, I think we also need to be more aware of the CONSUMERS of this material
and what about this attack on females so satisfies their needs ---

[Donald Ian Rankin]

48. Efforts to stop people *promoting* segregation are pro-censorship.

I don't support racial segregation. But I do support the right to support it.

"Would we permit any business now to make profit from demeaning African-Americans, or homosexuals as a group of people"

Ever heard of a blaxploitation movie?

[defendandprotect]

64. No . . . efforts to stop Segregation were based on ideals of democracy/"equality for all" ---

You support the right to reinstitutionalize Segregation -- ??

That may give us a clue as to your taste for domination themes --- ???


Re this . . .
QUOTE:
blax·ploi·ta·tion (blăk'sploi-tā'shən)
n.
A genre of American film of the 1970s featuring African-American actors in lead roles and often having antiestablishment plots, frequently criticized for stereotypical characterization and glorification of violence. While African-American filmmakers were substantially involved in making early movies in this genre, their participation in subsequent productions was minimal.UNQUOTE

The African-Amerian community -- and society at large --- have let some damaging "entertainment" go by for too long. Finally, the African American community have begun to address some major "entertainment" issues of Hip-Hop and its disrespect for African-American females as "Ho's" ...

This "entertainment" would seem no different -- and hopefully society will address it satisfactorily.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

93. Which part of "I don't support segregation" didn't you understand?

It's really hard to talk to you if you just ignore what I write.

Once again:

I don't support segregation.

I do support the right to promote segregation.

Just because I want people to be allowed to vote Republican, or to ammend the Constitution to ban the colour purple, doesn't mean I think it's a good thing to do, or that I plan to do so myself.

[defendandprotect]

137. What part of your own writings don't you understand . . . ???

QUOTE:

Efforts to stop people *promoting* segregation are pro-censorship.

I don't support racial segregation. But I do support the right to support it.UNQUOTE

Supporting the right to support the enslavement of people in a system of Segregation would be the same as supporting Segregation ---

Supporting the right of anyone to support a criminal activity would be the same as supporting the
criminal activity --

Voting Republican isn't a crime --
nor is the color purple

However, concepts of enslavement would be ---

[Warren DeMontague]

141. You don't have the faintest clue as to what the First Amendment means, do you?

"Supporting the right of anyone to support a criminal activity would be the same as supporting the
criminal activity --"

So I can go to jail for saying I think pot smoking should be legal? :shrug:

Really? Wow. No shit.

And since you've figured out what kinds of speech are illegal in this fantasy Bizzaro United States you seem to have imagined yourself into, perhaps you can make a list of what thoughts are illegal, too.

[defendandprotect]

143. Most of us support legalization of marijuana ---

and most of us are saying that ---

Now, let's get back to your distorted thinking in supporting what most of us would consider
crimes against humaity --- i.e., enslavement/Segregation.

Organized propaganda is harmful, especially when directed at a class of people ---
Bibical preachings against homosexuals, for instance --
Bibical preachings against females, for instance ---
Against Africans in America --
Against the native Indians ---

And, we can, of course, see the long term harm that those teachings and advocations caused ---
genocide in America ---
enslavement of Africans in America ---

and global and enduring harm to the status of females ---

homosexuals are somewhat recovering from these vile and organized campaigns against them ---

[Donald Ian Rankin]

144. You appear to be confusing "is harmful" with "should be illegal".

Promoting racism is undoubtedly harmful. So, incidentally, is promoting censorship.

That doesn't mean either of them should be illegal.

[defendandprotect]

154. Segregation is now illegal . . .

and racism is simply the landmine left behind from that vile era of exploitation --

Your insistence that you would "support" advocation of what is illegal still stands.

Are you still suggesting that you would "support" such advocates -- ?


Meanwhile, I have not suggested censorship ---
I have suggested education --

Widespread education in regard to organized propaganda ---
which is patriarchal, religious --

and including organized pornography aimed at debasing females


AND HERE'S ONE OF THE WAYS THAT THIS HAPPENS . . .

November 5, 2007
Protesting Demeaning Images in Media
By FELICIA R. LEE

Wearing white T-shirts with red stop signs and chanting “BET does not reflect me, MTV does not reflect me,” protesters have been gathering every Saturday outside the homes of Viacom executives in Washington and New York City. The orderly, mostly black crowds are protesting music videos that they say degrade women, and black and Latino men.

Among other things the protesters want media companies like Viacom to develop “universal creative standards” for video and music, including prohibitions on some language and images. Video vixens and foul-mouthed pimps and thugs are now so widespread, the protesters maintain, that they infect perceptions of ordinary nonwhite people.

The N.A.A.C.P. and the National Congress of Black Women are among the groups campaigning for more corporate responsibility for the music and images in videos and on television. Ms. Lee of BET also met recently with women from Spelman College in Atlanta, and with groups of ministers to hear their concerns.

“I believe everything is permissible in speech and imagery,” Mr. Bond said. “It doesn’t mean that I can’t object to it.” In a still-segregated society, he said, people often get their ideas about other groups from what they read, see and hear.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/arts/05enou.html?ei=5065&en=82a2e22b0e82fb80&ex=1194930000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print



Organized propaganda's purpose is exploitation ---

[Donald Ian Rankin]

159. Please, *please* read what I write, don't just make stuff up.

I don't support advocating segregation.

I support the right to advocate segregation.

If you really don't understand the difference, consider the difference between supporting voting Republican, and supporting the right to vote Republican.

You have been very carefully obfuscatory about whether or not you want pornography to be made illegal - you started off by attacking the claim that it should be legal in the OP, but your more recent posts seem to suggest that you think it should be legal, but that the government/pressure groups should spend money on trying to persuade people not to buy it. Or something. Would you care to clarify your position?

I was going to challenge some of the other claims you've made, but Impeachdubya did it much better than I was going to in post 157.

[Warren DeMontague]

150. No, let's get back to your distorted thinking in that speech and opinions you don't agree with can

be made illegal.

Again, you have zero grasp of the U.S. Constitution, particularly the First Amendment.

Can you please offer some insight into the sources of this gibberish you've been floating in this thread?

[defendandprotect]

155. YOU are suggesting they should be "illegal" . .. I have not ----

I have suggested that organized propaganda be met with organized resistance ---

and that includes the organized propaganda against females which is pornography ---

[Warren DeMontague]

157. Actually, I have no idea what you're trying to suggest. You're all over the map.

Flailing desperately to justify your central thesis, which at least seems to be that consenting adults shouldn't be free to make their own decisions, or are incapable of making their own decisions, when it comes to screwing in front of a camera or watching other consenting adults do the same.

Here are a few examples of the unmitigated gibberish you've floated in this thread:

"most porn involves violence". Bullshit. Prove it.

"The women who appear in porn aren't participating of their own free will" Bullshit. Prove it.

"Most men like to masturbate to porn which contains themes of violence and domination" Bullshit. Prove it.

Porn is "organized propaganda against females" Bullshit. Prove it, and define your terms while you're at it.

Organized propaganda how? And like I said- I mean, you seem to think you know what "all porn" is, but assuming a bedrock example of a film of a heterosexual couple having penetrative sex or a picture of a naked woman (or man) in a suggestive pose... can you explain to me where "organized propaganda against women" or "themes of violence and domination" come into those examples? :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

170. Pornography is about portraying women as "whores" . . .

Prove to me that every woman in a porn flick is there voluntarily ---

Prove to me that organized pornography doesn't do harm to female equality ---

while we have a Canadian Court confirming just that.

Prove to me that pornography is violence free --

Prove to me that pornography doesn't involve themes of domination ---



Pornography is about portraying women as "whores" --

QUOTE:
por·nog·ra·phy /pɔrˈnɒgrəfi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNQUOTE



QUOTE: har·lot (här'lət) Pronunciation Key
n. A woman prostitute. UNQUOTE


You might study the Bible and the "Hammer of Witches" and "The Crucible" . . .
The Bible is organized propaganda against females ---
In the same way that organized pornography is organized propagand against females --

And cut out the crap about the one male and one woman and one video ---
You know as well as I do that pornography is about demeaning and debasing females --
with overriding themes of domination --- and with violence and exploitation of females.

