Why are women's reproductive rights always a bargaining chip?

[undeterred]

I am so sick of this being thrown in our faces every election. I am sick to death of the Catholic Church and any other organization that is telling parishioners to get out there and vote against my rights. Why should anyone's rights be up for debate every election cycle?

[krabigirl]

1. Yep. Total agreement here. It sucks.

[ensho]

2. its called the male war against women

and its world wide.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. No, It Really Isn't. That's A Pretty Sexist Statement.

Fact is, half if not more than half of anti-abortion advocates are women.

[Donnachaidh]

14. but the leadership is mostly MEN

You know -- the buttholes like Randall whatsisface, and of course, whatever preacher wants to keep *his womenfolk in line*

Sorry - but the ones who get the soundbites ARE men. The bombers WERE men. The ones doing the most damage to women's reproductive rights (not only in abortion area, but birth control as well) are MEN.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. Those Men Wouldn't Have The Power If Women Didn't Give It To Them.

This is nothing but sexist tripe.

Fact is, more women support laws against abortion than men do. Maybe you should own up to that and wake up to the real problem, rather than blaming it on men in a sexist manner.

[PeaceNikki]

18. Curious, where on Earth do you get your data indicating "more women support laws against abortion...

than men do"?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. From Just About Every Poll I've Ever Seen On The Subject.

[PeaceNikki]

27. Such as....?

Googling.

Nope - http://womensissues.about.com/gi/pages/poll.htm?linkback=http://womensissues.about.com/b/2007/11/09/gender-and-position-on-abortion.htm&poll_id=4582276888&poll=5&submit1=Submit+Vote

Nope - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#By_gender.2C_party.2C_and_region

Nope - http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2118.pdf

Nope - http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=91

Can you point me to one?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. You Have Two Right In Your List.

Your first link I couldn't see anything at all.

Your wikipedia clearly shows more women want abortion banned outright than men.

Your pew poll also clearly shows more women want abortion banned outright than men

[dorkulon]

28. According to this Pew survey from 2004, it's roughly equal

but women feel more strongly on both sides of the issue.



http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=88

[ensho]

29. are you really a woman, women know who holds the tether

survival is the most important thing women deal with re: men.

we sleep with the enemy. many of the enemy we sleep with are religiously insane. there are various tactics used to survive. some women are anti abortion.


(and, yes, there are really wonderful, loving men in the world and, yes, they are the minority)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. What A Bunch Of Sexist Malarkey That Is.

Women are anti abortion because they're scared of their husbands...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You are too funny!

[Gwendolyn]

63. I disagree. There are many, many loving and kind men in the world.

The shithead syndrome applies to women often enough as well.

Google stuff sometime and you'll find interviews with doctors who say they have patients come in for their abortions and as soon as it's done, these women spit out "baby-killer" and go right back to the picket line. They talk about girls coming in convinced that abortion was only justified in their own case. Everyone else is a sinner.

[BoneDaddy]

75. Lol one sick lady you are

take your anti male nonsense somewhere else. Or get some therapy.

[kiranon]

92. Yeah right. That's why so many women are CEOs and hold political office.

That's why so many women are tenured faculty members and judges and partners in law firms and accounting firms. Sarcasm! Big time.

[Bryn]

212. True!

Those weak minded fundie women sit there listening to their sweating preachers, nodding, nodding, thus giving them POWER!

[ensho]

24. true

nt

[blueraven95]

60. with all due respect

every form of repression eventually leads to self-perpetuating repression. That is, the people who are being repressed internalize the repression and perpetuate it.

In this case, while I do not have the facts, it is not surprising that a great number of women support a repressive stance against abortion. These women have were born in a repressive society, were brought up in a repressive society, now live in a repressive society, and because of these then now also enforce that repressive society. Just because some women doing the enforcing does not change the fact that it is men who put the system in place and who benefit from it.

[Kitty Herder]

77. Well said. nt

[get the red out]

72. They are brain-washed

idiots.

[BoneDaddy]

74. Bullshit

Most of the men I know support a woman's right to choose. Stop the male vs women war black and white childish simplification and grow out of your grudge against men.

[MountainLaurel]

3. Because we're just women, you know

And paying for Eve's sin is just our lot in life.

:eyes:

[dorkulon]

4. If all women supported their own rights, it wouldn't be a topic.

It's a sad fact. In fact, if all women felt that way, it's likely that virtually all men would agree, if they wanted any women around.

[Deep13]

46. exactly

It does not excuse the intrusion of course, but if women weren't selling each other out on this and other issues, it would not be a problem.

Of course if people stopped taking public policy advice from churches, it also would not be a problem.

[Kitty Herder]

57. "...if people stopped taking public policy advice from churches, it also would not be a problem."

That's the source of the problem. Whether it is men or women who are opposing women's rights, they're doing so because their church told them to. Which puts it back in the men's laps, because the churches are usually extremely patriarchal institutions, controlled by men, and desirous of a return to the days when women stayed at home, barefoot and pregnant, and kept their mouths shut.

Religion has a great deal of control over people, uniquely able to convince them to oppose their own best interests, including women.

[Deep13]

58. yup. nt

[paparush]

5. Eve! Its all Eve's fault!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

6. Because Some Disagree With You That It Is A 'Right'.

Some on the opposite side of the argument consider it to be the unborn's right.

It is that very difference in opinion that defines the debate to begin with.

The reason it's brought up for debate, is because half of the people involved in the argument do not subscribe to the assertion that it is a woman's reproductive right.

[PeaceNikki]

9. Roe v Wade indicated it to be a violation of PRIVACY

which *IS* a constitutional right.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. Duh.

But the reason it is debated is due to the very real chance that RvW could someday be overturned. The debate does not revolve around RvW. It revolves around the concept of abortion itself. Due to the reasons I mentioned above, that's why it's debated each election cycle.

[PeaceNikki]

15. Abortion laws violate a woman's consitutional right to privacy. End of story.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. You're Never Going To Win The Abortion Debate That Way.

As it stands right now, you are correct. Years from now, you may be incorrect. Because you are referencing a legal decision that can be easily overturned, it can easily be ignored within arguments of the issue.

Furthermore, your point is moot in this thread anyway. The OP asked why it's debated. I answered accurately as to why. And the answer has nothing to do with the RvW decision, since those on the opposite side of the argument consider it to be a wrong decision (and will do everything in the power to have it overturned someday).

[PeaceNikki]

22. It's not only an important point of the debate, it' IS the SCOTUS decision.

So, not "moot" at all.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

25. As It Relates To The OP The Point Is Moot.

The OP asked why the issue is up for debate. The issue is up for debate because half of the people debating it completely disagree with the OP's position, and couldn't care less about a SCOTUS decision that can be overturned in the blink of an eye. And if god forbid they ever do, will you be as firm in defense of the NEW decision, claiming it's not worthy of debate since SCOTUS ruled that the woman has no such right? No, I didn't think so. That's why it's moot.

[cushla_machree]

120. WHy can it be easily overturned?

If the courts ruled in Roe Vs. Wade......how can the decision be hanging by a thread?

If a state tried to create a law segregating the schools..wouldn't Brown vs Board of education make any attempt to create a law like that null? Whats the bigger threat here...a ruling by the states outlawing abortion....or a slightly different case making its way to the supreme court which would reverse the earlier decision?

Its one of those things...as a woman...i am just tired of constanty dealing with it....its been settled in the 70s. 30 years of abortion and i cringe to think we would go backwards!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

133. Because If The Wrong Person Is Elected, They Will Likely Have To Nominate A Few SC Justices.

That would shift the balance of power on the court and RvW would be history, for all intents and purposes.

