I'm not going to argue. I am going to lay it on the line. Abortion...

[Maddy McCall]

If you don't support a woman's right to control her own fertility, then you are not a progressive. You are not a liberal. You are not even a Democrat, by my definition. Period.

Relegating women to second-class citizenry is no different than saying that African Americans deserve less than full citizenship.

I won't bend on women's right to choose. Not one iota.

The only people of whom I am intolerant are those who say women should sacricifice their rights "for the good of the party." It's a slippery slope you tread, and I won't join you on it.

As a matter of fact, the day the Democratic party drops women's rights from its platform is the day I leave this party. And millions of women and men will leave with me.

And I am not going to bend on this, and I won't discuss this with anyone who wishes to.

[slackmaster]

1. Who has said we should give up on choice for the good of the party?

:shrug:

[Maddy McCall]

3. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&foru

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2596654&mesg_id=2596654&page=

[slackmaster]

9. Thank you

n/t

[Maddy McCall]

85. yqw

[K-W]

2. If you dont want to discuss something.

Don't put it on a discussion board.

[Maddy McCall]

5. I donate money to DU...I didn't break any rules.

I don't think Skinner has a problem with my statement. Move along.

[K-W]

10. You move along.

This is a discussion forum. It exists solely for discussions. It isnt your blog. It is at the very least rude.

Posting your comments from another thread in a seperate thread to draw attention to them is quite a lapse in good etiquette to begin with.

[Maddy McCall]

18. yawn

[K-W]

25. Im sorry that I take my responsibilities to this forum seriously.

I apprecaite that this is a very emotional issue for you. You vented. I understand. But a junk thread is a junk thread.

Your post belonged in the forum it came from. And you should be willing to discuss your thread if it was important enough to start in the first place.

[FlaGranny]

67. What exactly are your responsibilities

to this forum? Do you own this site or work for the owners of this site? If not, you're just like everybody else here. If you don't like someone's post, alert it. Although I see no reason to alert on this thread, except perhaps for your post.

[Kierkegaard]

15. You took the words right out of my mouth!

Argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument!

and DON'T ARGUE with me...

:7

[iverglas]

34. yeah

"and DON'T ARGUE with me..."


IF ONLY someone had actually said that ... you'd have a point.

[K-W]

38. Read the whole thing.

"I won't discuss this with anyone who wishes to."

[iverglas]

40. yeah?

"I won't discuss this with anyone who wishes to."

And what dictionary did you have to use to translate that into

"and DON'T ARGUE with me..."

?

I'm afraid that I have much better dictionaries than you, and nobody who plays this little game ever wins against me.

If you want to argue against something someone said, you feel free.

But ... and how'd that go? --

I'm sorry that I take my responsibilities to this forum seriously.

-- you won't get away with flinging straw in order to portray someone as having said something she didn't while I'm here.

Here's your prize.


http://winace.andkon.com/pics/

[K-W]

45. This has nothing to do with a dictionary.

What does word definition have to do with anything.

The original poster stated that he/she would not discuss the post.

The other poster pointed out that since the post is an argument, and is followed by a refusal to discuss, it is an argument and then a clear indicator that he/she did not want to hear anyone elses arguments.

And maybe you should use your magic dictionary to lookup "strawman" as you have misapplied the term. I created no straw man. The creator of this thread violated good forum etiquette whether you feel like admitting it or not.

[iverglas]

48. yada yada yada

And maybe you should use your magic dictionary to lookup "strawman" as you have misapplied the term. I created no straw man.

The originator of the thread said one thing.

You asserted that the originator of the thread had said SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT, and went off on a tangent about what had not been said.

Sound familiar at all? S...t...r...a...w...

The other poster pointed out that since the post is an argument, and is followed by a refusal to discuss, it is an argument and then a clear indicator that he/she did not want to hear anyone elses arguments.

The dog might enjoy that for breakfast, but it's nothing but a random collection of noise.

Just for starters, you are equivocating on the word "argue/ment", and I rather suspect that you know this perfectly well.

The creator of this thread violated good forum etiquette whether you feel like admitting it or not.

Hmm. And have you read the lead post in the forum at all?

This forum is for people who are looking for help and support from their friends on DU.

Don't you have somewhere you should be?

[K-W]

55. It isnt my fault that you dont understand things.

I didnt assert anything, btw, we arent discussing my post. And if by "ENTIRELY DIFFERENT" you mean NEARLY IDENTICAL, then maybe I would agree.

The word argument has more than one context, perhaps you should reassess which one we are discussing here.

Forum etiquette and forum rules are two different things. If you dont know about the first, perhaps you should learn.

This thread wasnt asking for help or support, so I am unsure of your point on that issue. It is probably in the wrong forum on top of being unneccessary.

[Maddy McCall]

71. You are quite wrong. It is asking for support.

And, by the looks of things, it's getting plenty.

You want to argue about women's rights, go start your own thread or participate in one of the many others on the topic.

This thread is a position thread, just like many others that make a statement on a topic.

Etiquette? According to Ms. Manners and Emily Post, telling someone they are exercising faulty etiquette is the biggest breach of propriety of all.

[Kierkegaard]

96. Shit. Not the f***king literature police...

Semantics invalidates my point? I suggest you put away your magic dictionary and learn some context.

The original post made an argument.

The original post also made it plain that it was not open for discussion.

Therefore, now follow me here, the poster did NOT want to hear any counter arguments.

If you need more help, I'll see if I can draw some big pictures with pretty crayons to illustrate my point.

[iverglas]

97. can you use those crayons

to QUOTE anything that anyone said? (How many times do I have to request this, btw?)

"The original post made an argument.
The original post also made it plain that it was not open for discussion."

Actually, the original poster SAID:

"And I am not going to bend on this, and I won't discuss this with anyone who wishes to."

I have no idea why you would reframe this as "made it plain that it was not open for discussion".

THE ORIGINAL POSTER stated HER intention not to discuss it. What's quite plain is that YOU, or anyone else, can just go right ahead and discuss the hell out of it. Doncha think?

"Therefore, now follow me here, the poster did NOT want to hear any counter arguments."

That's a fine interpretation of what she said. It's all yours, too.

What she actually SAID was:

"I am not going to bend on this"

and frankly, it strikes me that this has to be the bug that has really got up the bums of a couple of so evidently skilled readers hereabouts.


You posted an interpretation of what you read:

"Argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument argument!

and DON'T ARGUE with me..."

Whether you believed that it was a fair characterization of what was said, I can have no idea.

What I do know is that it IS NOT a fair characterization of what was said.

What was said, and what it meant, seem to have been pretty obvious to a whole lot of other people, I must say.

"I won't bend on women's right to choose. Not one iota."