Now, if you want to argue that you have a right to this garbage --- I agree.
But, you also have a right to be educated in regard to who it harms and how it harms society.

[Warren DeMontague]

173. In case you hadn't noticed, I've heard a lot of this gibberish before.

So you can save yourself the effort of trying to "educate" me.

Porn "portrays women as whores".. do you think there's something intrinsically degrading about sex? Heterosexual sex? Do you think that sex itself is "dirty" or "wrong"? Do you think that women who have sex and enjoy it are "whores"?

I don't.

Prove to me that every woman in a porn flick is there voluntarily ---

Two words: Consent forms. Unless you're suggesting that women can't sign documents and have them be legally binding, in which case I suppose women can't be trusted to write checks, get loans, agree to contracts, etc. Got a burka handy, while you're at it?

while we have a Canadian Court confirming just that.

So move to Canada, if you can't deal with the First Amendment here.

Pornography is about portraying women as "whores" --

So you say.

QUOTE:
por·nog·ra·phy /pɔrˈnɒgrəfi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNQUOTE



QUOTE: har·lot (här'lət) Pronunciation Key
n. A woman prostitute. UNQUOTE

This proves.... what, other than that you know the URL for dictionary.com?

And cut out the crap about the one male and one woman and one video ---
You know as well as I do that pornography is about demeaning and debasing females --
with overriding themes of domination --- and with violence and exploitation of females.

No, actually, the vast majority of porn is just that- films of people having sex. Perhaps if you were familiar with it, like I said, outside of what you've been told in study groups, you'd know that.

You seem to think that there's something wrong or immoral about sex itself, that women who have sex are "whores". You haven't answered my question- is it heterosexual sex itself that is inherently "violent and exploitative"? Dworkin sure thought so. And what about Gay Porn? You're aware it exists, right?

"Study the bible".. uh, no thanks. I've got about a trillion better things to do with my time. But I'm glad you're acknowledging what we've known for some time, though, that the Dworkinite pro-censorship crowd is ideological bedfellows with the religious right. Study the Bible, indeed!

I'm not going to prove a negative. Speaking of the Bible, you're like a fundy going "Prove God doesn't exist". The onus is on you to prove your statements, like "most porn involves violence".

You haven't done that.

[defendandprotect]

179. First --- you tell me where the QUOTE function is . . . I've often wondered????

This system is different from any I've used before ---

Thanks --

[defendandprotect]

180. Pornography = Stories of WHORES . . . that's what pornography is ---

Re this . . .

QUOTE: Porn "portrays women as whores".. do you think there's something intrinsically degrading about sex? Heterosexual sex? Do you think that sex itself is "dirty" or "wrong"? Do you think that women who have sex and enjoy it are "whores"?

I don't.UNQUOTE

Evidently, the education did go right by you in the previous post --
look at the dictionary definitions ---
pornography is stories about "whores" ---
and most of them originally written by males.

I've included the definition of "whore" for you below.

NOW . . . do you think that normal human sexuality is based on making females "whores" . . . ???
Is that what all women are to you?

AGAIN -- pornography is about "whores" . . . it is stories of whores . . .
that's the very meaning of the term.

---

There is no way to prove --- no matter what women sign -- that they are not in some kind of bondage or under some threat to perform.

I'll be staying and protesting organized propaganda against females --
are you thinking of traveling for your sex --- ???

Meanwhile, trying to match up the midnight masturbators -- edging on child porn --
with COMCAST alone making $500 million annually on this as something that HATEFUL and SEX HATING females are doing to you isn't going to play.



Pornography is the story of whores . . .

whore /hɔr, hoʊr or, often, hʊər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, whored, whor·ing.
–noun 1. a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money; prostitute; harlot; strumpet.
–verb (used without object) 2. to act as a whore.
3. to consort with whores.
–verb (used with object) 4. Obsolete. to make a whore of; corrupt; debauch.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Warren DeMontague]

181. Okay, now your posts are making zero sense whatsoever.

As far as I can tell, you're stringing a whole bunch of non-sequiturs together.

As for the dictionary definition- I assume you're taking the origin of the word from the ancient Greek, and using that to "prove" that Porn turns women into "whores", whatever that means.


If that's the case, here's the part you should have reproduced:

Gk pornográph(os) writing about harlots (porno-, comb. form of pórné harlot + -graphos -graph) + -y3

Yes, that is the origin of the WORD "pornography". Similarly, the Greek origin of the word "theory" means "spectator". Does that mean the Theory of Evolution is really about watching Football Games?

The origin of the word "Tirade" is "a stretch", which is strangely appropriate because your tirades are nothing, if not a stretch. That 4,000 years ago the Greeks originated the ancestral form of the word pornography to describe "writing about whores" does not have any bearing on the adult material in today's universe that we call "pornography".

The rest of your post, about Comcast and children and whatever else you're on about.... Do YOU even know what you're trying to say? I sure don't.

But I will add that every single argument made in this thread regarding adults watching other adults having sex on film pertains to consenting adults. Perhaps you missed those two words, but if you check the rest of the thread I'm sure you can find em.

Arguments involving non-consent, or non-adults, are red herrings.

I think you should ask yourself- really, ask yourself- why it is so hard for you to believe that women (and men?) would choose to have sex in front of a camera for the viewing pleasure of other consenting adults. Why you're so bent out of shape about the sex lives of other consenting adults. (there are those words again!)

Because the bottom line, here, is that's what this is about. CONSENTING ADULTS. People who CHOOSE to do things that other people might find objectionable. You want to know how to quote boxes of text? Honestly, in a normal debate I wouldn't give a shit, I'd tell you. But from the get-go, you've done nothing but hurl the cheapest insults and insinuations at those of us defending a very simple position: that CONSENTING ADULTS should have the right to do what they want with their own bodies, and if CONSENTING ADULTS want to watch other CONSENTING ADULTS screw on film, that is their business as well.

I'm sorry, you've spent this entire thread insulting me simply because I think consenting adults should be free to look at sexually explicit material involving other consenting adults. At this point, you can ask someone else for help formatting your posts.

You can't -or you don't want to- grasp the consent angle, and I wondered how long it would take you to drag "the children" into it as well. Let me put it this way- the battle over censorship and consenting adult porn is NOT ABOUT non-consent, and it's NOT ABOUT kids. Porn involving people under 18 is quite illegal, and rightly so. But society makes a big distinction between children and adults. Seemingly, you want to treat EVERYONE in the world as a child, certainly unable to make their own decisions- because if they consent to something you, personally, don't agree with, they must not be "really" consenting.

Like I said. Go to Van Nuys. Ask some porn stars. Tell them you'd like to "free" them from their jobs. Tell them you understand that they don't know what they're doing. Because I will tell you that forcing anyone to engage in sex against their will, forcing them to appear in porn against their will- that would be a crime- several crimes, actually, and the basis for severe civil judgments as well. If that was really happening all the time ("always", apparently, according to you- since your argument seems to hinge on the premise that "no women" would ever actually consent to have sex on film) then you would think that sooner or later you would have a prosecution. A criminal case. A civil case.

It doesn't happen. Know why? Because just like a lot of people don't see anything wrong with getting visually aroused by graphic depictions of consenting adult nudity and sex- many actually think it's perfectly healthy and normal, the kooks- some other people DON'T have a problem with having sex on film for the entertainment purposes of others. Some people do. It's not something everyone would want to do. But to argue that all the women who appear in porn- all the women who audition to appear in porn- are being forced into it by.. who? ...It's just fucking ludicrous.

As for the rest of the statements you've made so central to your "case", like "most porn involves violence"... like I said, prove it. You can't, because it's a completely bullshit statement.

Most porn involves nudity or sex on film, that's it. That's about the broadest statement you can make about what "most porn" involves. And if it's legal in this country it involves CONSENTING ADULTS, whether you like it or not. Maybe you should stop trying to convince yourself that porn is something violent that women are forced into against their will, and accept that for whatever reason you have some piece of programming that, like anti-gay fundamentalists, makes you want to try to tell other consenting adults how not to get their jollies.