[Romulox]

50. Actually, the controlling case is Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and...

the legal standard is this:

Pre "viability", the States may regulate abortion so long as they don't cause an "undue burden" to a women's right to an abortion. (Don't ask what an "undue burden" is--Justice O'Connor made the standard up out of whole-cloth and gave zero guidance as to what it means.)

Post viability, the States may ban abortion outright, provided there is an exception for the life/health of the mother.

The foregoing is the Constitutional standard for regulating abortion, and as you can see, your assertion that "bortion laws violate a woman's constitutional right to privacy," is an incorrect statement.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[katandmoon]

17. It has NOTHING to do with the "unborn's" right. Not one fucking thing.

The anti-choice contingent absolutely could not care LESS once happens to the fetus once it sees the light of day. Not.One.Fucking.THING.

It's all about forcing women who dare to have sex for reasons other than strict procreation, to pay the consequences of enjoying themselves.

The sooner you get that into your head, the better.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. I Disagree With You Completely.

I think the overwhelming majority of those against abortion are passionate due to what they consider to be the rights of the unborn child. I think assigning an opinion to the majority that they just want to punish women for having sex, is ludicrous in nature.

[Believing Is Art]

31. I somewhat disagree

The pro-life crowd may in large genuinely care about the life of the unborn child, but mody are also against social programs and economic policies that would improve the life of child once it is born. Maybe they care, but their voting records indicate otherwise.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

47. No, you are wrong. It's all about controlling and punishing women.

Totally. Nearly every debate I've ever gotten into with a forced birther has devolved into a tirade (on their part) about sluttish women needing the pay the price for their behavior. An example from one recent one: "Well, if women don't want to get pregnant they shouldn't open their legs!"

That's what is behind the belief shared by many (including, sadly, a few people on this board) that abortion "shouldn't be used as birth control". Think about that statement for a minute: Abortion shouldn't be used as birth control. What is a person really saying when they say something like that? IMO, they're saying that some women are irresponsible and should be punished with forced childbirth.

If it's really about caring for the unborn, then why are so many forced birthers against sex ed and contraception? The most effective way to prevent abortion is to prevent the unwanted pregnancies that lead to it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. No, I'm Not.

And as long as you limit your mentality to the those on the other side being mainly extremist fundies, your mentality will remain too narrow for any real objectivity to be attained.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

82. Whatever they are, they don't believe women are people and they can kiss my ass. nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

83. Yet Another Ridiculous And Baseless Sentiment.

I've yet to ever meet someone who is against abortion that considers women to not be people. What an absurd thing to say.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

86. If you think I shouldn't be able to choose for myself, whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term

Then you think I am a walking incubator. Period.

I am fucking done being patient with patriarchal assholes and their enablers (you).

If your own child needed blood or bone marrow to survive and you were a perfect match, the government could NOT compel you donate them. Did you know that? Why then, should I be compelled to contribute my entire body (and possibly my life or health) to sustain a fetus if it's against my will? Anyone who believes I should be considers me to be subhuman, because they are saying that my right to personal autonomy and bodily sovereignty is subordinate to a zygote.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

89. ROFLMAO! Oh I Love Melodramatic Outrages.

"If you think I shouldn't be able to choose for myself, whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term then you think I am a walking incubator. Period."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Ahhhhhh, how I love the outrages of the narrow minded...

[mrreowwr_kittty]

93. Yes, wanting rights is so....melodramatic.

:eyes:

I called you out for the anti-choice asshole you are a while back. You denied it. But I remembered seeing you acting as an apologist for forced birthers. I'm bookmarking this thread to throw back in your face in the future.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

94. Talk About Childish.

"I'm bookmarking this thread to throw back in your face in the future."

Throw back in my face for what? Being rational? Being objective? You're a hoot!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And I'm firmly pro-choice. So saying I was an anti-choice asshole is just simply a flat out lie missy.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

97. You said on this thread, that you are "mostly against abortion".

You followed up with a claim that you're pro-choice so I assume you are referring to your personal views on abortions. You then go on to defend anti-choicers vigorously.

Something tells me that you are taking our comments personally.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

99. Can You Point To Any Comment I've Made Defending Anti-Choicers Vigorously?

Such comments do not exist. With your willingness to spew out made up smears, I'm surprised McCain hasn't called upon you to help with his campaign...

[mrreowwr_kittty]

103. With your willingness to defend anti-choicers I'm surprised he hasn't called you either

Since they have a valid argument and all, according to you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

104. Again, Can You Point To Any Comment I've Made Defending Anti-Choicers Vigorously?

You can't? Yet you continue to spew the same baseless smears? How Palin-like of you.

I also never claimed they had a valid argument either. All of done is supply some accuracy to the argument itself, as well as answer the question of the OP in a real and sensible manner. You want to twist it into something altogether different. Not surprised, since many here use such tactics when they don't have much else, and tend to knee jerk in reply rather than actually having to like, ya know, think and stuff.

You lose. You lose because you don't know how to argue on the merits. You lose because you wage battle using irrationality as the backbone, rather than intellect, reasoning and objectivity.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

110. And the ad hominems keep coming from you.

I shouldn't have to have a debate on the merits of females being considered full human beings and being granted the same rights of citizenship that males enjoy on a progressive board. You seem to think that elevating a clump of cells residing in my uterus to superior legal status to me is a legitimate position for a person to take.

It's not. The anti-choice argument has no merit. Period.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

112. I Haven't Posted One Ad Hominem Towards You. And Again You Turn Tail And Run From The Challenge.

I hate dishonest cowards, I really do.

First of all, you haven't in any way shape or form had to debate the merits of females being considered full human beings. The notion that you have is ridiculous.

Second of all, I have not once in this thread stated that I think elevating a clump of cells blah blah blah is a legitimate position. In fact, I've stated the opposite by declaring repeatedly that I am pro-choice. I'm amazed at your continued lack of ability to comprehend the posts I've written.

Third of all, the anti-abortioners believe our argument has no merit. It's that simple.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

113. "How very Palin-like of you" is a legitimate debating strategy now?

As is describing people as "melodramatic" and "off their meds"?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

115. They Are Accurate Descriptions Of Context. They Weren't Ad Hominems.

In each of my replies I responded to context. You haven't. In fact, you've avoided the context while lying about my position, making up smears, and now even making up quotes, such as "off their meds".

You lose. :hi:

[cynatnite]

124. And that is where you are wrong...

Anti-choicers believe that life begins at conception. This is why they view abortion as murder. This is why they are anti-choice. In their minds a fetus is equal to a human being. Period.

OMC has been trying to explain their position, but you're twisting what he's saying.

Everyone's opinion has merit. Just because it goes against mine or yours doesn't mean that they should be ignored. In fact, the last thing we should do is ignore those people.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

129. Oh gee, here comes another one to "explain" forced birthers to me.

Thanks ever so much. :eyes:

As for ignoring them, it's kinda difficult given how hellbent they are on imposing their opinion on everyone else and how they use it as a wedge issue in elections and a litmus test for judges, now isn't it? That's sorta what the whole point of the OP was. That is, before OMC and you came along to educate us hysterical wimmenz as to why we should be all nicey-poo to people who think we are subhuman baby farms.

[cynatnite]

134. Politicians do know the value of this issue in getting their base out...

No disputing that at all.

But these people are usually religious nutballs who truly believe all that.

OMC was right about their motivations. You, however, are reactionary and prefer insulting people.