Somehow, I just can't imagine all this brouhaha erupting if someone started a thread by announcing that s/he would not bend on African-Americans' right to choose, oh, the school that their children will attend. (In fact I know of someone who got tombstoned for merely opining that things would be better for African-Americans at present if separate-but-equal had been left in place.) Or that s/he would not bend on, oh, Christians' right to choose the church they will attend.

Let alone anyone attempting to rewrite what was written to turn it into something it plainly wasn't.

What I don't get is why it would even concern you if the poster HAD said "and don't argue with me". Is that, like, some beats-all incantation that prevents you from saying what you want to say?

Does it occur to you that the post was not directed at you, or anyone else who took offence at it -- given that, if you disagree with what the poster said, she wasn't interested in hearing what you would say?

That maybe she thought that there were OTHER people who WERE interested in what SHE had to say, and wished to speak to THEM? She was bang on, on that one, I must say. I was very interested. I got great pleasure from it. Many others were, and did, as well.

Jeezus bleeding christ. If "the poster did NOT want to hear any counter arguments", she'd have had to be a bit screwloose to post her thoughts on an internet board, wouldn't she?

However, if she did not intend to DISCUSS any "counter arguments", it strikes me as rather sensible for her to have let this be known right off the bat. Which she did. And not too many people seem to have had difficulty grasping this.

[gavodotcom]

4. That's obvious.

I think if anybody in the DNC or DLC said such a thing, they'd be out the door. I do still have hope for the Dem party.

If not, then they've lost their base going after 5% of the electorate. They can be the new Nader. It wouldn't take long for that shift to happen.

Dean would head the real democratic party, under a different moniker.

[Maddy McCall]

7. You would think it would be obvious...

But, to some people, apparently it isn't.

[freetobegay]

6. Your confused here.

It's the homosexuals they don't give a damn about!

[Maddy McCall]

8. Same thing I just said applies to homosexuals.

[TexasSissy]

11. There's a BIG difference, though. Abortion is in the Dem. Platform.

Gay marriage is not.

[gavodotcom]

13. It's pathetic.

Anyone with half a brain can see the hypocrisy in a dem not supporting gay marriage.

It was the one thing I was disappointed with in Kerry's platform.

[TexasSissy]

22. I have at least half of a brain. But what's hypocritical about it?

[gavodotcom]

24. We're the party of civil rights?

[TexasSissy]

104. Yes, and.....??? I think that's the difference...

you I guess see gay marriage as a civil rights issue. Most people in America do not.

Gay marriage is not a right that others have that gays don't, as was the case of African Americans. Gay marriage is a special right that is being requested of the government. I don't have the right, either, to marry someone of my own gender. So gay marriage is a special right, not the same right that others have. You would have to convince middle America that gay marriage is a civil right, I guess. So far, the case hasn't been made, I guess. Civil unions, though, seem to be fairly well accepted. Maybe the gay leaders should (or should have) started with that, and gradually worked up to the marriage thing? I don't know.

[madfloridian]

63. Are civil unions in the platform?

?

[gavodotcom]

68. civil unions are chickenshit.

you're right, but civil unions are bait and switch.

they're a way to bring it to the supreme court to get them thrown out because they violate the 14th amendment.

of course, we just lost the supreme court for the next 20 or 30 years, so the point is moot.

it's a fucking shame.

[FeelinGarfunkelly]

72. Can someone explain the difference to me?

I personally don't care what the hell they're called. I voted against MO's Gay-bashing amendment because I don't see what's wrong with letting two people who love each other be married. However, I also recognize that some people just get offended by the word "marriage" and think that "marriage" is an institution that the church should confer, and that what happens when you get your marriage license at the courthouse is all the government's job, and they can give 'em out to whomever.

So what's the legal difference between "Civil unions" and "same-sex marriage" other than the label? I seriously would like to know. Not trying to argue.

[gavodotcom]

79. it depends on how they're defined, i think.

first, i'm no an expert, and i'm not trying to argue, either. if my tone is too shitty, i apologize, the election's just left me pissed off.

don't think the following is in any way an effort to try to follow a coherant, logical argument. i normally try to do this, but i can't on this issue, it makes me too pissed off.

you can get 'married' at a courthouse. it isn't just a religious institution, so don't believe the republican horseshit. it'd be different if marriage was simply a religious thing.

if a church decides to marry gay people, they aren't 'legally' married under the law. i think that's a violation of the first amendment, but i'm no lawyer, so i could be wrong. somebody with a legal background tell me how.

it's up to the states to determine what a 'civil union' is. when the government has two different institutions of coupling, that's where the 14th comes in. they have to be completely equal if you want to call them 'the same thing' in different terms.

that's just my thoughts at first glance.

[FeelinGarfunkelly]

82. aha! so "separate but equal" type of a thing...

that makes complete sense.. especially the part about the whole freedom of religion. If I created my own church, why should the guv-er-mint tell me who I can marry? it's not like a human sacrifice or something like that. Got it--Thanks!

[iverglas]

87. I love a quick study!

It really is that simple, isn't it? "Separate but equal" has never been equal, and never will be.

If you're interested in the concepts, you might like to read a couple of the Canadian decisions holding that denying marriage to same-sex couples is a violation of the equality guarantees in the Canadian constitution.

One of the cases was in Ontario (there have been decisions to the same effect in several provinces in the last 2 years):

http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/june/halpernC39172.htm

Excerpts:

3. In Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), ... Iacobucci J., writing for a
unanimous court, described the importance of human dignity:

Human dignity means that an individual or group feels self-respect and self-worth. It is concerned with physical and psychological integrity and empowerment. Human dignity is harmed by unfair treatment premised upon personal traits or circumstances which do not relate to individual needs, capacities, or merits. It is enhanced by laws which are sensitive to the needs, capacities, and merits of different individuals, taking into account the context underlying their differences. Human dignity is harmed when individuals and groups are marginalized, ignored, or devalued, and is enhanced when laws recognize the full place of all individuals and groups within Canadian society.

... 5. Marriage is, without dispute, one of the most significant forms of personal relationships. For centuries, marriage has been a basic element of social organization in societies around the world. Through the institution of marriage, individuals can publicly express their love and commitment to each other. Through this institution, society publicly recognizes expressions of love and commitment between individuals, granting them respect and legitimacy as a couple. This public recognition and sanction of marital relationships reflect society’s approbation of the personal hopes, desires and aspirations that underlie loving, committed conjugal relationships. This can only enhance an individual’s sense of self-worth and dignity.