[defendandprotect]

185. No -- and please answer my question about QUOTES . . ..

Don't have a lot of time now . . .
but the very meaning of pornography is STORIES ABOUT WHORES . . .
why is that so difficult for you to get?

back later ---

[Warren DeMontague]

186. I've answered you repeatedly. You're not hearing it.

I think you need to back up some of your assertions from several posts previous before I'm going to bother with any more of this.

You can start with "most porn involves violence".

[defendandprotect]

187. LOOK AT MY QUESTION ABOUT 'QUOTES' . . . YOU'VE MISSED IT!!!!

repeat . . . MY QUESTION RE QUOTES . .. .

[Warren DeMontague]

189. I am not a german shepherd or a draftee. Sorry.

Non Serviam, lady.

Look it up.

If you want my help, you can start by backing up this simple statement with FACTUAL EVIDENCE:

"most porn involves violence".

I'll wait.

[defendandprotect]

190. Well, that's the difference between us --- I would have helped you ---

[Warren DeMontague]

192. You lost that opportunity when you started with the insults way upthread.

You know, about how anyone who thinks porn by and for consenting adults should be legal must not be able to get a date. It got worse from there. You've thrown some pretty nasty insinuations my way, if I'm reading them right.

Probably an apology is in order.

But that said, I haven't said I won't help you. All you have to do for me is back up the statement "most porn involves violence" with some factual evidence.

Short of that- actually, you won't be able to back it up with facts, because it's not true- I'll settle for a source on where you got that particular piece of 'information'.

Then I'll be happy to help with the text formatting.

[defendandprotect]

193. First of all, I've described my impression of people who are obsessed with

pornography and in particularly internet porn ---

We have to NOT only look at the lookee, but the looker ---

Argue with my opinion ---

However, if you see yourself in my description, that's not my problem.

And -- forget the help --- I thought you were human.

My mistake ---

[Warren DeMontague]

196. Right. Insult me again, then play the victim because I won't go out of my way to help you.

Give me a fucking break.

Again, here it is in big flashing letters:

YOU HAVEN'T BACKED UP A SINGLE ASSERTION YOU'VE MADE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT.

Know why? Because your assertions are prima facie bullshit. Nite.

[defendandprotect]

197. Has anyone told you lately what . ...

a jerk you are -- ??

Have the rest of the discussion on your own ---

you're on solo again ---

ta ta

[Warren DeMontague]

199. That's probably the closest you've come to a factual statement, yet.

At least, there's probably some subjective evidence, somewhere, that I'm a jerk.

Would you like to buy a monkey?

[Warren DeMontague]

156. Homosexuals like their porn, too.

Believe me. It's very popular.

[sampsonblk]

113. You got it right - support the speech, but not the content

People should have the right to advocate for what they believe in - even if its just plain awful, as long as they are not advocating violence and/or crimes. Certainly.

[Warren DeMontague]

127. Even leaving aside the faulty assertion that "porn is hate speech"

(brought to you by people who think the mere act of heterosexual, penetrative sex is intrinsically oppressive and degrading to women, therefore any material showing heterosexual, penetrative sex constitutes "oppression")

anyway, even leaving that aside, hate speech isn't censored. Hate speech isn't illegal.

I come have Jewish relatives in Chicago, and yet I understand why it was legal for the Nazis to march in Skokie. And I understand why the ACLU defended their right to do so.

[sampsonblk]

136. I agree, absolutely.-nt

[defendandprotect]

138. Well, enslavement in Segregation would now be a crime ---

And pornography often involves violence against women ---

Again -- let's ask and let's hear WHY themes of violence against women is so important for
so many masturbating males?

And WHY themes of domination of females is so important for males in order to satisfy their masturbating needs?

[Warren DeMontague]

142. I'm still waiting for an answer. A film of a man and a woman having sex.

What precise "theme of domination" or "violence" would you argue is contained therein?

And as for "pornography often involves violence against women".. How often? According to whom?

[Warren DeMontague]

55. I'm sure that plays well at the Smith College Womens Studies Dept. But the bottom line?

Consenting Adults want to get naked or fuck in front of a camera. Other consenting adults want to pay to look at pictures of the same.

It is not for YOU to say that those consenting adults are "victimized" or "victimizing" through that process any more than it is for the Pro-Life Crowd to say that women are "victimized" by the "abortion industry", because they're hyp-mo-tized into thinking they don't want to remain pregnant, the poor dears.

The freedom of consenting adults to look at pictures of other consenting adults having sex equates to whites only drinking fountains? What kind of nonsenical gibberish is that?

Consenting Adults. Making up their own damn minds. You don't like porn, it bugs you that people are getting off without your permission to material you don't, personally approve of? Too bad. One person's erotica is another person's smut. Don't like it? Don't look at it. As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, it's really not anyone else's business to issue self-important edicts about it- and no amount of male gaze patriarchal phallocratic "hey-hey-ho-ho-this-penis-party's-got-to-go" objectification blahblahblahblah is going to change it.

As for Canada, yes, they followed the Dworkin-MacKinnon line about how adult women are incapable of making their own decisions about their own lives and bodies when faced with the cerebellum-neutralizing properties of a magazine publisher with a camera, and they went ahead and BANNED PORN. Hooray! Know what some of the first victims of this misguided do-gooderism were? Gay and Lesbian sex shops. Goody.

Well, the important thing is that no one is "oppressing" anyone by masturbating while looking at pictures of other consenting adults naked or having sex without the express approval of the PC Moralizing Neo-Puritan Squad.

[defendandprotect]

66. Neither is it NOT for me to say that females are harmed by pornography . . .

"Want to" is an odd description of women's roles in hard core pornography where we know that women have been forced to perform --- and where there is no way to tell what is voluntary or consentual.

Nor are either of us the "pro-life" community . . .

No . . . "Whites only" drinking fountains equates to organized propaganda . . .
and pornography is organized propaganda against females. Got it now???

Again, masturbate to your hearts content ---
but I'm afraid I have to tell you that a relationship with a piece of paper or a video isn't really a relationship.

Canada has simply acknowledged that the pornography industry does harm to women as a class of people and to female equality.

Standing against exploitation -- standing against themes of violence and domination of women ---
evidently riles those dependent upon photos and film for their sex lives . . . ???

[Warren DeMontague]

79. Okay. Let's make this as simple as possible- a man and a woman having sex.

You know, standard, penetrative sex between a man and a woman. With a camera. Following me, here? A graphic depiction of a heterosexual sex act. On film.

Can you explain, precisely, what theme of "violence and domination" is contained in such a representation? Or how about a picture of a naked woman. Or a naked man. Again. Please explain where "violence and domination" comes into it.

Now, I will ignore the lame implied insults in your post ("a relationship with a piece of paper or a video isn't really a relationship." - really? No shit.) except to say that I've been happily married for years, and before that I had many, many years of sexually active single-hood combined with several medium-term and long-term relationships.. with actual, flesh-and-blood women, even! Yeah, will wonders never cease. In fact, I would wager that the majority OTHER men (and women) on DU who oppose censorship of consenting adult erotica -something like 80-90%, depending on the poll- are also somehow capable of maintaining actual relationships with living, breathing members of the opposite (or same) sex, even if they have been exposed to porn! Imagine that!

Personally, while I've certainly looked at my share of smut for purely entertainment purposes -no denial there- I also spent years working for a medium sized chain of indie video stores, through which I worked around a decent amount of this supposedly evil, "oppressive" porn. What I saw gave lie to the axiomatic bullshit being floated by the MacDworkinite "liberal" crowd- I saw men, women, couples who enjoyed viewing adult erotica without turning into evil, violent beasts or even misogynistic fucks who could only relate to women as though they had a staple in their navel.

(People who watched a lot of zombie movies were somehow able to avoid relating to their fellow humans as zombies, too! :wow:)

I also did see some people who actually were, as you so charmingly put it, "dependent upon photos and film for their sex lives"- like the guy in the wheelchair, with AIDS. Please spare me the lecture about how this individual was harming "women as a class" by indulging in the only sexual outlet available to him. Seriously, I'm sure he should have spent his evenings at home studying his Dworkin, learning about how his male sex drive was intrinsically oppressive- certainly far better than "harming female equality" by partaking in material produced by, with, and for consenting adults.