Oh, and before I forget...Obama is building a dialogue with people like these and trying to get them on board. He's smart enough to know that working across party lines gets more accomplished.

Now, are you going to sling the same insults at Obama?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

137. I am not a politician. I am a commenter on a progressive discussion board.

I have no interest in "reaching across" to people who think I am a subhuman baby farm. And reach across to do what? Compromise with them? We already did that with the limits placed on abortion that currently exist. What more are we going to give them? A ban of abortion on demand? A ban on certain forms of contraception? I don't think so.

[Lars39]

131. Anti-choicers are also trying to redefine conception...leaving out implantation,

which has to be with the woman's "permission".

[cynatnite]

135. Yes, I know. In Colorado, I think it is, they're trying to pass a personhood law...

I think that's what it's called. Pretty screwed up, isn't it?

[conscious evolution]

188. Collectively,every reply you have made

in this thread amounts to a defense of the prolife stance.

Edit to add:When the pro life freeper showed its face in this thread I notice you did not ONCE pile on like everyone else.
Why is that?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

190. Ridiculous Explanation. Collectively? Oh Please.

Instead of just issuing a 'header', how about supplying the details behind it? Care to explain just how my replies collectively defend a prolife stance? I've done no such thing. All I've done is answer the OP's question, which is asking WHY the topic is debated. All I've done is supplied the logically sound reasons as to why it's debated. Supplying the facts of why the debate takes place does not in any way mean that I agree with nor condone the other side's points of view. It just means that I'm open minded and objective enough to be aware that they actually EXIST. If you and others were able to open your minds enough, even just a wee little bit, you'd see how benign all my replies have actually been and what the point of them actually is. Bunch of knee jerks in this thread.

And as far as your ridiculous pro life freeper comment, I have no idea what you're even talking about. I would've loved to have taken part, but don't recall seeing one. What time were they here and what was some of the stuff said? But to insinuate that I'm pro-life because I wasn't glued to my screen every minute and happened to miss one crawling in here, is one of the absolute dumbest damn attacks ever thrown at me. Congrats on that.

[conscious evolution]

198. You do know what collectively means,right?

That is what all of your replies amount to.
No one reply may constitute a defence of anti choice but looked at as a whole it adds up to such.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

200. So Put Them All Together Then. Put Them All Together And Explain How Collectively They Show That.

Just saying it as a header, without any details or explanation supporting it, is empty and meaningless. I can sit here and say that your replies collectively show that you worship nazis and abuse babies, but without any supporting evidence that really wouldn't mean much either.

Fact: I haven't defended anti-choicers whatsoever. Fact: You can't even begin to explain or justify your position that I have.

Knee jerk idiocy. Nothing more.

[Gwendolyn]

206. I understand exactly what you're saying, and agree.

There are different types of anti-choicers. Some like Dobson, et al use this issue as a means to control the womenfolk, and the ultimate goal I believe, is outlaw BC altogether. There are women who are just as rabidly intent on achieving this goal.

But then there are those who truly oppose it on moral grounds. I had a long argument I with an anti-choicer, and the one moment he stumped me was when he said something like "Each time my wife got pregnant, we called it our baby from day one. We never thought of our children as fetuses." And well, he had a point. If the pregnancy is something joyful, of course the mother thinks of what is growing in her as a baby. It's only when the situation is one of desperation, that we think otherwise. It's the emotional aspect of the argument that keep it a constant issue.

[Scout]

207. if they called it a mushroom from day one, would that make it a mushroom when it's born? n/t

[Gwendolyn]

211. That's a little esoteric, but I do know a chicken is not the egg

it hatched from. :)

Someone left a very telling vid down-thread. The anti-choice women interviewed were clueless, had no critical thinking ability at all. People don't always respond to coherent arguments...I mean, believing in God itself is a leap of faith that requires total suspension of logic.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

209. Yes, I've noticed the same thing with some people who are anti-choice

They think that because they sentimentalize the process of procreation that their experience should be universal.

This is a big problem with social conservatives in general. They believe that people can be legislated into happy families.

[Gwendolyn]

216. For some, it's this vision of going back to the 1950's

...where everything was good in Pleasantville. Weird.

They forget about the shame foisted on women, the homes for unwed mothers where girls were hidden away, the shotgun teen marriages, ruined dreams, discarded children, poverty, women whose bodies were broken by repeated pregnancies, botched abortions and death. Those images don't make it through the vaseline lens.

[conscious evolution]

219. Don't need to put them all together.

All one has to do is look at the flame war that has developed around your posts in this thread.You may not realize it but other posters here are seeing what you are doing as a defense of anti-choice.

[Zuiderelle]

205. Good observation.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

213. It Was A Mindless Observation With No Backbone Nor Legitimacy.

Not surprising that you applaud it based solely on the fact that it is an anti-omc post, as opposed to actually having to think about the point it was making and using critical thinking skills to deem the point inaccurate. Just further mindless lockstepping. What a shocker.

[Zuiderelle]

218. Not surprising, what a shocker, mindless lockstepping... LOL!

You're so predictable it's hilarious. Now go ahead and answer me again with how mindless I am.

I know you are, but what am I?

[cynatnite]

106. My mother is totally against abortion, but doesn't want the govt. involved in it..

There are a lot of people who believe that way.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

108. Does your mother defend anti-choicers on DU? nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

111. Have I? No. I Haven't. You're Making Yourself Look Quite Silly By Claiming So.

Your closed mindedness towards this topic and thread is embarrassing.

[cynatnite]

116. OMC is not an anti-choicer.

:eyes:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

193. Yeah, he's not, "some" are. See #196. -nt

[noamnety]

178. hey catburgler

Some folks consistently promote the anti-woman point of view in thread after thread (when they aren't busy expressing their sympathy for homophobic bigots, that is). I'd like to suggest that ignore button, some people ain't worth arguing with. :)

[alarimer]

68. No, they don't give a shit about the fetus after it's born.

Or they would be in favor of welfare, food stamps, WIC and other forms of help. But the majority of anti-choice people are ALSO opposed to all forms of welfare. They are also opposed to birth control, despite the fact that higher use of various forms of contraception would reduce the number of abortions. It is really all about controlling women's bodies. Once Roe v. Wade is gone, they will set their sights on overturning Griswold v. Connecticut, thus, banning birth control.

In any case, they really don't like the right to privacy since it is not explicitly listed in the Constitution.

[raccoon]

45. You got that right. nt

[cynatnite]

100. They view abortion as murder...

A lot of them believe life begins at conception which is why they call it murder.

That is an important part of the equation that you're missing.

[mudesi]

126. But they're wrong

I hate getting involved in abortion debates, but their beliefs are simply not true.

Scientists don't agree on when "human life" actually begins, but they do agree that it's not at conception. To say a human life exists at conception is absurd. A zygote does not have a nervous system. Is it "alive"? Of course. So is a sperm cell and so is a leaf.

I understand calling it murder after a certain point in time, when the brain develops, or even when he circulatory system develops. But at fertilization, to say we have a human life is simply not factually true.

[cynatnite]

136. I think they're wrong, too...

For myself, I don't consider it life until second trimester and I know people see it differently.

[ensho]

30. the unborn don't exist. how can you put a law on something that

doesn't exist?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. Wrong.

The unborn don't exist to you. They do exist to those on the opposite side of the argument.

[ensho]

40. in the real world they don't exist. exist = live - breathing being

if its not breathing it doesn't exist.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. You Don't Get To Make That Definition. That's Your OPINION Of The Definition.