... 51. In its cross-appeal, MCCT <Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto> takes the position that the common law definition of marriage breaches its freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter and its right to be free from religious discrimination under s. 15(1). MCCT argues that the common law definition of marriage is rooted in Christian values, as propounded by the Anglican Church of England, which has never recognized same-sex marriages. MCCT contends that this definition, therefore, has the unconstitutional purpose of enforcing a particular religious view of marriage and excluding other religious views of marriage. MCCT also contends that the common law definition of marriage, which provides legal recognition and legitimacy to marriage ceremonies that accord with one religious view of marriage, has the effect of diminishing the status of other religious marriages.

... 53. In our view, this case does not engage religious rights and freedoms. Marriage is a legal institution, as well as a religious and a social institution. This case is solely about the legal institution of marriage. It is not about the religious validity or invalidity of various forms of marriage. We do not view this case as, in any way, dealing or interfering with the religious institution of marriage.

<The Court wimped out on that one.>

... 70. Third, whether a formal distinction is part of the definition itself or derives from some other source does not change the fact that a distinction has been made. If marriage were defined as “a union between one man and one woman of the Protestant faith”, surely the definition would be drawing a formal distinction between Protestants and all other persons. Persons of other religions and persons with no religious affiliation would be excluded. Similarly, if marriage were defined as “a union between two white persons”, there would be a distinction between white persons and all other racial groups. In this respect, an analogy can be made to the anti-miscegenation laws that were declared unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) because they distinguished on racial grounds.

... 94. Importantly, no one ... is suggesting that procreation and childrearing are the only purposes of marriage, or the only reasons why couples choose to marry. Intimacy, companionship, societal recognition, economic benefits, the blending of two families, to name a few, are other reasons that couples choose to marry. As recognized in M. v. H. at 50, same-sex couples are capable of forming “long, lasting, loving and intimate relationships.” Denying same-sex couples the right to marry perpetuates the contrary view, namely, that same-sex couples are not capable of forming loving and lasting relationships, and thus same-sex relationships are not worthy of the same respect and recognition as opposite-sex relationships.

... 107. In this case, same-sex couples are excluded from a fundamental societal institution – marriage. The societal significance of marriage, and the corresponding benefits that are available only to married persons, cannot be overlooked. Indeed, all parties are in agreement that marriage is an important and fundamental institution in Canadian society. It is for that reason that the claimants wish to have access to the institution. Exclusion perpetuates the view that same-sex relationships are less worthy of recognition than opposite-sex relationships. In doing so, it offends the dignity of persons in same-sex relationships.

At present, there is still wrangling on-going in the Supreme Court of Canada. Right-wing churches are claiming that their freedom of religion may be violated. Bushwah. RC churches don't have to marry divorced people now; why would they have to marry same-sex couples?

Me, I think the right-wing churches are getting off easy. In performing marriages that are recognized for public, non-religious purposes, they are acting expressly as agents of the state: their clergy are licensed by the state for that purpose.

As such, they should no more be permitted to pick and choose whom they will marry, let alone on discriminatory grounds, than a private firm acting as an agent of the Transportation Ministry for the purpose of issuing driver's licences should be permitted to do.

But ah, a battle for another day. ;)

[bigwillq]

12. You got that right

I would also leave the party if they took women's rights off the platform.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[Mike Niendorff]

14. Fair enough.

Now, how do you intend to defend this right through a party that can't win at the ballot box?


MDN

[alwynsw]

16. I'm on your side, but why post if you won't discuss it? Just venting?

Actually, I feel that the Federal government has no place in this issue on either side. Abortion should be left to the mother, the father - yes, I said father - and their conscience and or religious beliefs. The only regulation of abortion that we need is exactly the same for any other medical procedure. (Addressing the father issue, IF the father is involved in the choice, there needs to be input from both involved in creating the situation. Of course, we cure that problem by by either abstinence or birth control.)

I personally abhor abortion except for health reasons. I do not view it as birth control, but I'll damned sure speak out for nad work the right to have the procedure performed. I see as equal to the Bill of Rights - every one of those rights.

[Maddy McCall]

19. I won't discuss it because I have discussed it a thousand times...

at DU, and anyone that is too thick-headed to understand the bigotry in the anti-choice stance isn't worth my time.

[K-W]

26. You seem to be confusing people who dont like your opinion and

people who dont apprecaite the junk thread and the attitude.

[Maddy McCall]

77. I'm a bitch. I'm an outspoken woman. I'm opinionated.

Damn straight. Even uppity.

As for "junk thread," you don't like it, put me on ignore. Obviously you don't think it's junk--you've made as many posts as anyone else on it.

[patdem]

20. More abortions under bush..because...a woman laid off

discovers she is pregnant...no job, no health care...what are her choices? Abortion should be a part of social justice...when a woman has support she will not abort her child...Women do not WANT to abort their children...they are FORCED to because of health and social issues...if we can address those issues abortions will go down..as they did under Clinton!!!

[iverglas]

32. why can't you just say

IT IS A WOMAN'S RIGHT to have an abortion?

"... when a woman has support she will not abort her child...Women do not WANT to abort their children...they are FORCED to because of health and social issues."

SOME women with all the support they could possibly have WILL terminate their pregnancies. (A FETUS IS NOT A CHILD.)

SOME women do not want to terminate their pregnancies.

SOME women DO want to terminate their pregnancies.

SOME women CHOOSE to terminate their pregnancies because of health or social issues.

NO women are "forced" to do so. WOMEN HAVE CHOICE, and exercise it as THEY determine is in their best interests, in the circumstances of their own lives.

I am no more interested in being infantilized, as someone who does not make choices in my own interests, than I am in being demonized as someone who makes "selfish" choices. Nor am I interested in other women being so treated.


You don't need to have opinions about why women have abortions. You don't need to make sweeping false generalizations about women who have abortions.

You can oppose the injustice that creates the circumstances in which women who would prefer not to terminate pregnancies choose to do so. But kindly do not deny those women the dignity of being decision-makers in their own lives, and portray their decisions as other than GOOD decisions. Abortion IS a GOOD decision for women when the alternative is NOT good.

The numbers of abortions will undoubtedly decline if more women have access to what they need in order for continuing their pregnancies to be a GOOD decision for them -- and have what they need in order to prevent pregnancies they do not want.

But the reason why that is a good thing is NOT that abortion is bad, it is that it is bad for anyone to

(a) become pregnant when she would prefer not to, because of lack of access to information, services or opportunities; or

(b) terminate a pregnancy when she would prefer not to terminate, because of lack of access to the social and economic resources she needs for successful child-rearing.

All that anyone needs to say about abortion and the law is that IT IS A WOMAN'S RIGHT.

And that's all that anyone SHOULD say about it.