And that's the rub, here- consenting adults. What consenting adults do with their own bodies is THEIR OWN BUSINESS. Period, end of story. That's the part the Dworkin crowd doesn't want to get. Andrea Dworkin- who quite probably suffered from serious mental illness and spent the latter part of her life consumed by paranoid delusions- Dworkin and her rants about the evils of heterosexual sex are held up as gospel by a small crowd, here. We know that. Dworkin and MacKinnon's "logic" and "arguments" were the basis of Canada's anti-porn laws. You want to talk about people with warped views of sex? The Dworkin gang takes the case. Where most people see consensual sex between adults, if it involved penetration with a penis, Dworkin saw oppression. Violence. Rape. Little wonder, then, than her acolytes see a film with a man and woman consensually, voluntarily, enthusiastically copulating, and they see oppression. Violence. Rape. Warped viewpoints on sex? You can't get much more warped than the angry, sulky delusion that heterosexual sex involving an erect penis is the source of all evil, sex as practiced by the vast majority of humans on this planet is done so under coercion and duress (without the participants realizing they're being coerced or under duress, of course) and that heterosexual relationships and sex are inherently abusive and degrading to women. People who look at nothing more than simple, erotic images of naked adults, alone or happily having sex, and project degradation, oppression and abuse onto them.

That's the warped approach to sex, if you ask me.

[defendandprotect]

140. You're discussing something we're not talking about . . ..

A simple film of a male and female having intercourse is not what pornography usually is ---
especially hard core porn ---

Pornography usually involves violence and themes of domination ---

I'll take your word for your sex life ---
And note that you once had ties to the porn industry . . . ???

QUOTE: Personally, while I've certainly looked at my share of smut for purely entertainment purposes -no denial there- I also spent years working for a medium sized chain of indie video stores, through which I worked around a decent amount of this supposedly evil, "oppressive" porn. What I saw gave lie to the axiomatic bullshit being floated by the MacDworkinite "liberal" crowd- I saw men, women, couples who enjoyed viewing adult erotica without turning into evil, violent beasts or even misogynistic fucks who could only relate to women as though they had a staple in their navel.UNQUOTE

You "saw" men, women, couples . . . . ??? What? You tracked your customers' lives . . . ?
Perhaps they invited you for dinner once a year so that you could vouch for their relationships -??

But. . . maybe vouching for the "zombie" crowd and this ANN COULTER-type comment was a little
over board -- ????

QUOTE:
I also did see some people who actually were, as you so charmingly put it, "dependent upon photos and film for their sex lives"- like the guy in the wheelchair, with AIDS. Please spare me the lecture about how this individual was harming "women as a class" by indulging in the only sexual outlet available to him. UNQUOTE

Again, here, you're in denial ---
Where is there any proof that women exploited in these films are performing of their own free
will --?

QUOTE: And that's the rub, here- consenting adults. What consenting adults do with their own bodies is THEIR OWN BUSINESS. Period, end of story. UNQUOTE

Nor do personal assaults on females fighting against exploition in pornography help your argument any ---

However, you still haven't strayed into trying to explain WHY themes of violence against females --
and themes of domination of females are so IMPORTANT to men seeking inspiration for masturbation ---????

[Warren DeMontague]

148. I can only assume you have some serious reading comprehension problems.

A simple film of a male and female having intercourse is not what pornography usually is ---
especially hard core porn ---

Pornography usually involves violence and themes of domination ---

According to whom? Got any evidence to back up your assertion? Have you ever even seen any porn? Or have you just read about it and heard about it in breathless, angry, Womens Studies Department echo chamber sessions?

"Pornography usually involves violence". Please prove that statement.

I'll take your word for your sex life ---

Don't tell me you're actually operating under the delusion that I care enough about your opinion to bother lying to you. Believe me, don't believe me, I don't give a shit.

And note that you once had ties to the porn industry . . . ???

Ha, ha. Again with the lame attempts at insults! Oh, well, I suppose when one has zero grasp of the subject one is opining on, and absolutely no understanding of concepts like "freedom of speech" and "consenting adults" to boot, hurling what must seem like satisfying little brickbats is about the best one can hope for. But let's clear this up, shall we?
I once worked for a chain of video stores. Believe it or not, outside of your Ivory Tower, there are places called "video stores"- those are stores where people go to buy or rent videos, which people can put into machines and watch on their TVs- and it's fairly common for these "video stores" to have an adult section, like they have a comedy section or an oscar winners section or a David Lynch section. This does not make them "porn stores" any more than a grocery store which sells grapefruit is a "Grapefruit Store".

I had "ties to the industry" like someone working in a bookstore that sold Penthouse has "ties to the industry". Nice try. That's like saying someone who works for one of the many major chains of hotels which offer pay per view adult films in the rooms is a "Porno Theater usher".

Not that there's anything wrong with working in a sex store OR a porn theater, but I think it's worth pointing out that your point, in addition to being completely fucking meaningless, is also factually incorrect.

You "saw" men, women, couples . . . . ??? What? You tracked your customers' lives . . . ?
Perhaps they invited you for dinner once a year so that you could vouch for their relationships -??

Have you ever had a job?

Have you ever had a job in a retail establishment?

Have you ever had a job working for a long time in a community? Around people in a community?

Have you ever gotten off your campus long enough to spend any time in local businesses? I mean, aside from protesting them?

If you had, maybe you would notice that if you patronize a business regularly, or you work around and with people for a long period of time, eventually you develop relationships with them, that is, if you can deal with humans as actual people and not some ridiculous caricatures you read about in an Andrea Dworkin book.

I didn't track anybody's life, but I certainly was a part of the communities that our stores were in and I developed friendly relationships with a lot of people who frequented our stores. And believe it or not, there are some places in this country where the subject of consenting adults having sex on film doesn't cause folks to start clomping around angrily in big, heavy, boots, grousing about slavery and pumping their fists in the air. So believe me, I got to know people through my old job.

And I can tell you that consumers of adult erotica ran the gamut. Men, women, couples, yuppies, firefighters, television personalities, computer programmers. Well-adjusted members of the community who liked adult material along with other kinds of entertainment. Whatever, I don't expect or need you to believe me there, either. Again, I don't really give a shit. But those are the facts.

But. . . maybe vouching for the "zombie" crowd and this ANN COULTER-type comment was a little
over board -- ????

What?

Again, here, you're in denial ---
Where is there any proof that women exploited in these films are performing of their own free
will --?

Okay. Here's what you should do. Buy yourself an Abraham Lincoln mask and drive down to Van Nuys or Santa Monica or somewhere where porn stars live. Go bang on a few doors. Bust into their houses and announce that you are there to "emancipate" them from their paychecks and their careers. I'm sure they will be greatly appreciative of the implication that they don't know what they're doing, that they're incapable of consenting to the job they go to every day, that they're brain-addled ninnies who just need rescuing. Go ahead and do that.

Beyond that, where is ANY proof that there is widespread non-consent in porn? Particularly given that performers in ANY sort of entertainment -tv, movies, etc.- generally sign a release before their images can be used?

Go ahead. Find the fucking proof of a widespread phenomenon of women in porn- and there are a lot of them- NOT performing of their own free will. You can add that to your "proof" that, and I quote, "most porn involves violence".

Nor do personal assaults on females fighting against exploition in pornography help your argument any ---

However, you still haven't strayed into trying to explain WHY themes of violence against females --
and themes of domination of females are so IMPORTANT to men seeking inspiration for masturbation ---????

You don't even HAVE an "argument", so my own counsel I will keep on what helps mine, thankyouverymuch.

You haven't tried to explain any of my points, either, and mine actually make sense- for instance, how about explaining whether a simple act of graphically depicted sex on film or a picture of a naked woman is intrinsically oppressive to women, particularly given that Dworkinite anti-porn crowd considers it an axiomatic, fundamental truth that heterosexual sex itself oppresses women?

How about you back up -you know, with evidence- the statements that "most porn contains violence" and that "themes of violence and domination are important to men seeking inspiration for masturbation" and some of the other self-validating tautological nonsense you've tried to float?

[Snarkturian Clone]

171. ??

:crazy:

[me b zola]

30. It's really that simple

I told a male freeper on current who was railing against abortion (really I think that he was railing against women) to stay out of my doctor's office and I will stay out of his when he is there seeking a prescription for viagra. :rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

33. AGREED. K&R.

:thumbsup:

[Gregorian]

36. Right on!

It's that simple.