Others on the other side of the argument completely disagree with you. That's the whole point.

[ensho]

43. are you talking about existing in the mind?

nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

44. I'm Talking About Your Foolishness In Thinking You Get To Define The Word Exist.

If you opened your mind just a wee little, maybe you'd be able to realize that your definition is nothing more than mere personal opinion, which carries no more weight than those on the other side who define a fetus as life. They are personal definitions only, and they are at their core the heart of the abortion debate to begin with.

To most on the other side of the equation, the fetus does 'exist' and is a life, and therefore should be protected. The sooner you can open your mind to a reality broader than your own, the sooner you can make some compelling arguments that might actually mean the slightest thing to those who disagree with you.

[alarimer]

69. Well, no, the legal definition of personhood only includes those born alive.

In the census, no one counts the unborn. You do not get a SS number until you are born. You count your age for various purposes from the day you are born. So, yes, I would say that nobody really counts until they are born alive.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. You'd Say It, Many Others Wouldn't. Geez, So Many Of You Need To Open Your Minds.

There's more to the argument than just your side of it.

The whole point of the debate is as to whether women's rights take priority, or if the rights of the unborn do. Some consider the unborn to be life, therefore requiring legal protection, whereas others don't. The merits of both sides are quite easy to see and understand. I'm amazed that so many here can only perceive their end of the argument.

Now granted, I agree with pro-choicers though I'm mostly against abortion. But even being firmly pro-choice I can still easily admit and understand the other side of the argument, without having to act as if it doesn't exist at all.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

125. There were two sides to the slavery argument too.

One of them was wrong.

[cynatnite]

128. Strawman, strawman, strawman!

:rofl:

That was really funny.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

132. Strawman As Stated, But Even Regardless I Don't Disagree. But You're Missing The Point.

The OP asked why it's debated. I supplied the reasons why. The reasons stand true regardless of whether or not the other side's argument is 'right'.

That's what you are failing to understand. We're not having a discussion in this thread as to whether their views are right or not. It was merely a discussion asking why they are brought up and debated.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

186. But you seem to be amazingly committed to arguing a certain side.

As if we didn't all know what their argument was.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

192. I've Only Argued On The Side Of Reality.

The OP asked a question, and I answered it. If your claim is that we all know what their argument is, then I guess you're saying that the OP asked a dumb question. But if the answer was so obvious, then my simply answering it logically, rationally and factually, shouldn't really be reason for vicious character attack now should it?

Y'all need to get a grip. You look ridiculous.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

208. Oh you poor, poor viciously character attacked thing!

I'm sorry that I had a hard time noticing how traumatized you were by this thread, seeing how I was busy being told I'm melodramatic and Palin-like. I got somewhat distracted by that. :eyes:

Now you can go back to telling us silly wimmenz how we need to be more accomodating to people who believe we are subhuman baby machines.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

215. You Kidding? I've Enjoyed The Hell Out Of Whoopin All Of Ya In This Thread!

I've taken each one of you down and not one of you have had the ability to respond coherently or rationally. You continue to offer no substance and empty attack, and continue to throw out monumentally ridiculous accusations. I mean, you've already failed miserably in my previous challenges, how bout a new one for you? Mind pointing out for the people in this thread just where I EVER stated that you should be more accomodating to anti-choicers? Can't wait to see you grasp for straws again!

Ready, set, GO!

:rofl:

[Zuiderelle]

220. After a while, we all tire of hitting our head against the OMC wall.

He won't ever stop arguing, he won't ever stop name-calling, while at the same time crying foul if someone criticizes him, he won't ever concede a point, he won't ever admit a mistake, he'll say things like "It's not surprising coming from you" and then turn around and say that you use ad hominem attacks against him, he won't ever be wrong (and most certainly will never be right) in this particular conversation. It's an exercise in futility. Here he claims to be pro-choice, after parroting right-wing crap, then slips and calls anti-choicers "anti-abortionists," oops.

But of course, HE is pro-choice, he just wants you to understand the viewpoint of the anti-choicers. :eyes: For what end? I have no clue. OPERATIONDEVILSADVOCATE I guess.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

221. Yep, you pretty much captured his essence right there.

:)

[Romulox]

52. Rocks exist. They don't live. They don't breath. Your definition is wrong. QED. nt

[Romulox]

51. Uh, foetuses EXIST--the debate is over what legal rights they should have (if any) nt.

[Zuiderelle]

102. Well, now we know where you stand on women's rights.

Having learned earlier how forgiving you are to homophobic bigots, it should surprise me, but it still pisses me off.

Now go ahead, say something like "well, coming from you..." blah blah blah blah blah.

Why do you even post here?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

109. Again, Get A Grip.

I'm firmly pro-choice, and always have been.

Try not to be so allergic to common sense and reasoning, when supplied in a thread. Holy cow.

:crazy:

[Zuiderelle]

114. Holy cow indeed. Your response is entirely predictable.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

117. You Mean I Shouldn't Have Stated Fact While Being Honest?

Sorry hon, but I know no other way.

All you've got in your arsenal is empty personal attack. No substance, no argument, no critical thinking.

[Zuiderelle]

118. Ditto, hon.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

119. That's All You've Got Left Huh? ROFLMAO!!!!

Sorry hon, you don't get to say ditto. Not only have I posted context and reasonable argument, but you have not and in fact have completely made up smears based on irrational emotional knee jerking rather than critical thinking and objectivity. i.e., the facts support me saying it, but make your saying it laughable.

[Zuiderelle]

122. No, I don't suffer from diarrhea of the mouth like you do. I've said all I want to you here.

You haven't posted anything reasonable at all. Just because you post lots of words, doesn't mean that they have context or meaning or reason.

You are laughable. I agree with that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

123. Everything I Posted In Relation To The OP Was Reasonable. Your Attacks, However, Were Not.

Your attacks were baseless and irrational, and you haven't debated the context of my posts whatsoever.

Empty mindless attacks. That's all I've seen in this thread in response to me for the most part.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

105. Yeah. Some. Uh-huh. -nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

121. Should I Have Said Many?

Talk about petty parsing...

:eyes:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

191. No, I'll be open abou what irks me.

You're trying to argue the anti-choice argument without passing yourself as anti-choice. Hence the "some say" BS. It's not "some," it's YOU. It'd be more honest if you came out and admitted it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

194. Wow Have You Missed The Mark. Not Really Surprised Though.

I haven't argued the anti-choice argument whatsoever. It's your closed mindedness and knee jerk tendencies that make you fail in debate. I'm firmly pro-choice and always have been, regardless of some of my personal feelings on abortion. But can you find me one post in this thread in where I argue the anti-choice argument? Can you supply one? I'd appreciate seeing it. Cause all I can find are comments of mine simply stating that a point exists, without any defense of the points whatsoever.

You are so off the mark it ain't even funny. You are guilty of knee jerk reaction and absence of critical thinking in your replies. Get a grip son.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

197. It's no use. I see the big picture. Most people here do too.

You know what your problem is?

You're CONSISTENT.

Have fun with your 2nd grade mentality of "whoever walks away from the argument loses." I've grown out of that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

199. I'm Consistent With My Ability To Be Objective, Factual, Logical, Intellectual And Not Knee Jerk .

And I will always be content in maintaining that consistency of critical thinking and intellect as it relates to my positions.