[Kber]

64. Abandoning reproductive rights has been "floated" before

and I am glad to see someone state her position in such a forceful way. I am 33, married, and pregnant after 3 years of trying. Last week we received news that our child might have a fatal genetic disorder - we are awaiting more definitive results and I am praying that the first test was a false positive . If the worst case happens, I don't know what we are going to do - but I sure has hell don't need input from Bush and co in our decision. It has occurred to us that, tragic as this situation is, having someone take the power out of our hands to make the right choice for our family would be a thousand times worse. It's not just irresponsible teenagers that have to face this reality, and I won't support any candidate who isn't going to fight like hell to keep this personal decision just that - personal.

[CornField]

76. I've been through it

In 1995. I wouldn't wish the emotional roller coaster on my worst enemy. You and your family will be in my prayers -- hope it was just a false positive.

[Crowdance]

81. Kber, thank you for your honesty and compassion

I am so grateful to you right now for speaking from within what must be a very difficult situation. You see this situation from the larger, global perspective; so many think this issue is only about them and their feelings. I admire your courage.

[Maddy McCall]

83. Bless you, Kber.

I will keep your family in my prayers. If you need a shoulder to lean on, feel free to PM me. :hug:

[baltodemvet]

17. i'm in n/t

[iverglas]

21. and outrageous that it even needs to be said

... or that anyone would even suggest that there can be an argument.

Might I just add that anyone in this thread who doesn't know why it does need to be said, and what it's all about, hasn't been reading this forum very closely today, and might want to refrain from commenting without knowing what s/he is talking about.

[MI Cherie]

23. Government should NOT be involved

It's about choice. It's about WHO makes that choice.

Who decides? The GOVERNMENT or the people involved?

Give GOVERNMENT that choice and it's a slippery slope.

Miscarriages would be suspect. A stillborn would be questioned.

If GOVERNMENT is given control to enforce mandatory motherhood — what is to stop them from becoming like China?

Given such control, government could stop "some" people from having "too many" kids or the "wrong type" of people from having kids.

Who should decide?

[Abelman]

27. I agree

Democratic leaders need to get a backbone and start being as stubborn as the GOP.

Abortion is not something that should be mandated by the Federal Government. A woman has a right to decide whether or not she wants the baby. If they really cared about it they would remove it and incubate it. I'm only half joking.

I'm pro-life, not anti-choice.

And as for Gay Marriage, I'm sick of the arguments about it. Marriage should be solely defined by the church and the federal government, which shouldn't even be horning in on State territory, should excise the word marriage from all governmental areas. Everyone should have civil unions under the government, state or federal. If you have a religious belief in marriage (as I do) then you need to take that up with your church.

Summing Up: Abortion legal. Civil Unions for all couples, regardless of sexuality. Marriage relegated solely to the churches.

[Mandate My Ass]

28. Bravo!!

I won't bend on women's right to choose. Not one iota.

Inalienable rights: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Rights are absolute, either you have them or you don't. Those who don't unequivocally support the inalienable rights of their fellow citizens, or suggest they should sacrifice them for political expediency, are either misguided or misinformed. The only acceptable role of government is to secure rights, never to infringe upon them.

[Catt03]

29. I agree

Don't even think about it

[catzies]

30. Thank you. I feel the same way. Thanks for saying it.

Anything else serves the partriarchy. I'm with you 100%.

[Chesterton]

31. I beg to differ...

I'm a democrat. I'm a progressive. I'm also a Christian. I don't particularly care if abortion is legal or illegal, but I will never think of it as something a woman has a "right" to. A legal right is not the same thing as a moral right. I have no idea why our party has decided to equate the two.

The "second-class citizen" argument is simply flawed. There is no male equivalent to pregnacy--the issue is gender a-symetrical at its heart. You could just as well say that abortion makes males second class citizens because they have no say in whether or not the abortion happens--no "right to choose." I would never dream of making this argument either, but to me its equally valid.

Being a progressive is more than just being for change. The change has to be desirable, and to me the change in attitude that our society has taken towards pregnacy is a totally undesirable change. You can't tell me I'm not a progressive simply because you disagree with my notion of progress.

[Chesterton]

33. sorry if this post is inappropriate...

I just noticed this is in the "help and support" section, and I voiced disagreement with someone.

[Mandate My Ass]

41. RE: Gender asymmetry

Men do not currently bear a lifelong 50% moral, financial or legal responsibility for the pregnancy they caused.

Men do not bear the physical, emotional or financial burden of an unintended pregnancy and the permanent life-altering changes of involuntary parenthood.

It's hardly "Christian" or "progressive" to expect women to bear 100% the downside of the effects enforced breeding but deem men second-class citizens if they don't have the absolute right to dictate the fate of other individuals while escaping their own accountability.

[Chesterton]

47. I agree 100 percent

Men are just as responsible for the creation of life as women. The Christian thing for a man to do is take responsibility for the life he created. Actually, the Christian thing to do is to not have sex if you aren't prepared to be a parent.

The gender asymmetry is meant only to point out that its not possible to imagine this issue in terms of attaining some sort of "equal rights."

[Mandate My Ass]

49. Men have the "right" to walk away from an unintended pregancy

and its consequences whether it is unchristian or immoral. Every right carries a corresponding responsibility.

You want to make it optional for men to accept theire responsbility abd impossible for women to exercise her rights.

[Chesterton]

52. Actually...

If you read my initial post you will see that quite clearly I expressed the fact that I do not care so much whether or not abortion is legal. What I care about is the equating of a legal right with a moral right that we have engaged in. I have the legal right to be a dead-beat dad; a woman has the legal right to kill her unborn child. I do not believe either has the moral right to do so.

[Mandate My Ass]

54. Morality is personal and largely based on religious doctrine

We live in a democratic republic where there is a clear separation between church and state.

You are free to behave worship as you please and live according to the moral code subscribed by that religion but you have no right to impose your view of morality on others where it infringes upon their legal rights.

How are the anti-choice contingent any more moral than deadbeat dads? They demand that people bear very tangible, negative consequences of unintended pregnancy and demand that the state be the arbiter of their personal view of morality without offering relief or alternatives.

[Chesterton]

59. Who is imposing?

I can tell you what I think is wrong. That's not imposing my "view of morality" on others. That's telling the honest truth about what I think. Its great that we live in a free society where these things can be discussed.

[iverglas]

50. crap

The gender asymmetry is meant only to point out that its not possible to imagine this issue in terms of attaining some sort of "equal rights."

Abject, primitive crap.

The rights in question are the rights of LIFE and LIBERTY.

You don't need access to abortion in order to exercise those rights.

WOMEN DO. There's nothing "asymmetrical" about it at all.

Denying women access to abortion VIOLATES WOMEN'S RIGHTS TO LIFE AND LIBERTY. (Say it violates the right to privacy if you like; I happen to think that's nonsense.)

Dick Cheney doesn't need the right not to be discriminated against in employment, because he doesn't need a job.