[The Straight Story]

40. Flag burning pollutes (affects me), Porn affects others we have heard here as well

abortions can affect the mental well being of the other party involved (man or woman, a woman with a partner could get an implant then change her mind).


Everything I have seen on DU affects everyone else....and that is the first step to facism imho.


But ya know - I agree with you, I am just frustrated that liberals are on a path of personal control while trying to tell us they are on the path of (some) personal freedoms.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. "Porn hurts people" in that some people are bugged by the fact that other people get off on porn.

That's about the extent of it.

[defendandprotect]

67. Unfortunatley, pornography is recognized to do harm to females as a class ---

and to female equality ---

It is organized propaganda against females ---

Those who "get off" on domination themes and debasement of females have more problems than
simply no date on a Saturday night ---

[Warren DeMontague]

69. "Recognized" by "authorities" who have an agenda on the subject.

And the Pope says God exists, too.

Wow, that proves a whole bunch.

[defendandprotect]

74. Yes . . . the agenda is female equality ---

You mean the patriarchal Vatican which continues its war on women . . . ????

The guys with the all powerful male "god" ---

You really do some deep thinking --- !!!

[Warren DeMontague]

81. No, my point is that if the "authorities" from Scientology say that L. Ron Hubbard was a demigod

then they can spin all kinds of self-validating "credentialed" -by other scientologists- bullshit and axiomatic tautological crap to say that L. Ron Hubbard was a demigod.

That doesn't mean that L. Ron Hubbard really WAS a demigod.

Just like the Andrea Dworkin crowd can float all sorts of self-proving bullshit about how porn magically "harms" all women.

Here, I'll do it for you:

1) Porn often shows heterosexual sex involving an erect penis 2) We "know" from Andrea Dworkin that heterosexual penetrative sex involving an erect penis under Patriarchy* is intrinsically oppressive to women as a class 3) According to Dworkin, the act of penetrative sex is the central unit of oppression in society 4) Since porn is a graphic representation of an intrinically oppressive act, it compounds the oppression that women suffer globally and is as such a war crime against all women of all time, in this universe and all others.

Q.E.D.

*"under Patriarchy", for the purposes of this discussion, can essentially be said to be equivalent to "in this solar system".

Real, actual scientists have documented NONE of this alleged "harm" from pornography. Like I said. It harms people who are bent out of shape that consenting adults get off to pictures of other consenting adults having sex, just like gay marriage "harms" the uptight fundies whose noses get out of joint at the thought of the gay people down the street getting married.

And this agenda of female equality- how is infantalizing adult women who choose to take their clothes off in front of a camera to the point where they're supposed to not be able to make their own decisions on the matter any sort of "equality"? And what about the many women who like porn?

[ihavenobias]

122. Porn is hurting our troops!

Well, at least according to some on the (of course) far right:

http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2007/11/6/10294/5454

[Warren DeMontague]

126. Support the troops- censor what they can read. nt

[Chrisy5558]

45. I am a Pro Life Democrat

Those of us who are Catholic and follow our church's teaching fight against abortion because we feel it is the murder of innocent life.

I know there are not many of us Democrats who are pro life, but there are a few. I have just as much right to stand up and speak out against the evils of abortion as another Democrat has the right to stand up for abortion.

Many of us are against abortion because of the pain and suffering that the woman/girl has to go through. Those of us who have been forced to have abortions and didn't want them never got over the emotionally pain. There are many of us who because of the abortion got holes in our uterus and had to have total hysterctemys and were not ever allowed to know the joy of being a mother. You see abortion is not just a political issue for many of us but a personal issue and we don't want to see other women have to know the pain of going through one.

I am against gay marriage because as a Catholic I believe in the sacrament of marriage is between a man and a woman. If you have two adults who are gay and they want to have an union than that is fine. They could call it a civil union. They would have all the rights of a married couple but they are not married because they are not married in the Catholic church by a priest.

I personally don't like the idea of people burning the flag. The flag is more than just a flag but is a symbol of my country. I may not agree with everything my country does and believe me I dispise Bush for what he has done, but I would not burn our flag. Maybe it is because I am a Daughter of the American Revolution and I try and honor our flag. Instead of burning the flag, why not be active in the political system and trying to change things for the better.

I don't feel that others views should be pushed on me. All to often it is the politically correct crowd that get their views heard and those of us Democrats who are pro life, patriotic, and believe in the teachings of our church are pushed out of our party. I am not leaving.

If you don't like the way this country is going than get off your butt and get active in the political system. I do. If I were to run for office I would vote the way I felt I had to vote that would reflect my faith. You should have the right to vote has you feel that reflects your faith and values.

Don't worry, Your side has more votes for keeping abortion than my side who would like to see other ways of dealing with teen pregancy than abortion, partical birth abortion, and aboriton on demand. Your side has no problem with teens getting abortions without their parents even being informed. My side the pro life side is being pushed out of the party, so you don't have to worry about us having much say on our party's platform.

If you don't like having us pro life, patriotic, Catholics who live by our faith in the Democratic party than that is to bad. You will just have to deal with the fact that we are there and working to turn this country around. This country is in sorry shape. We need to find a way to work together to change things around.

Why do you think the candidates so far have not mentioned the abortion issue? They don't want to rock the vote and bring division to our party but want us to vote as one. Your post just reminds us pro life Democrats that none of the candidates even the Catholic ones are pro life. Here is was forgetting that and thinking of the War in Iraq was a bigger issue. Gee, thanks for reminding me that there are no Democratic Candidates that are pro life.

[musette_sf]

47. i'm pro-life

i'm for every child being a wanted child
i'm for a woman's right to control her life
i'm against the death penalty
i'm for the rights of loving couples to marry and enjoy the legal benefits

what "life" are you for, besides that of a fetus?

i hate it when forced birthers hijack the term "pro-life". from your description, you sound like someone whose karma has been run over by your dogma.

[Lyric]

50. You believe that marriage is valid only if

it's performed in front of a Catholic priest and at least two witnesses, according to Canon law. Half of all annulments granted in your church are granted because the couple got married without following the proper "form", therefore the marriage is not valid. So my question then becomes, why are you opposed to gay marriages that aren't performed in front of a Catholic priest and at least 2 witnesses? To you, it wouldn't be a "valid" marriage anyway, so it wouldn't violate your religious laws concerning marriage as a sacrament.

( I got my info on this here, btw: http://www.americancatholic.org/messenger/sep1998/feature1.asp )

I fully support your right to believe whatever the hell you want to believe, but I've been with my domestic partner for eight freaking years and we can't get married. We have a little boy. We have built a life together, a relationship together, a family together, but if I die tomorrow--she doesn't get a red cent of my Social Security money, she doesn't automatically inherit my estate, and (worst of all) she doesn't have any legal guarantee that she'll retain custody of the child who's loved her like a second Mother since the day he was born.

In order to guarantee what few rights we *can*, we have to jump through a thousand hoops, fill out stacks of power-of-attorney paperwork, and pay fee after fee after fee for what YOU can get by signing on the dotted line and saying "I do". The Constitution guarantees us all equality under the law--does that sound equal to you?

Civil unions do not work because they are only recognized by the states--and damned few of the states at that. A civil union doesn't allow us to file together on our income tax papers. It doesn't allow us to contribute to or collect each other's Social Security money. It doesn't allow us to qualify for Family Medical Leave to care for each other when we become sick. It doesn't protect our rights and our relationship if we move to a different state. From a federal perspective, my devoted, faithful, loving partner is nothing more than a roommate. In a nation that is increasingly Federally-centralized--this stuff really, really matters.

America is about equality, and that includes people who don't think like you, believe like you, or buy into your personal dogma. When John F. Kennedy was elected, he said (paraphrased) that he wouldn't allow the Vatican to run the nation through him by proxy, because this land is religiously free and diverse. And yet, you are suggesting the exact opposite--that Catholic dogma should play a rather large role in the rule of law. Would you want Islamic doctrine, Protestant doctrine, or Jewish doctrine to dictate what YOU can and cannot do? Would you enjoy having your freedom to eat a ham and cheese sandwich stripped away? To walk around with your head uncovered and t-shirt on? To work outside of the home in a job of your choosing? When you support the idea of civil laws based on religion, you open the door to having someone else's religious laws imposed upon *you*.