All you know how to do is reply with knee jerk emotional emptiness while having nothing to support your argument. That is why you lose. You do not lose because you walk away, you lose because you offer nothing of substance, replies that lack intellect, objectivity and context and because your position comes down to nothing more than ad hominem attacks that can't be substantiated and that contribute nothing to the topic at hand. You lose because I offer facts in my replies, whereas you offer nothing but emotional tirades that are as weak as a grade schooler throwing a tantrum. You lose because you cannot defend with intellect. You lose, because I'm simply right, and you're simply wrong.

Try justifying your position with facts and supporting evidence. Maybe then you'd even have a toe to stand on son.

:hi:

[Scout]

201. remember CPD

"Argue with a fool, he does the same."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

217. Ummm, Helloooooo, McFlyyyyyyy, You're Replying To The One Playing The Part Of Fool.

It is I that should avoid arguing with him and his ilk, but I choose to anyway because it's too much fun exposing them and the emptiness of their knee jerk positions!

I LOVE the OMC fan club! Love it! The most closed minded group on the planet!

All hail the OMC fan club!

:rofl:

[stray cat]

7. Because mens reproductive rights involve only a sperm versus a fertilized egg

No one equates a haploid sperm with a potential human (at least no one I know of)

[undeterred]

10. Yeah, but this is the 21st century.

[Ilsa]

11. Childbirth will be the next sacrament.

They'll be wanting women to give birth in front of the congregation as a celebration of men's power over women.

[StarryNite]

13. I'm sick of it too.

I know some people who are voting for mccain/palin based on this one issue. And I fine it ironic that they are the first people who squawk about people who are getting food stamps and welfare. Once the baby is born they just don't give a shit about it.

It's my body, my business.

[Missy Vixen]

21. Women aren't supposed to have sex for pleasure. Plus, those who choose to control their own

reproductive rights are "bad" and "sinful", and must be stopped.

It's all about power and domination. Anyone who claims that women are equal citizens in this society is misinformed. We will not be until we are not threatened with the loss of our freedom every two years now.

Julie

[eauclaireliberal]

26. Because the GOP needs the lowest rung

...for a solid voting base.

Other than that, what else do they offer voters? Tax cuts? Oh yeah, Iraq is proof of their financial savvy (yank-yank).

[get the red out]

32. They are really after ending access to birth control

You can tell that in their recent rhetoric about birth control pills and IUD's being the same as abortion. This was not part of the debate in the beginning except for the Catholic church, which allows NO woman to have the slightest power within their brain-washing misogynist organization. Now the Protestant wackos are getting on board because ending birth control will produce cheap labor and more mind control subjects and keep those pesky women under male dependence and control with all those mouths to feed.

We, as women, are nothing but slaves to the religious extremists, we are supposed to produce more little church consumers for them and stay under control. Religion hates women, once debated whether or not we even had souls. Any woman that doesn't see this is simply brain washed, and Stockholm syndrome is rampant in the extremist religious organizations. That's why you have the plump, stringy-haired, glaze expressioned females protesting women's clinics chanting their chants with dead-eyed expressions.

[Gwendolyn]

37. I'm gonna go with that observation.

[conscious evolution]

189. It totally nails what the anti choice stance is all about.

Saddleing a woman with an unwanted child is a sure fire way to limit her choices in how she is able to live her life.It is a back door way of creating economic slavery for women of little means.

[canadianbeaver]

34. Word........

Yeah....why is that??

[Stinky The Clown]

38. At least you have that right to defend. Gay people are even more preyed upon

No, I am NOT minimizing the attack oo reproductive rights.

I am simply saying that we, as a society, have a LOT of work to do on **everyone's** right.

"How little distance we've covered for all the time we've traveled."

[get the red out]

39. I agree!

They want women as slaves, they don't even want gay people to exist.

Evil bastards. We have a lot of work getting the hate out of people, a very long road ahead. Too many people have been taught by the Republican ministers and AM Radio that the world will come to an end if anyone but the chosen white, straight, Christian extremist males have human rights.

[ensho]

41. yes, our foremothers fought for the rights we have today and we are

fighting for rights for our daughters/grand daughters. some day we will be equal.

[BlueIris]

48. This is a misogynist society.

News to you? Somehow I think not.

[slackmaster]

49. That's what happens when non-profits are allowed to abuse their tax-exempt status

Churches and other non-profits that engage in partisan political activity should be taxed.

[SmokingJacket]

53. Abortion is the ONLY REASON many people vote Republican.

For a big chunk of people, saving fetuses is the only issue.

God, I wish it would go away. I mean, as an issue. It SHOULD go away, since a majority of Americans believe that women do have the right to control their own bodies, but the minority that doesn't is very, very loud.

[Romulox]

54. The PTB (both Republicans and Democrats) will NEVER let abortion go away as an issue.

Culture war issues are too useful of a distraction.

So, for example, Democrats can vote in support of the War in Iraq, outsourcing, and corporate welfare in huge numbers--but you better not vote for a Republican (or a third party)--Abortion is at risk!

Similarly, "small government" Republicans can expand government spending to the greatest amount ever, but disgruntled Republicans better not vote Democrat--those guys support late term abortions!

So you see, abortion is just too useful of a bogeyman for both sides. It will NEVER be allowed to go away as an issue.

[nichomachus]

56. If you can control people's sex lives, you can control anything

This is why the central parts of current Christian political doctrine are reproductive rights and gay rights.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the churches lobbied for social justice, political justice, concern for the poor, whatever.

All of current Christian theology is located somewhere between the belly button and the knees.

[gollygee]

59. Because it involves women

If reproduction happened in men's bodies, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[KitchenWitch]

61. It is because these fundie nutbags want to lay the entire responsibility

for sexuality on the woman. Period. Any form of promiscuity by men is excused as "men will be men" and "it's because they have such a 'biological' imperative to spread their seed". Funny how they selectively use science to further their own agenda. But women are supposed to have the "self control" to say no.

[marlakay]

62. Like many have said wouldn't be there if men had kids nt

[dkofos]

64. They are not. At least to free thinking human beings in America.

[XemaSab]

65. I wanna know why the rights of gay people are up for a vote too

When do we get to vote to deny straight, white MEN their rights?

Oh yeah, never. :banghead:

[Gwendolyn]

67. Why do you assume it's only straight, WHITE men who are the prob?

[XemaSab]

70. Because 40 years ago in this country

the rights of Black people were up for discussion. 65 years ago the rights of Japanese people were up for discussion. Even today, the rights of Hispanic people, Jewish people, Middle Easterners, and Native Americans are up for discussion.

I am a white person, and somehow my own race gets left out of these discussions when it comes to bashing the races.

And yes, I do realize that men of ALL races are happy to vote about the rights of women, straight people of ALL races are happy to vote about the rights of gays, and so forth, but seriously... it's the rights of straight white guys that never seem to be up for debate.

(And no, I'm not particularly radical, I'm just sayin'....)

[Gwendolyn]

76. Hmmm... okay.

I don't think the rights of Jewish or Hispanic people are being questioned in this country. You may be talking about racism, but not their rights under citizenship. Do you believe that it was only white American men questioning the rights of blacks and the Japanese years ago? Do you think white women held the same beliefs?

As for the rights of white men in this country, some of them would say that theirs are under attack every day. It's a question of perspective maybe. I would say white men get bashed all the time. even if it's only in words. Maybe you're talking about RICH white men.

I would also add that Jewish, Middle Eastern and Hispanic men are equally as brain-dead regarding these issues in their respective countries. Who's swathed head to toe in fabric in Saudi Arabia? The men? What is the culture regarding women, homosexuals vis a vis men in Isreal, Mexico, etc.? Do you think white American men should be held to a higher standard? And if they are, and we are have it at least marginally better, does that count for something?