Does this mean that there should be no legal prohibition against discrimination in employment? Because rich old white men don't need it?

How the fuck can anyone possibly think that NOT DENYING women the authority to make decisions about their own bodies is "asymmetrical"??

Is someone trying to deny YOU the authority to make decisions about your body?

It is not possible to imagine denying women the authority to make decisions about their own body as ANYTHING BUT a denial of equal rights.

[Chesterton]

57. you misunderstand me

I am not saying abortion should be illegal. I am saying as an issue that it shouldn't be characterized in terms of equal rights; that it is misleading to do so. People hear "equal rights" and they (correctly) think a high moral principle is being appealed to. If the action itself is immoral, then this is a dangerous thing to do. You may not think its immoral, but that is what we should be arguing about--the abortion issue is clouded by this misleading analogy to equal rights.

[Lars39]

58. Having control over my body IS an equal rights issue.

[iverglas]

86. you repeat yourself endlessly

"I am saying as an issue that it shouldn't be characterized in terms of equal rights; that it is misleading to do so."

And I said that that's crap, and offered argument in support of my assertion. Funny how you don't. You don't either offer argument in support of your own assertion, or respond in any way to mine.


"People hear 'equal rights' and they (correctly) think a high moral principle is being appealed to."

And amazingly, THEY'RE RIGHT. You're absolutely correct. They think that -- because it is exactly that.

The "high moral principle" in question (not that I would characterize it as such myself) is the principle that individuals have primary authority over their lives and bodies, and that to compel individuals to do things that they have determined are contrary to their own interests, in such a way as to compel them to assume risks to their lives that they do not wish to assume and accept constraints on their liberty that they do not wish to accept, is ... how would we put this in your paradigm ... evil.

Y'know, kinda like how slavery is evil?


"If the action itself is immoral, then this is a dangerous thing to do."

And if the cow jumped over the moon -- what then??


"You may not think its immoral, but that is what we should be arguing about"

Be my guest. Find someone to argue about it with. My "morality" is none of your business, and yours is none of mine.

While you're at it, you might want to make a few pronouncements about adultery, say. Dreadfully immoral. No need for any argument at all. So let's just move on to making it illegal, shall we?

We could do this all night. I say that having more than two children is immoral; now let's ban it. You say (I'll take a wild guess) that non-marital sex is immoral; ban it, right?

And I'll be that you can get a whoooole lot of people where you're at to agree that worshipping graven images is immoral. Ban it!

Getting it at all?

Your opinion about the morality of my actions is of no concern to me, and of no relevance to the question of whether I may be compelled to act according to your wishes in matters that are fundamental to my life and none of your business.


"the abortion issue is clouded by this misleading analogy to equal rights."

What a nicely perfect inversion of the truth.

The "abortion issue" is clouded by people like you stuffing your "morality" in other people's faces.

"Morality" is not a subject of public policy.

The issue is RIGHTS. And you really need to stop aiding and abetting the violation of women's rights by legitimizing this phoney "morality" discourse of the mealy-mouthed hypocrites of the right wing.

[Liberty2001]

98. Does this also mean ...

That a child has a right to do with their bodies what they want? ... Can a young teenage girl have sex with an older man if she desires it? Or are we allowed to say ... uh, no.

Does a person have a right to drink alcohol (hey, its his body, if you can take out of your body what you want, then don't tell me what I can put in to my body)? Can I take drugs at work and then get behind the wheel of the hi-lo? Hey, its my body?

Do I have the right to walk around naked, or can I f**k my girlfriend in public? Hey, its our bodies, don't tell me what to do.

We tell people all the time what they can (or cannot) do with their bodies.

Your position is extreme absolutism to the hilt ... and frankly, its absurd.

[iverglas]

101. hmm. What do *you* think?

You do seem to have put a lot of thought into it all. Maybe you can offer some theories?

"Does this also mean ...
That a child has a right to do with their bodies what they want? ..."

Well hell, I guess so, eh? I mean, it would be a dandy way to protect the six-year-old's ability to exercise his right to life if we just handed him the keys to the pickup, wouldn't it?

"Can a young teenage girl have sex with an older man if she desires it? Or are we allowed to say ... uh, no."

Now here you lose me, I have to admit. Because I always kinda thought that what we were saying "uh, no" to was what the older man in question was doing to the young teenaged girl's body ... and that we'd say the same thing to an older woman regarding a young teenaged boy's body ...

"Can I take drugs at work and then get behind the wheel of the hi-lo? Hey, its my body?"

Okay. Can I have an abortion and then fire a shotgun over your head?

"Do I have the right to walk around naked, or can I f**k my girlfriend in public? Hey, its our bodies, don't tell me what to do."

As long as I can watch, all right?

"We tell people all the time what they can (or cannot) do with their bodies."

My dog, I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. I had never realized this. I have to thank you for bringing it all to my attention.

Now, maybe *I* could just remind *you* that the subject was "equal rights".

So if you can think of something that we compel men (or children, or whomever you like) to do that is involves assuming a risk of death and losing substantial liberty for a substantial period of time, without due process, do be sure to let me know.

And if you're going to mention military conscription, I'll say "Bingo! He shoots, he scores!" Military conscription is virtually the *only* thing we do that amounts to compelling an individual to assume a risk of death, and depriving him of substantial liberty for a substantial period of time, without due process and/or by virtue of an overriding public interest that must be achieved. And I'll also tell you that I do not think that women should be exempted from that coerced assumption of risk and relinquishment of liberty, and that in fact it is a denial of equal protection to impose this requirement on men and not on women.

We could consider whether there truly is justification for the violation of rights in that instance, and then we could consider any justification you might want to offer for the violation of women's rights inherent in compelling women to gestate a pregnancy they do not want and deliver a child they do not want.

So far, all we've done is be silly. But hey, I'm always up for a giggle.

"Your position is extreme absolutism to the hilt ... and frankly, its absurd."

Proof by blah blah blatant assertion? There certainly wasn't proof by anything else. You call my position "extreme absolutism", and I'll call yours "Bob", okay?

In the meantime, shall I assume that you advocate denying women, or some women, access to abortion services, or some abortion services, and claim to be a liberal/progressive/democrat?

If so: talk about absurd.

[Liberty2001]

102. Hmmm ...

First you make a blanket statement:

“It is not possible to imagine denying women the authority to make decisions about their own body as ANYTHING BUT a denial of equal rights.”

I say:

"We tell people all the time what they can (or cannot) do with their bodies."

You reply:

“My dog, I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. I had never realized this. I have to thank you for bringing it all to my attention.”

In other words, you realize that we tell people all the time what to do with their bodies, but it is impossible to conceive of this as anything other than a denial of equal rights?