[TimeChaser]

52. A few issues with your post

"Many of us are against abortion because of the pain and suffering that the woman/girl has to go through. Those of us who have been forced to have abortions and didn't want them never got over the emotionally pain."

See, that's why we're pro-CHOICE. That is, it's the woman's choice whether to carry a pregnancy to term or to have an abortion. Forced abortion and forced birth can both be traumatic.

"They would have all the rights of a married couple but they are not married because they are not married in the Catholic church by a priest."

Uh, my parent were married by a major of a tiny Ohio town. Are they not married? Am I a bastard now?

"If you don't like having us pro life, patriotic, Catholics who live by our faith in the Democratic party than that is to bad."

I have no problem with people living by their faith. I consider myself a religious person as well. My problem is when people want me to live by their faith.

[stirlingsliver]

56. Contradiction

I draw the line when it comes to people who want to take away the rights of other people.

I do NOT want such people in the same party I am in.

I do NOT want people who want to deny others the right to choose abortions.

If you wish to deny other people their reproductive rights, they I say "Leave! Get Lost! Go Away!"

I don't want you in my party.

[REP]

73. Damn Straight

I don't want people who tell me I have the freedom of THEIR religion in my party. I don't want people wo think there is such a thing as "partial birth abortion" making medical decisions for me or anyone else. I don't want people who thinks rights are okay for the right sort of person anywhere near me.

[PeaceNikki]

63. "Partial birth abortion" and "abortion on demand"?

:wtf:

First, the term "partial birth abortion" is not a medical procedure. You know that, right? In addition, only 1% of abortions occur after 21 weeks, when a fetus is considered having a chance of living outside the womb. And, there clearly must be a tomenting decision for anyone in the situation to make such a decision. To deny them access is mind-boggling.

Secondly, aren't ALL abortions "on demand", seriously, what the HELL do you mean by that?

I'm glad you and your fellow "christians" can't legislate my uterus. And, do you know the REAL reason why you can't? Because many of your fellow "christians" have abortions when they are faced with the deafening reality that all the other "abortion-on-demandists". They do. Read this: "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion - When the Anti-Choice Choose" http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

[Feron]

65. Making abortion illegal won't make it go away.

I'm a Catholic and the Church can shove it when they get all preachy about pro-life.

Withholding contraception that can save lives and prevent pregnancy, covering up the rapes of children/protecting the perps, and denying civil rights to gays are most certainly anti-life practices.

Keeping people ignorant and fearmongering do not stop people from having sex. And I'm tired of the misogynist attitude that pregnant women considering abortion are irresponsible whores that need to be punished (read: forced to give birth) because they dared have sex.

I personally hate abortion and it would be wonderful if it didn't exist. However we live in an imperfect world and what's the right choice for me isn't right for everyone. Therefore I put my energies into preventing pregnancy and making sure that women have legal and safe reproductive choices available.

True any sort of surgery runs the risk of complications and no one should rush into a surgical procedure. That's why education and contraception are important. Prevention is key.

Abortion is a difficult choice as is becoming a parent or choosing adoption. Women in this situation deserve our support and not our judgment.

Personally I will rejoice the day a medical procedure is no longer part of the political debate. Politicians, like Bill Frist, make lousy doctors.

Now I am a pro-life person. I abhor war and want to make sure that even the poorest have access to the staples of life like food, shelter, and health care. Those things will make more of a difference than trying to control a woman's womb.

[ihavenobias]

108. Illegal Abortion Does Not Reduce Abortion Rates

There's an interesting discussion on that topic (based on some new research) here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/the-deafening-silence_b_68950.html

[defendandprotect]

71. I'm a Pro-Choice Democrat . . ..

Now -- also as a recovering Catholic -- it's scary to have someone say that they follow church "teachings" still. Do you mean that you don't use birth control?

Calling abortion "murder" -- I'm sure you know -- is one of the points of extremism which took the church all the way to inspiring and financing those who have done actual MURDER of living people at women's clinics. Indeed, it has been religious fanatics who have committed murder.

As for this ...

QUOTE: Many of us are against abortion because of the pain and suffering that the woman/girl has to go through. Those of us who have been forced to have abortions and didn't want them never got over the emotionally pain. There are many of us who because of the abortion got holes in our uterus and had to have total hysterctemys and were not ever allowed to know the joy of being a mother. You see abortion is not just a political issue for many of us but a personal issue and we don't want to see other women have to know the pain of going through one.UNQUOTE

Of course you must in turn realize that hundreds of thousands of women all over the globe, every year, are losing their lives because abortion is NOT legal????
And that their future fertility is harmed and they are not able to have children???
Do you think that abortion is NOT a "personal" issue forthose women???

Re this . . .

QUOTE: Don't worry, Your side has more votes for keeping abortion than my side who would like to see other ways of dealing with teen pregancy than abortion, partical birth abortion, and aboriton on demand. Your side has no problem with teens getting abortions without their parents even being informed. My side the pro life side is being pushed out of the party, so you don't have to worry about us having much say on our party's platform.UNQUOTE

Sex education in our schools is one of the primary ways of preventing abortions --
the Vatican stands against it.
Condoms -- the Vatican stands against it while Aids spreads thru Catholic Latin America -- !!!

Your use of the terms "partial birth abortion" and "abortion on demand" suggest that you have no real idea of what those issues are about. I think they deserve discussion and I hope to get to that in future weeks. Late term abortions are necessary -- and only permitted under strict supervision in order to preserve the health of the female or the life of the female. PLEASE get some real info
on what problems do arise in pregnancies.


Re this . . .

QUOTE: I am against gay marriage because as a Catholic I believe in the sacrament of marriage is between a man and a woman. If you have two adults who are gay and they want to have an union than that is fine. They could call it a civil union. They would have all the rights of a married couple but they are not married because they are not married in the Catholic church by a priest.UNQUOTE

This is also worrisome because evidently you're under the impression that the Catholic Church would be FORCED/? to marry homosexuals. NO -- not unless the church itself changed its rules.
And, by the way, documents have been found suggesting that the Vatican did at one time perform homosexual marriages. And -- please read the thread at DU -- civil unions do not provide all the benefits which marriage provides.

Re this . . .

QUOTE: I don't feel that others views should be pushed on me. All to often it is the politically correct crowd that get their views heard and those of us Democrats who are pro life, patriotic, and believe in the teachings of our church are pushed out of our party. I am not leaving.UNQUOTE

Does it occur to you ever that a patriarchal church, acting as a middle-man to "god," may be "pushing its views" on you-?

If there is a "god" . . . he/she is not a fascist --
That "god" has give you a free and independent conscience --- and you are expected to use it.
Use your own intelligence as you are expected to do.

---------------------

QUOTE:

Those of us who are Catholic and follow our church's teaching fight against abortion because we feel it is the murder of innocent life.

I know there are not many of us Democrats who are pro life, but there are a few. I have just as much right to stand up and speak out against the evils of abortion as another Democrat has the right to stand up for abortion.

Many of us are against abortion because of the pain and suffering that the woman/girl has to go through. Those of us who have been forced to have abortions and didn't want them never got over the emotionally pain. There are many of us who because of the abortion got holes in our uterus and had to have total hysterctemys and were not ever allowed to know the joy of being a mother. You see abortion is not just a political issue for many of us but a personal issue and we don't want to see other women have to know the pain of going through one.

I am against gay marriage because as a Catholic I believe in the sacrament of marriage is between a man and a woman. If you have two adults who are gay and they want to have an union than that is fine. They could call it a civil union. They would have all the rights of a married couple but they are not married because they are not married in the Catholic church by a priest.

I personally don't like the idea of people burning the flag. The flag is more than just a flag but is a symbol of my country. I may not agree with everything my country does and believe me I dispise Bush for what he has done, but I would not burn our flag. Maybe it is because I am a Daughter of the American Revolution and I try and honor our flag. Instead of burning the flag, why not be active in the political system and trying to change things for the better.