[XemaSab]

78. First

I've heard a lot of discussion about whether the US is a Christian nation, and Jews, Muslims, and others are left out of that one. Secondly, Hispanic people are being rounded up in a way that Russians and others are not.

Finally, I'm talking about the US, and we DO live in a society that's divided on gender and racial lines, among others.

But the white men are never on the shit end of that. Yeah, they might get verbally maligned, but when's the last time a straight white man was the victim of a real hate crime? When's the last time a straight white man was beaten for being straight, being white, or being male?

Reginald Denny? The fact that we know the guy's name indicates how rare this is. Meanwhile, gay people are getting killed, women are getting raped and abused, ethnic minorities are getting bashed.

I'm not asking you to agree with everything I'm saying, I'm just hoping that in the vast annals of oppression, you'll see who's notsomuch on the receiving end there.

[Romulox]

80. Just FYI: Women (not men) make up the majority of the electorate

and have for some time.

I know it's easier to point the finger at others, but...

[XemaSab]

91. This is true, but since the OP was about women's rights being up for a vote every year...

:shrug:

[Romulox]

96. it doesn't make sense to blame men for women's choices at the ballot box.

Except that you are. :hi:

[XemaSab]

98. There's a distinction here that I think is being lost:

"Men are the oppressors of women."

"Men are never oppressed BY women."

I'm making the latter point.

I know that a lot of women are perfectly happy to vote their own rights away, but in a just society NOBODY'S rights would be up for a vote.

(Sorry for being on a feminist high horse; I'm really pissed about California prop 8. :( )

[Gwendolyn]

84. EVERY country is divided among gender and racial lines.

It's been that way since the dawn of time. Tribalism is inherited as part of our evolutionary fight for survival.

Of course it will be the majority population that commits the most hate crimes against minorities, but that certainly doesn't mean that the majority of the majority commit those crimes. Your answer is to bash and punish the whole majority, rather than pull others to the same level of entitlement.

That's not helpful, is it?

White straight males are occasionally on the receiving end of hate, but it's mostly contained within the religious divide, protestant vs catholic, and vice versa. Granted it's only around 200 per year as opposed to the thousands of black and jewish hate crime. Muslim hate crime roughly equals the total of white hate crime combined (prot + cath).

What's also interesting is that people discount the fact that many minorities are also bigoted against others. How many orthodox jewish boys do you know who would bring home a nice, black muslim girl? How many devout muslim boys are going to end up with a nice, white Christian hippie chick? Yet somehow, that's considered "different" than when a white Christian prefers to marry same. It isn't at all.

Just random thoughts: Males are raped as well, not to the same degree, but it is vastly underreported for obvious reasons. As well, I didn't know that hispanic citizens are being rounded up. I'll have to tell my co-worker :) If you're talking about illegals, certain groups are able to hide their illegals within communities a little better.

[undeterred]

85. Maybe its because they were afraid the womens issue

wasn't enough. They had to start creating laws to deny marriage rights to people who had no marriage rights- at least that's what they did in Wisconsin in 2006. I heard later that this was all thought up on by the GOP to make sure there would be enough voter turnout on a non-presidential election year to keep their seats in the Senate and House... its like they don't really care about the issue, they just want power, and don't care who they hurt in the process.

[JerseygirlCT]

180. That too

The problem is that any person's individual, civil rights ought NEVER to be put up to a vote of the majority.

These things are inherent. They are before the law, and we ought never to have to hope that enough people agree.

[Uncle Joe]

66. Because it's one of the fracture points, the powers that be use to maintain their Machiavellian hold

on power.

My definition of a fracture point is anything ie: social, cultural, historical, regional, racial, gender based or a lifestyle that differs between the people.

The corrupted powers that be identify these differences not so much to heal, bridge, find common ground or compromise but only to magnify the differences for the sole purpose of ruling under the ethos of divide and conquer.

I also believe at times, this magnification of differences can get out of control even for the corrupted powers that be to manage.

In short, women's reproductive rights are always a bargaining chip because some at the top need it to be in order to maintain their personal hold on power.

[bamacrat]

73. Because in our society men are the ultimate rulers on what a woman can do with their body.

Its wrong and sad that people especially the women that think they should not be given the right as a human to choose to havew a baby or not. I cant believe people who support Palin, who believes an abortion is wrong even if a 14 year old girl is raped and impregnated by her own father. I mean come on people, isnt this one of those things like slavery where we all cant believe our country allowed people to not be free, that freedom had to be written into law it was not an understood right.

[Cleita]

79. Because even though we are fifty two percent of the population,

there are the baby voiced, conservative bimbos who allow the men to do it to them. They allow them to equate the word "feminist" with being less than a real woman. I say we should shun those women until they get the message.

[Romulox]

81. 52% of the population means YOU are the ones DOING it...

Nobody is "doing it to you..." Women are human beings with complete moral accountability. :hi:

[Lyric]

138. Yes, because women have exactly the same political power as men.

And we all have proportional representation, and freedom from spousal coercion when it comes time to vote, and nobody ever beats us, or threatens us, and if we would all just vote with one voice, all of those Governors and CongressCritters and Judges would surely do as we say, because women are just so gosh darned powerful and respected by the political community! And also, politicians ALWAYS keep their campaign promises, so if we vote for a supposedly pro-choice politician, we can be guaranteed that he/she won't decide to switch sides later, or put our rights on a back-burner because it's a "wedge issue" and "we have to get re-elected, or we can't do anything, and if we push for equality, the 'Pukes will hammer us!" We've never, ever heard THAT kind of reasoning before. Also, the moon is made of green cheese and Mickey Mouse was the second shooter on the grassy knoll.

:eyes:

[Romulox]

187. LOL. Now women are being "coerced" to cast a SECRET BALLOT one way or another?

And Todd is secretly threatening Sarah Pallin into opposing abortion? Isn't the simpler explanation that many women simply disagree with you, and that these women all have moral agency (you know, because they are adult human beings)?

You're REALLY reaching here, and quite frankly, it ain't helping your case. :h:

[Lyric]

196. How amusing! You pick one tiny section of what I said

and choose to ignore all of the rest.

Let me spell this out for you plainly. Even if every woman in America supported our civil rights, it still wouldn't guarantee that those rights would be safe, because women are not politically equal in America. We do not have proportional representation. We are not treated equally in politics. We do not have the same political power than men do. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. Even though we comprise 52% of the population, we make up only 18% of the whole Congress, and our sole female justice comprises only 11% of the Supreme Court.

Let's look at Texas. This is a state where white people are a racial minority. It is incredibly rare for a racial minority to support an overtly racist candidate, so it seems fair to take as a given that these people aren't knowingly voting for racists. Now, consider racism in Texas--especially institutional racism, the kind that should be (at least in theory) negated by electing non-racist lawmakers. In Texas, 69.5% of the people on death row are racial minorities. Only 30.5% are white.

http://texasdeathpenalty.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44&Itemid=68

Unless you believe that Black and/or Hispanic people are somehow more likely to commit violent crimes (in which case you're a moron, and not worth arguing with) it is obvious that institutional racism is still firmly in place in Texas. The death penalty is only one example, by the way--there are many more. According to your logic, this should be impossible--after all, racial minorities comprise the majority of the population of Texas. Presumably, they aren't voting for racist candidates. So what can explain the institutional racism that still exists so strongly within that state?