So, you would say that ANY legislation which tells people what to do with their bodies is a violation of equal rights?

[iverglas]

103. maybe a short course

in constitutional law would help.

First you make a blanket statement:
It is not possible to imagine denying women the authority to make decisions about their own body as ANYTHING BUT a denial of equal rights.

Yuppers. Recognizing, of course, that I actually was talking about a very specific decision. Context, context, context.

And then we look at the circumstances in which such a denial is permissible. Of course, it isn't *my* job to make that argument.

This may help:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

The issue: When should courts closely scrutinize legislative classifications under the Equal Protection Clause?

Introduction

Legislation frequently involves making classifications that
either advantage or disadvantage one group of persons,
but not another. States allow 20-year-olds to drive, but
don't let 12-year-olds drive. Indigent single parents
receive government financial aid that is denied to
millionaires. Obviously, the Equal Protection Clause
cannot mean that government is obligated to treat all
persons exactly the same--only, at most, that it is
obligated to treat people the same if they are "similarly
circumstanced."

Over recent decades, the Supreme Court has developed
a three-tiered approach to analysis under the Equal
Protection Clause. ...

In other words, you realize that we tell people all the time what to do with their bodies, but it is impossible to conceive of this as anything other than a denial of equal rights?

You got it. And if you can justify the denial in question, you go to it.


So, you would say that ANY legislation which tells people what to do with their bodies is a violation of equal rights?

Well ... hardly. It would kind of have to be treating some people differently from others in order to be a violation of equal rights, doncha think?

What it would be, pretty much on the face of it, would be an interference with the exercise of the right to liberty, and then ya get into due process and that stuff. (And I get a little off track here, from your perspective, because the right to liberty in the Canadian constitution, the one my expertise is in, apparently covers much more ground that the right of the same name in your constitution. You folks tend to classify things that we call "liberty" under "privacy".)


I hope this helps. Any chance you want to answer *my* question now? You know, the one about whether you advocate denying (some) women access to (some) abortion services?

And if so, how?

[Liberty2001]

106. Hmmm ... (cont.)

You said:

It would kind of have to be treating some people differently from others in order to be a violation of equal rights, doncha think?

Treating people differently ... how?

Do you mean treating men differently from women?

Do you mean treating some pregnant women differently from other pregnant women?

Maybe it would help to read your own citation:

Obviously, the Equal Protection Clause cannot mean that government is obligated to treat all persons exactly the same--only, at most, that it is obligated to treat people the same if they are "similarly circumstanced."

First, and obviously, A pregnant woman is not "similarly circumstanced" to a man.

Second, in Roe, the court said that the State has interests which it can seek to protect, based on how long in the pregnancy the woman is. It just cannot be an "equal protection" problem to say that women at "x" months in the pregnancy are treated differently than a woman at "y" months in the pregnancy ... because such women, although both are pregnant, are also not "similarly circumstanced" (they are at different stages in the pregnancy.)

By the way, I am in law school, and have taken constitutional law, thank you very much.

[iverglas]

111. if you've studied constitutional law

shouldn't you be asking better questions?

I graduated from law school nearly 30 years ago, myself. And I work with constitutional law just about daily. Should be doing it right now, matter of fact.

Treating people differently ... how?
Do you mean treating men differently from women?
Do you mean treating some pregnant women differently from other pregnant women?

Well, I'd guess that I mean treating pregnant women differently from anyone else who wishes to obtain a health care service that is appropriate to his/her condition and that s/he needs in order to exercise his/her rights in the manner in which s/he sees fit.

If men were denied access to, oh, circumcision services (we're talking grown men, some of whom do choose the surgery) because someone thought circumcision immoral or distasteful, I'd say that they were being denied equal treatment too.

But I probably wouldn't need to, because I'd just look to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982):

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

and say Oops -- denial of right to liberty not in accordance with principles of fundamental justice (= due process plus some more stuff).

And then the government, if it really really wanted to prohibit circumcision, would go to section 1 of the Charter:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

and apply the Oakes test (the importance of the state interest to be protected, the rational connection of the measure taken to achieving that interest, the proportionality of the impairment of rights to the objective, stuff like that) and try to justify the violation.

Much like constitutional scrutiny in the US in the broad strokes, different in the details.

Obviously, the Equal Protection Clause cannot mean that government is obligated to treat all persons exactly the same--only, at most, that it is obligated to treat people the same if they are "similarly circumstanced."
First, and obviously, A pregnant woman is not "similarly circumstanced" to a man.

That may be your opinion. An individual seeking health care services that are appropriate to his/her condition and that s/he requires in order to carry out his/her own projects for his/her own life, and protect his/her own physical integrity ... looks just like another individual doing that, to me.

Second, in Roe, the court said that the State has interests which it can seek to protect, based on how long in the pregnancy the woman is. It just cannot be an "equal protection" problem to say that women at "x" months in the pregnancy are treated differently than a woman at "y" months in the pregnancy ... because such women, although both are pregnant, are also not "similarly circumstanced" (they are at different stages in the pregnancy.)

Mm hmm. I don't believe I said it was an "equal protection" problem. What it is, is a lack of demonstrated compelling interest problem, and failure to ensure that women's rights are not violated without due process problem.

Of course, unless someone could actually demonstrate that women at "x" and "y" months in their pregnancy are not similarly situated -- which you haven't done -- there would in fact appear to be an equal protection problem.

All in all, the rights to life and liberty (and in the US, privacy; in Canada and many countries with similar rights instruments, security of the person) and not to be deprived thereof without at least due process do seem to cover things nicely.

But in a policy discussion, which this one started out as, the issue tends to be framed as a "women's rights" issue, and to focus on women's equality needs.

Women cannot achieve equality of opportunity in society unless they have control of their fertility. Those who advocate, as a matter of policy, that access to abortion be restricted or denied are therefore advocating against "equal rights" in the socio-political sense, not necessarily against "equal protection of the law" in the constitutional-legal sense.


Now when will I have done the amount of work required in order to earn an answer to *my* really quite straightforward question?

[Liberty2001]

113. Opinion?!

I said: "First, and obviously, A pregnant woman is not "similarly circumstanced" to a man."

You reply: "That may be your opinion. An individual seeking health care services that are appropriate to his/her condition and that s/he requires in order to carry out his/her own projects for his/her own life, and protect his/her own physical integrity ... looks just like another individual doing that, to me."

A woman who is pregnant is not similarly situated to a man ... because the normal male will never be pregnant! You may have gone to law school, now you apparently need to study biology or go to med school ... or something.

Trying to look at men, and say "well, you're not treating men and women the same because your not regulating male pregnancy" is a laughable argument.

Like I said ... OBVIOUSLY, a pregnant woman is not "similarly circumstanced" to a man. The man will never be in the same situation as the woman.