I don't feel that others views should be pushed on me. All to often it is the politically correct crowd that get their views heard and those of us Democrats who are pro life, patriotic, and believe in the teachings of our church are pushed out of our party. I am not leaving.

If you don't like the way this country is going than get off your butt and get active in the political system. I do. If I were to run for office I would vote the way I felt I had to vote that would reflect my faith. You should have the right to vote has you feel that reflects your faith and values.

Don't worry, Your side has more votes for keeping abortion than my side who would like to see other ways of dealing with teen pregancy than abortion, partical birth abortion, and aboriton on demand. Your side has no problem with teens getting abortions without their parents even being informed. My side the pro life side is being pushed out of the party, so you don't have to worry about us having much say on our party's platform.

If you don't like having us pro life, patriotic, Catholics who live by our faith in the Democratic party than that is to bad. You will just have to deal with the fact that we are there and working to turn this country around. This country is in sorry shape. We need to find a way to work together to change things around.

Why do you think the candidates so far have not mentioned the abortion issue? They don't want to rock the vote and bring division to our party but want us to vote as one. Your post just reminds us pro life Democrats that none of the candidates even the Catholic ones are pro life. Here is was forgetting that and thinking of the War in Iraq was a bigger issue. Gee, thanks for reminding me that there are no Democratic Candidates that are pro life. UNQUOTE

[renate]

201. I'm truly sorry that you were forced to have an abortion against your will

That must have been awful. :hug: And it sounds like you're still suffering the effects of a badly done procedure and I'm so sorry.

I respect your opinion about abortion even though I don't agree with it. There's actually quite a lot in your post that I don't agree with but I appreciate your sharing your thoughts with us. One of the things that I hope we get back in this country is the idea that, while we may not agree on everything, we fully support each others' right to freely express our opinions.

[prolesunited]

72. Why should your religious beliefs

be allowed to dictate the laws of this country when I not all of your fellow Americans share them?

[Betty]

75. If people are only truly married by a Catholic priest

then I would guess you don't see marriages performed by a rabbi as legitimate either. Or a justice of the peace.

[Raster]

76. So, how do you feel about the death penalty?

And Missy, one word: SPELLCHECK

[Iris]

78. so, then, what exactly brings you to the Democratic party?

I guess just the War in Iraq? You were thinking that's the bigger issue? But now you realize you were wrong and the bigger issue is abortion and the deaths of civilians, including children, and soldiers is just a close second?

[Quantess]

82. Thank you for bravely stating your opinions.

I wonder why a person such as yourself can't live by their faith, and also allow others to live and behave according to their beliefs? My sense of morality is far different than yours, but I don't expect you to change your beliefs to be more like mine. Does a pro-life Catholic such as yourself really need laws prohibiting abortion in order for you to live true to your faith?

I will never be anti-choice. I have always believed, and I will always believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and accessible. Abortion is safer than childbirth (but that's not my point). I don't think abortion is immoral, at all, ever, in the first trimester, and even if it's illegal, women will do it anyway, only with greater danger. My point is, why do you get to decide?

Likewise, I will always be a heterosexual. Gay marriage will not change that.

There's a lot more I could say, but I'm out of time. Respectfully, please understand that none of us enjoy having other people's views pushed on us. Not you, not I.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. So you don't think divorced people should be legally allowed to marry, either?

They can't get married in the Catholic Church. Just like gays. Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich- perhaps you've herad of them- have had multiple "marriages". Not civil unions. But how can that be? The Catholic Church wouldn't marry them. I'm confused!

And how about Birth Control? The Catholic Church doesn't approve of birth control any more than it does abortion? Should birth control, like abortion, be illegal, because the Vatican doesn't like it?

As for why the candidates haven't mentioned the abortion issue- bullshit. They all have, they're all PRO-CHOICE. As are a good number of the Republicans. Know why?

Because the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE PRO-CHOICE, TOO.

Don't like it? Too bad. Run your own life, don't try to run other peoples'.


That's the point of the OP.

[Vektor]

92. It's "anti-choice" NOT pro-life.

Please don't use disingenuous language.

And please tell me how you are a Democrat? I was unable to find a single Democratic position in your entire post.

[gollygee]

98. My husbnad and I weren't married in a Catholic church by a priest

so we shouldn't be able to be legally married?

"abortion on demand"?? How else would it be done? Would we randomly assign abortions to people? That phrase is ridiculous.

[TahitiNut]

104. With that attitude, JFK would have never been President.

Indeed, I would not vote for ANY politician who'd impose their religious beliefs on others by force of law or authority of office. Such attitudes among Roman Catholics are new since the 60s, and reflect the current Pope's reactionary animosity toward "liberation theology." Thus, I would question whether it's at all a question of "faith and morals" in the first place. The idea that one's own "faith and morals" dogma must extend, by using the power of one's secular office, to restricting the choices of others is noxious in the extreme. It leads to pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control or even condoms, substituting their will for that of another person. That's not faith; that's oppression.

[Zhade]

130. How incredibly authoritarian of you.

Keep your imaginary gods out of our lives, thanks. I WILL fight - violently, if necessary - to preserve my liberty.

You will not put shackles around us.

[Bassic]

152. I'm a Catholic, and although I don't like the concept of abortions,

I still believe women have the right to control their own bodies.

[NMMNG]

191. You're joking, right?

I don't feel that others views should be pushed on me.

But you have no problems trying to run other people's lives according to your religion. How do you account for that hypocrisy?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

46. Correct conclusions, but not a sufficient argument to justify them.

If you're opposed to murder, don't murder.
If you're opposed to theft, don't steal.
Etc.

To make your argument work, you need to add several steps. You need to say that things I do should only be regulated if they impact other people.

That's sufficient to justify legalising pornography and flag burning.

Even then, you need to add several steps to the abortion case, explaining that a foetus is not a person because it's not self aware.

And to make the case for state recognition of gay marriage (as opposed to gays being allowed to go through marriage ceremonies and live as married couples, which they already can) one needs to put forwards arguments about justice and equality, not privacy and individual rights, I think.


And all this has nothing to do with the occupation Iraq.

[JuniperLea]

49. That's always been my stance...

I hate the thought of abortion... canceled one, and gave birth to a sweet kid who went on to be a chemical engineer. I'd never have one... unless I knew the child I was carrying would suffer birth defects and would not be comfortable in life... I think abortions are horrid... I think it shallow to comment on the money aspect... I die a little inside every time I hear about someone having one... I think that if anyone can be so cruel as to kill an unborn, they don't have what it takes to care for a born one.

But...

I'll be damned if I want the government to tell me or another woman what she can or cannot do. I will always be pro-choice. If I were pregnant with a child who only had pain and grief to look forward to, and couldn't get an abortion, that would be the most cruel thing on Earth... for me and for the child.

[ryanus]

51. If you're opposed to murder, don't commit one

That's a dumb argument you got going there.

no I didn't say abortion was murder. I am pointed out how dumb you argument is.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. Do you understand the difference between eating a steak and shoving one down your neighbor's throat?

No? I mean, there's NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN your body and everyone else's body, right?

Bob is going to sky dive. Bob pushes Mike out of an airplane. Same thing, right?

I mean, if you're claiming the freedom to control your own life and body, you must be insisting that you have the right to completely fuck up everyone else's shit.

Yeah, let's talk about dumb arguments.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. "All I ask is equal freedom. When it is denied, as it always is, I take it anyhow." H.L. Mencken

[derby378]

54. If you're opposed to AK-47s, don't buy one

And while you're at it, leave me and my rifle alone. You've got bigger things to worry about than a law-abiding American citizen who happens to own a gun.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. Do you think everyone here supports gun control?

I wonder where you got that idea.

[derby378]

68. Just giving a few people a gentle reminder...

I want Democrats to win the big enchilada in 2008. It'll be the only way to start undoing the damage the Fascist-in-Chief has inflicted on our nation.

[Warren DeMontague]

80. Leaving aside how I personally feel about it, gun control is a loss leader for our party.

We would be far better off if we would articulate an across-the-board personal freedom agenda: Get government out of people's bodies, bedrooms, bloodstreams.. indicate that we're the people who want to let folks run their own lives, while the GOP wants to ban the birth control pill.