There are two answers. The first is that racial minorities, like women, lack political power. They are not proportionally represented in the Texas state government. Their issues and concerns are not deemed "priorities." Secondly, candidates LIE--or withhold truth, at best. It is impossible for anyone to know for sure how a candidate will vote until said candidate takes office--and by then, the damage has often already been done. A racist candidate could easily lie in order to gain support from minority groups and get elected. In fact, racists are notorious for self-delusion--they might not even think that they ARE racists. But they vote for policies that hurt racial minorities more than whites without a second thought.

It is the same with gender. Women are considered a "minority" not because of numbers, but because they lack power even remotely proportional to their numbers. We have no way of knowing for sure that a supposedly pro-choice candidate will actually VOTE pro-choice once in office. Look at Mitt Romney--a man who claimed to be pro-choice for nearly his entire career, until he had to choose between principles and power. He chose power, and is now anti-choice. The same happened with John McCain. Originally, he opposed the repeal of Roe v. Wade, but changed his mind when he decided to run for the Presidency. Other supposedly pro-choice politicians have voted for anti-choice legislation because it was politically convenient. Take a look at the roll-call from the Senate vote that banned Intact Dilation and Extraction as an abortion option, without even a provision to protect the health of the mother:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00051

How many of those "Yea" votes were Democratic Senators who were supposedly pro-choice when they were elected? How could anyone have known ahead of time that these Senators would take the politically expedient route, rather than standing firm to support the rights of women? How are women to blame for being betrayed by the people they had trusted to secure their rights? Patrick Leahy voted for that bill. He has ALWAYS claimed to be pro-choice. How are the women of Vermont, who TRUSTED him to keep his word, to blame for what he did?

Merely possessing a majority-by-numbers is not enough to ensure the rights of political minorities, even if all of the members of that majority support their own rights. Texas is proof of that. When you try to "blame the victim" by placing the fault for women's oppression upon women themselves, you accomplish only two things. Firstly, you disrespect every woman in America who has ever suffered because of her gender. Secondly, you make it all the more difficult for those of us who are actually WORKING to try and empower women as a political minority. The world is not black and white, left and right, up and down.

As for your actual "point" in that last post, all I can say is that you are sadly, tragically misinformed about the ways that some men can intimidate and control the women in their lives. One particularly useful tactic that the Mormons like to use is something I call "faith terrorism;" they raise their female children to believe from toddlerhood that the ONLY way that a woman can be "saved" is by getting married and obeying her husband. They prey on the religious faith of vulnerable women, and use it as a tool to force them to vote against their own best interests, because if not, they might go to hell. Many religious groups use similar tactics. This is just one example of thousands.

[Scout]

202. best post in the thread! can I recommend this one? n/t

[Romulox]

204. "Even if every woman in America supported our civil rights..."

This is the problem with your thesis: a large number of women disagree with you on the issue of abortion.

For you to dismiss any woman who disagrees with you as a victim of "faith terrorism" (sic) is both demeaning and infantilizing to women--who are, after all, human beings with full moral agency.

As for the rest of your post, you are trying to shove a non-gendered issue into a box in which simply does not fit. American Politicians are largely unresponsive to the electorate, full stop. A fine example is the recent bailout of Wall Street. The bill was pushed through the House over the opposition of 70% of the electorate by some polls.

The person doing the shoving? A woman. Hard to fit this into your thesis w/r/t coercion and "faith terrorism", isn't it? That's because power is not gendered in our society--it's monied.

[FloriTexan]

87. If its not even a topic for the VP debate...

when a woman candidate is at the podium, then they should lose the right to discuss it during the rest of the campaign period. The only mention of any women's issues at all in the V.P. debate was by Joe Biden who mentioned his Violence Against Women Act. It would have been a fair issue to have Palin discuss and clarify her position on the rape kits charges, as well as her anti-choice and birth control agendas. I was waiting for her to address the rumors I've heard that she is against all forms of birth control, but nada, nothing. I'm still waiting because I think if her stance on these issues is out there, some of those Women for McCain might just change their minds.

[undeterred]

90. I really think younger women take it for granted.

Abortion was illegal before 1973. I was the victim of an attempted sexual assault in 1975 and after that I joined a group that supported rape victims in the emergency rooms. There were other women in the group I joined who had been raped, had a bad experience with the police and emergency room, found out a few weeks later that they were pregnant, and had to figure out how to get a 'safe' underground abortion. It was a hell.

This was only 35 years ago. Things have changed. But things can easily change right back.

[mudesi]

88. It's a wedge issue that energizes the base

The Republicans don't actually want it overturned. They need it to win elections.

[Qutzupalotl]

101. Right. They had ample opportunity.

They had all branches of government (except the people): the house, senate, WH and even a conservative majority in the courts. For YEARS. Under this president.

If they wanted to, they could have written legislation to ban all abortions. But they didn't want to.

Gotta have that bogeyman to get the "values voters" to the polls.

[Ohio Joe]

95. Because....

America has not yet grown out of the "being run by rich white male" stage, we are retarded in our growth as a nation in this regard. The truth is, America does this to a lot of groups, women, gays, immigrants.... pretty much everyone but rich white males.

[noamnety]

107. short answer

The rights of the oppressed are always used as a bargaining chip whenever the dominant group (the group who holds power) starts to feel threatened.

women's rights
gay rights
bilingual education

It's sort of like having seniority at the factory when job cuts come. The factory employees will fight for everyone's job ... until it's clear that they can't all be maintained. And then they revert back to tossing out the newest employees so the old guard can remain.

Why should cuts be made, for instance, to the health benefits of rich white male senators? We all get that THEY deserve health care. Better (by some people's measure) to instead chip away at the healthcare rights of poor women of color. We are all kind of used to them doing without. We don't consider that a crisis or a revolution. It's only a crisis if the poor get healthcare and the rich suddenly don't have access to needed medicine and procedures.

[raccoon]

195. This is worth repeating,

'The rights of the oppressed are always used as a bargaining chip whenever the dominant group (the group who holds power) starts to feel threatened. "


Great post!

[Karenina]

130. BECAUSE... ULTIMATELY women control the population.

Men WANT to control it, therefore all this folderal.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[undeterred]

141. Do you think that a woman has the right to choose whether

or not she wants to carry a pregnancy to term? Or do you think the state should make sure she does not have the option to terminate (or prevent) a pregnancy?

If you agree with the latter- in what way do you consider yourself a feminist?

I think it is possible to be a Democrat and be someone who would never choose abortion. But how can you decide that for other women?

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PeaceNikki]

143. Thankfully your thoughts means nothing. I'm having an abortion this weekend in your honor.

Jag off.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lars39]

145. Shouldn't be calling yourself a feminist, then.

You are a forced-birther.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lars39]

149. That's a right wing organization.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chan790]

170. Validity of self-identification is subject to the honesty of the claimant.

Calling FFL non-partisan is like calling the Federalist Society non-partisan (which the Federalist Society claims). Focus on The Family and Americans For Tax Reform self-identify as "non-partisan" too.

[PeaceNikki]

155. "non-partisan", but full of shit.

http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/harris/feministsforlife/



The group believes abortion is an act of violence that is unacceptable under any circumstances. Unacceptable under any circumstances. Including rape, incest, major fetal defects, and danger to the mother's life. This position — "holistic solutions" aside — puts FLL to the right of their sister organization, Attila the Hun for Life.

Not only that, but FFL is sketchy about birth control. "Preconception issues, including abstinence and contraception, are outside of our mission," reads their website. "Some FFL members and supporters support the use of non-abortifacient contraception while FFL's president has said that while banning abortion is a goal, to do so is "not enough."