[iverglas]

117. maybe you can try

responding to what I said.

A woman who is pregnant is not similarly situated to a man ... because the normal male will never be pregnant!

I guess I can never be similarly circumstanced to my best friend, because she is 5'10" and I'm only 5'6".

Trying to look at men, and say "well, you're not treating men and women the same because your not regulating male pregnancy" is a laughable argument.

Ha ha ha! Yes, that's a good one indeed.

Did someone say it?

Like I said ... OBVIOUSLY, a pregnant woman is not "similarly circumstanced" to a man. The man will never be in the same situation as the woman.

Yup. No man will ever find himself seeking a health care service that is essential to him if he is to be able to pursue his plans for his life, not risk dying, not find himself mobility-impaired, that sort of thing.

Must be nice being a man.

I kinda expected that you'd know that "similarly circumstanced" doesn't mean "conjoined twin".

Of course ... I kinda also expected that you'd be looking for ways to enhance women's ability to enjoy equal opportunities, not for ways to slap down the arguments made in support of women's ability to exercise the rights that are essential for that purpose.

I have to go do some important stuff. I'll be expecting my answer when I return later today.

[Liberty2001]

109. Roe v. Wade

You said:

"In the meantime, shall I assume that you advocate denying women, or some women, access to abortion services, or some abortion services, and claim to be a liberal/progressive/democrat?"

Roe v. Wade says the State can regulate, or even proscribe abortion at certain stages ...

To summarize and to repeat:

* * *

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Do you disagree with Roe v. Wade?

If I agree with Roe v. Wade does that not make me a true Democrat because Roe says the State can regulate, or proscribe, abortion at certain stages?

[iverglas]

110. you got it

Do you disagree with Roe v. Wade?

Indeed I do.

Roe v. Wade actually has nothing to do with me, although the Supreme Court of Canada discussed it in our own decision in R. v. Morgentaler.

I regard Roe as utterly incoherent.

First, it is more than obvious that a situation in which the state compels an individual to assume a risk to her life that she does not wish to assume is violating the individual's right to life. Women DO die in pregnancy and delivery. If women are forced to continue pregnancies they do not want, and deliver children they do not want, women will die, and other women will suffer serious adverse health outcomes. Your court did not address this issue, presumably because no one raised it. The same for liberty (but as I said, this seems to be transferred to "privacy" in your law).

The majority reasons in Roe asserted -- accepted Texas's assertion -- that the state has an interest in what it called, variously, "potential human life", "fetal life", I forget what all precisely. What was not done was to establish what that interest was -- to cite the evidence/argument for the existence of that interest, and to identify the nature of the interest, and what it is an interest in.

The Court then found that at a certain point in pregnancy, that interest becomes sufficiently compelling to outweigh the woman's interests. Again: how? why? No answer. Assertion without reasons.

The case is an extraordinarily weak basis for the treatment of such important rights.

If I agree with Roe v. Wade does that not make me a true Democrat because Roe says the State can regulate, or proscribe, abortion at certain stages?

It actually isn't my concern whether you are a "true Democrat" or not, and it would be extraordinarily presumptuous of me to express an opinion on that question.

From my perspective, unless you can present, and identify and describe, the compelling reasons that the state has for such an interference in a woman's rights, and lay out a procedure for the interference that will not amount to denial of the rights without due process, you aren't a friend of women.

Your Supreme Court is authoritative on matters constitutional in the US; that doesn't actually mean that it is always right. As the Court itself will tell you; cf. Lawrence, last year's decision concerning the Texas "sodomy" laws.

[Liberty2001]

112. You didn't get it

First, it is more than obvious that a situation in which the state compels an individual to assume a risk to her life that she does not wish to assume is violating the individual's right to life.


Read Roe again ...

To summarize and to repeat:

* * *

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Roe does not compel a woman to endure a pregnancy which threatens the preservation of her life or health.

Women DO die in pregnancy and delivery.

And, under Roe, abortions are allowed in those circumstances where the life or health of the mother is threatened.

If women are forced to continue pregnancies they do not want, and deliver children they do not want, women will die, and other women will suffer serious adverse health outcomes.

Non-sequitur.

Just because a woman is forced to continue a pregnancy she doesn't "want" doesn't mean she "will die" from it. A woman may not "want" a pregnancy because she thinks she can't afford to have the child ... that doesn't mean she "will die" if forced to continue the pregnancy.

Of course, she might die if forced to continue a pregnancy that threatens her life ... and she can choose to end such a pregnancy, even after the stage of viability.

Your court did not address this issue, presumably because no one raised it.

That's typical ... if you don't raise the issue ... they don't address it.

[iverglas]

115. such selective getting

While the reference in this branch of the chat (how did this happen?) was less explicit than in the other, it was there:

From my perspective, unless you can present, and identify and describe, the compelling reasons that the state has for such an interference in a woman's rights, and lay out a procedure for the interference that will not amount to denial of the rights without due process, you aren't a friend of women.

Due process. Seeing it there?

Of course, she might die if forced to continue a pregnancy that threatens her life ... and she can choose to end such a pregnancy, even after the stage of viability.

So where does due process come in here? If the permitted abortion is an exception to the general ban, who authorizes it? On what grounds? After considering what criteria?

If women are forced to continue pregnancies they do not want, and deliver children they do not want, women will die, and other women will suffer serious adverse health outcomes.
Non-sequitur.

I'll go ya one better -- straw person:

Just because a woman is forced to continue a pregnancy she doesn't "want" doesn't mean she "will die" from it.

Did you see something I wrote that said "all women will die", or "woman X will die"? I don't think so.

It is a statistical certainty that some women will die every year in pregnancy or childbirth. The more women carrying pregnancies to full term and delivering -- especially women who are pretty indisputably less likely to seek out appropriate prenatal and delivery care because they don't want to be pregnant/have a child -- the more women who will die. It's a simple matter of time until someone who was denied an abortion dies of a pregnancy/delivery-related problem.

(Please do keep in mind that I was talking about broad restrictions on access to abortion before you narrowed your focus to Roe's post-viability stage.)

And you do realize that what the Court said in Roe is not what legislation says, right? The Court outlined what legislation may do and not do; its comments are entirely inadequate as actual legislation, which must set out the mechanisms.

Of course, she might die if forced to continue a pregnancy that threatens her life ... and she can choose to end such a pregnancy, even after the stage of viability.

You know much about the real world outside law school?

Most pregnancies that are life-threatening don't announce themselves some time in the first month. The life-threatening complications tend to arise suddenly. My sister, had she not been in a big modern new hospital with all the bells and whistles, would have died in delivery 7 years ago, despite the fact that there was no indication prior to her labour that there would be any problems. The woman in the next room tried hard to die of a haemorrhage from a routine episiotomy the same night. A few months later, the niece of a friend of mine died of a postpartum haemorrhage in West Africa. Women die perinatally in places like West Africa at quite a high rate. Women die in North America of all sorts of complications of pregnancy and delivery.