Hard to do that if "the dems wanna take yer gun away" is all people hear. I'm fine with letting that issue drop as a national one, although I think that's pretty much been done already.

[nosmokes]

70. Amen and Amen.

[mattomjoe]

77. No matter how often this gets repeated

it still remains the dumbest fucking argument in favor of pro-choice.

[Warren DeMontague]

84. Right. People running their own lives? Making their own decisions about their own bodies?

Crazy Talk. :sarcasm:

[Balbus]

87. Well, if I ever come across a pro-lifer who states the reason...

they oppose abortion is because they don't want people "making their own decisions about their own bodies..." I'll know what argument to use.

Unfortunately, I haven't come across a pro-lifer who states that reason for being against abortion.

And neither have you...

[Warren DeMontague]

88. Oh, right. It's about "saving babies". Of course, baby=fertilized egg.

And after they ban abortion, it will be the pill. Then all contraception. Then all non-procreative fucking.

It's about running peoples' lives. Wake up.

[Balbus]

89. So since we agree about what the opposition's real argument is,

then you must surely see how fucking stupid the OP really is?

Glad I could be of service...

[Warren DeMontague]

90. No, nice try.

What really confounds me is why some alleged "liberals" react to simple, straightforward statements like:

"people should be able to make their own damn decisions about their own lives and bodies"

as though they just found dogshit on their shoe. :shrug:

[mattomjoe]

178. No, what's crazy is thinking people will settle for "abstaining" from an issue

they feel passionately about. If you truly believe that, you're as delusional as they are.

[Warren DeMontague]

200. You don't understand the difference between running your own life and running other people's?

I don't drink alcohol or do drugs. I guess that means I need to support the idiotic drug war, and to try to bring back prohibition while I'm at it, eh?

There are plenty of people who are personally opposed to abortion yet don't feel the need to use the LAW to impose their belief on others. There are lots of people who believe that life begins at the second of conception but not only realize that others draw the line elsewhere, they also comprehend that it would be complete fucking insanity to try to grant 14th amendment rights to single cells... as the anti-choice crowd wants to.

That's why The Majority of Americans are Pro-Choice. Did you know that? You can be forgiven for not realizing it. The Corporate Media, with their bullshit about the all powerful "values voter", likes to pretend that personal freedom and reproductive choice are somehow losing issues for us. It's quite the reverse.

I guess some folks are missing that gene that makes certain other people want (sorry, "need") to run everyone else's fucking life. Weird, huh?

[superduperfarleft]

164. I'm a little late, but I missed you the first time.

I 100% agree.

[Perry Logan]

94. And if you oppose socialism, stay off my sidewalk.

[superduperfarleft]

97. There are so many better arguments out there

in favor of reproductive rights for women and equal marriage, why the need to couch them in such simplistic terms?

I agree with this: "It's comical, Repukes who spend their waking hours bemoaning alleged claims that Dems want to institute a "Nanny state" wish to control the most personal and private aspects of our behavior."

It's just that the "don't like x, don't have one" argument is so flawed, I wish people wouldn't keep bringing it up.

[ihavenobias]

106. God is "OK" with abortion?

According to a study I read on Medline, about 48% of all pregnancies are terminated "naturally", due to miscarriage, improper implantation of the fertilized egg, etc.

Apparently people should be picketing God instead of Planned Parenthood.

theyoungturks.com

[defendandprotect]

194. Actually, "god"/nature is in favor of abortion, infertility, birth control, etal ---

Females used to have access to all kinds of natural plants which provided ways for them to interrupt conception -- to cause a miscarriage/abortion --- to permanently make themselves sterile --- or to temporarily provide birth control.

Still in many areas, women are familiar with some of these plants ---
Papaya was one --- you ate it every day for 7 days and it worked like RU486 ---

All of these natural remedies were destroyed --- all knowledge of them destroyed ---

And here we are nearing -7Billion on the planet!!!

Patriarchy is suicidal ---!!!

[Kablooie]

107. But you don't get it.

If you're opposed to those things god gives you the right to kill anyone who disagrees.
And everyone knows god is a higher authority than the US government. It says so right on
the dollar bill.
In God We Trust.

Kill kill kill, anyone who disagrees with you because they are wrong and deserve to die.
That's the good honest Christian way to live.

[DangerDave921]

118. Hey now

Democratic values and Christianity are not mutually exclusive.

I will give Christians their due -- I don't think they recommend death to anyone who disagrees with them and that they deserve to die. Where did you get that from?

[BlueIris]

115. "Nanny state"? They're actually using that term? That's spin I somehow hadn't heard.

And it IS comical.

"Nanny state."

Snerk. Tiny minds.

[CyberPieHole]

117. ...but...WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???....

:evilgrin:

[Vickers]

120. OK, seriously...who else is shocked that BOSSHOG didn't post this?

:P

Nice rant, 11 Bravo! :patriot:

k&r

[greiner3]

123. Copulation is the leading cause of pregnancy;

People the world over, heterosexual couples anyway, make babies because they like to screw. It feels good and a lot of people are very good at it. If a woman gets pregnant she has options. However, fundies the world over want to limit those changes. With proper family planning those women who become pregnant without wanting to would fall to very small amounts.

Fundies must have very poor sex lives from what I can gather. They only have sex to procreate and I cannot imagine laying there with my partner and thinking about the end result of what I'm currently doing will cause me to have a larger federal tax deduction.

[sakabatou]

124. They want absolute control

Reminds me a little of 1987 and the THX movie

[Manifestor_of_Light]

133. Politician's attitude:

This was in a wonderful cartoon decades ago by Ben Sargent of the Austin American-Statesman:


Pregnant woman. Male politician with one hand on her large tummy. Male politician points other hand and index finger in air and screams, "SACRED UNBORN LIFE!".


Second panel:
Unpregnant woman, holding hand of raggedly dressed toddler. Male politician points at ragged little urchin, and screams, "SNIVELING LITTLE SNOT-NOSED WELFARE CHEAT!".


Let's hear it for political hypocrisy.

[steve2470]

145. Amen

With all due respect to all highly religious people here, please, allow God to handle this. Thank you.

[Raffi Ella]

149. !

:kick:

[RainDog]

165. A HUGE thank you to "impeachdubya"

:yourock:

thank you for making reasonable arguments in clear terms. thank you for your knowledge of Dworkin, etc. (She didn't have the support of all feminist "names" and more than one openly opposed her arguments for reasons of freedom of speech.) thank you for the blastocyte picture vs a child. thank you for noting the ways in which too many want freedom for what they like, but not for what others like.

You stated so succinctly the problem with picking and choosing which "vices" or choices should be stigmatized. Too bad too many can't appreciate it. I've heard the "my insurance pays for your X" for so long I want to go stand up in a church and tell all the fat people to kill themselves so I don't have to pay for their diabetes medicines (that's sarcasm, btw.)

it was interesting to read the "I'm catholic, therefore you have no rights" argument. The dogma is its own argument against itself.

It's not only right wingers who don't like some of the "nanny state" issues- they come from the left and the right. Nanny state issues also, once again, target the poorest and the middle classes, while the rich can be exempt because they can create their separate "reality."

[Warren DeMontague]

166. Thanks. From a purely political standpoint, too, I think personal freedom is a winner for us.

I think if we articulate a strong, consistent, get government out of individuals' bodies, bedrooms and bloodstreams combined with unequivocal support for real-world infrastructure and long overdue social safety net improvements- like a SPHC system- we could draw in libertarian-minded voters AND greens, leaving the GOP to the small cadre of religious crazies that comprises their base.

In my ideal world, that is the tack our party would take, instead of falling all over itself to be GOP-lite in pursuit of mythical "values voters".

And thank you for mentioning that the Dworkin crowd does NOT speak for all "Feminists". There are plenty of Feminists who are sex positive, pro-free expression and pro-First Amendment.

[cgrindley]

183. Abortion on demand does not exist

never has. There are a number of limitations on it, and it's entirely just that it should be that way. Marriage--whether between one straight man and one straight woman or between a lesbian or gay couple--should be better controled and should include mandatory couples counselling. Pornography should be regulated.

Flag burning is okay by me.

But yeah, this Democrat does want a nanny state.

Perhaps you're a libertarian?

[upi402]

198. There it is!

nuf said!