FFL won't close up shop if Roe goes, they say; unlike other anti-abortion groups, they appear to understand that outlawing abortion neither magically eliminates unplanned pregnancy nor causes women to say, "Oh, okay! Guess I won't have one, then." (Still, the gruesome abortions-gone-wrong stories on the FFL website do beg this question: if you think abortion is dangerous now, what will you have to say to the women who'll die from even riskier illegal procedures?)

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PeaceNikki]

166. Jane Sullivan Roberts, wife of U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, is counsel to the organization and a

former Vice President.

[gollygee]

150. For Life, eh? So you must be against the war, opposed to the death penalty,

and for a national health care program.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TZ]

163. How about adding scientifically illiterate to your resume.

I suppose you are opposed to embryonic stem cell research.
Would you like to tell me WHY A BUNCH OF CELLS should have more rights than a human being.
Don't give me that life begins at conception bullshit either. Thats crap without a grain of scientific data behind it. If you bother to read a science book. Probably get your "science" from the bible eh?

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gollygee]

174. You aren't a liberal if you think a few cells are more valuable than a grown woman.

Your priorities are off.

[PeaceNikki]

152. Go peddle your propoganda elsewhere

http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/harris/feministsforlife/



The group believes abortion is an act of violence that is unacceptable under any circumstances. Unacceptable under any circumstances. Including rape, incest, major fetal defects, and danger to the mother's life. This position — "holistic solutions" aside — puts FLL to the right of their sister organization, Attila the Hun for Life.

Not only that, but FFL is sketchy about birth control. "Preconception issues, including abstinence and contraception, are outside of our mission," reads their website. "Some FFL members and supporters support the use of non-abortifacient contraception while FFL's president has said that while banning abortion is a goal, to do so is "not enough."

FFL won't close up shop if Roe goes, they say; unlike other anti-abortion groups, they appear to understand that outlawing abortion neither magically eliminates unplanned pregnancy nor causes women to say, "Oh, okay! Guess I won't have one, then." (Still, the gruesome abortions-gone-wrong stories on the FFL website do beg this question: if you think abortion is dangerous now, what will you have to say to the women who'll die from even riskier illegal procedures?)

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PeaceNikki]

164. Sarah Palin is a member of the organization your peddling.

Ewww

[LostinVA]

172. That's a total Freeper organization

Can't be both a feminist AND anti-choice, Patricia.

[PeaceNikki]

175. Here's info from Planned Parenthood site on them

Listed under "15 leading Anti-Choice Organizations"

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/issues-action/abortion/anti-choice-activity/reports/profiles-15-leading-anti-choice-organizations-6127.htm

FFL is opposed to

• abortion
  
• capital punishment
  
• fetal tissue research
  
• Planned Parenthood and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)
  
• Pornography
  
• right to die
  

FFL supports

• abortion bans
  
• frivolous malpractice suits against abortion providers
  
• parental notification laws
  
• "Right to Know" laws that push alternatives to abortion on women with anti-choice misinformation about the
• alleged physical and psychological risks of the procedure
  

Methodology

• campus outreach
  
• conventions/meetings — general assembly of state presidents and the board
  
• crisis pregnancy counseling/ centers
  
• public misinformation campaigns — FFL falsely claims that abortion causes breast cancer and severe psychological trauma
  
• publications — The American Feminist (quarterly newsletter), Profile Feminism: Different Voices (book),
• booklets, position papers
  
• speakers bureau
  

[Gwendolyn]

158. Most attention you've seen in awhile I'll bet. Did mommy make you something yummy for dins?

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starry Messenger]

161. So how should women be punished for having an abortion if it is against the law?

I'm curious what your take is...

[Gwendolyn]

165. You mean for the ones that don't die first from botched home attempts?

I guess jail time would be the logical assumption for "murder."

[Starry Messenger]

169. I'm being snarky:

It's a reference to this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

Watch the whole thing. It's a good one.

Looks like playtime is over. Our visitor is dead.

[Gwendolyn]

176. Oops! Great vid though.

They don't think it through at all, and have zil in the way of critical thinking tools. I liked the woman who claimed her judgement was as good as God's. :crazy:

At least there was one with follow-through for her convictions. The one who said "life imprisonment."

[Starry Messenger]

182. A DU-er posted that about a month ago I think.

I love the deer in the headlights moments in there. Sometimes you can *almost* see thinking start to happen and then "tilt". Brainfreeze.

[LostinVA]

168. Y'all really need to try and be more subtle -- it's been "Obvious" day on here

[LostinVA]

173. You mean you are anti choice, not pro life -- it's DU, you don't get to use RW code words

Enjoy your stay.

[booley]

146. Because it's so much harder to control sperm

It's all about controlling others.

And believe it or not many pro-life people do see this as a moral issue. Not necessarily pro-life (since there is life after conception) but they do think they are being moral. Mysogyny doesn't explain all the people who are anti-choice.

Our job is to convince hem that their choice really isn't moral.

[upi402]

148. Republicans are control freaks, among other things n/t

[LifestyleDesignerNet]

151. I'm with you.

I totally agree with you. In my opinion, a woman's rights to determine whether or not to birth a baby are a personal moral choice that should have nothing to do with politics. Roe vs. Wade dealt with the issue and should be honored as such. We should no longer be having the debate of when life begins in the political arena. This is a religious, spiritual, personal issue. What does the Supreme Court need to do to ensure that Roe vs. Wade cannot be overturned, for any reason, and we can put this issue to bed, where it belongs.

[Lars39]

159. Welcome to DU,LifestyleDesignerNet !

:toast:

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KitchenWitch]

181. exactly

:9

[JerseygirlCT]

179. They shouldn't be.

And I'm with you - I'm sick and tired of fighting the same thing, over and over. For the simple right to control MY OWN BODY.

[undeterred]

183. Since we were visited by a pro lifer let me say what I find most frightening

about the pro life movement:

There is now a movement within it to give people related to the unborn fetus "rights to its life"- people like the father. But maybe even a brother, sister, aunt, uncle, or grandparent.

So, if a woman gets pregnant and decides to terminate without telling the father, and he finds out, they would like for him to have the right to force the woman to carry the child. Or if the grandmother wanted it, she could say so and you would have to carry it. Everyone would have rights over your body except you. I doubt that those rights would ever be extended beyond the biological father. But for a pregnant woman to lose the rights over her own body to the man who impregnated her, regardless of her wishes, is frightening indeed.

The person I found this out from is a Democratic candidate for Congress running against an incumbent Republican- this was his platform but he would not put it on his website.

[appal_jack]

184. No compromise in defense of liberty!

I don't have the time to read this whole thread right now, but I will state my unequivocal commitment to upholding the rights of women to make decisions about their reproductive options and all other medical issues in complete privacy and autonomy.

Any politician, of any party, who tries to horse-trade on these, or any other Constitutional rights is no friend of mine.

Reproductive freedom is protected by (at the very least) the 4th and 9th Amendments of the US Constitution. There's no need to compromise those rights any further.

-app

edit for spelling.

[greeneyedboy]

185. Word. One more reason to donate to No on Prop 4 & No on Prop 8. n/t

[Kokonoe]

203. Its called LOOSE STRINGS

The republicans Want your vote & abortions.

Does anyone question why a republican would bring up abortion after 12 years of rule ends.

Republicans ignored it.

[rucky]

210. They're just trying to work the phrase "baby killer" into a conversation.

any conversation will do, but this one's their tried & true.

[Orsino]

214. Same reason that GLBT rights, and minority voting rights, are.

Because white males, by and large, are writing the legislation.