If there had been no option in my sister's case but to dismember the fetus in order to remove it and save my sister's life, who would have been making that decision? The doctor who would be subject to prosecution for performing an illegal abortion if someone second-guessed his/her judgment? Perhaps not.

Hmm. Due process ...


This is such great fun, but I'm afraid I must insist. I've answered every question you've asked, as thoroughly and clearly as possible. I want mine.

[Chesterton]

60. I'm going out--I realize I've opened a can of worms

And I'd like to keep up this discussion, but I have to go. I hope I didn't offend anyone with my viewpoint.

[Mandate My Ass]

61. Goodbye

You have very much offended and now you'll claim you must scurry away because you've been asked to put up or shut up.

[Chesterton]

93. i was legitimately leaving

and i just got home. please don't be petty, thanks

[FlaGranny]

73. You are mixing up moral rights with legal rights.

They have nothing in common. In a democracy or a representative republic, as the republicans like to remind us, the morals of a group should not dictate the morals of the entire nation. Governments should have no power over abortion. If they say a woman must not have an abortion, then logically, they can say a woman MUST have an abortion.

[Chesterton]

94. my entire point has been that

people have mixed up legal rights with moral rights. That is, we have recognized the legal right of a woman to have an abortion, and we concluded that that gives her a moral right. Try actually reading what I said. I have not once condoned depriving women of this right.

[saracat]

88. Well that change is not desirable to me! You are NOT

a progressive if what you sponsor is retrogressive. And you don't get to cherry pick what"you" think is "progress either! A woman has a "right ' to abortion choice because it is a procedure conducted in her body! Men have "no right to choose" because they will never have to have an abortion. Men can however, choose to prevent conception! If more of them did there would be fewer abortions. This is only common sense and shouldn't be a moral issue. Is it a moral issue whether a woman could have a prostrate procedure? Of course not. We shouldn't be involved in telling people what to do about medical procedures that don't involve them!

[Nimble_Idea]

35. YUP. The Democratic Party will cease to exist if it did that

We would be just like themz

Fundies.

Forget that, Freedom Always.

[Yavin4]

36. If It Isn't Abortion, Then It Would Be Something Else

These people want a Christian Theocracy and they won't stop until they get it.

[HuskerDem]

37. I will walk out of here beside you if that happens

I will not sacrifice the right to my own body. End of story.

[mandyky]

39. I'll go one further - no giving up on gays either

I think they'd be satisfied with civil unions, but nothing less than that. If our Constitution gets amended to take away a right, I'll be pissed as hell!

[BayCityProgressive]

42. Then they would go after stem cell

research, then affirmative action ect ect. THEY WILL NEVER BE HAPPY UNTIL WE ARE ALL SNAKE HANDLING BIBLE THUMPING PSYCHO KOOLAID DRINKING CULT FUNDY CHRISTIANS.

[BlackVelvetElvis]

43. Why should dems bow down and let THEM control the rhetoric and focus

of our platform and our beliefs. Hell no.

[NightTrain]

44. RIGHT ON!!!

I'm with you 100%, jchild! :yourock::kick:

[cally]

46. I think the Dem party needs to reframe the issue

I think we are losing the pro-choice argument. We are losing votes and most Americans do not understand our point of view. I agree, a Dem party that abandons a women's right to choose, is not a party I can associate with. I think we must find some common ground. Win the battle if not the war. Otherwise we will lose all. Abortion rights, birth control, all female reproductive rights. I'm not sure how, yet, but I'm unwilling to hold onto stands that we are losing when we can be more strategic, gain small steps, have a longer range strategy, and ultimately win.

[noiretextatique]

51. it won't make a bit of difference

imho.

[CornField]

53. Let's start with so-called "partial birth abortion"

Medically speaking there is no such procedure. I think what they are talking about are D&E and/or D&X procedures. In the great scheme of things, these procedures are done when the child is terminally ill. That is, the child will die either prior to, during or shortly after birth because of defects.

The ban on partial birth abortion does nothing but punish women and families who are already facing a reality that no one ever wants to experience -- their child is going to die.

I would ask that you all think for a moment about the person you love most in this world. Now imagine that person on life support. Who should have the final say on when and how the plug is pulled -- you or the government?

[noiretextatique]

56. what i've found is the propanganda is stronger than the facts

i've seen that a lot right here with anti-choice folks' and their lurid abortion fantasies. i bet 90% of anti-choice folks have no idea that "partial birth abortion" is a meaningless phrase designed to overwhelm with emotion and freeze brains cells.

[madfloridian]

65. Then our party should make it clear.

I remember on night on TV, Howard Dean just flat out stated that there was no such thing as partial birth abortion....they were making up the term to upset.

It is not used as an abortion technique, but to save the lives of mothers. I heard Kerry say that one time....but the Catholic church believes the child comes first...they picked a good issue those Repubs. Dems are afraid to touch it.

[cally]

70. A Democrat, like Kerry, Pelosi, or Kennedy, should offer a

a partial birth abortion ban with exceptions for the life and health of the mother. Say they are offering a compromise because they know that the Supreme Court could accept that. Late term abortion should be restricted to extreme circumstances..even add some language of how abhorrent it is. Etc.

Take back the issue while not giving anything away.

[FlaGranny]

78. You know, the trouble is, everything you say is

true right now. Late term abortions are extremely rare and NEVER performed unless to save the life of the mother or to abort a fetus that is already dead or has no chance at life. It really isn't an issue and never was. It is a bogus made-up issue. But you can't seem to make them understand that.

[iverglas]

90. "not giving anything away"??

"A Democrat, like Kerry, Pelosi, or Kennedy, should offer a partial birth abortion ban with exceptions for the life and health of the mother. Say they are offering a compromise"

First, and for the umpty dozenth time, we are talking about WOMEN, not "mothers".

But on the meat of the matter -- do people really not know anything about history?

There have been abortion bans with exceptions before. And THEY DON'T WORK.

The knowledge of whether an abortion is necessary to preserve a woman's life, or fertility, or kidney function, or sanity, does not drop from the sky. In fact, it does not exist. All that there can ever be are educated guesses.

Who are the best-educated people for this purpose? Why, doctors.

And who will be the subjects of the law prohibiting the abortions except in the defined circumstances? Why, doctors. Doctors are the ones who will be breaking the law if they perform abortions that don't meet the standard. And what will be the standard? Who the hell knows? How can anyone predict the future? And yet predicting the future is exactly what they would be asked to do.

So what doctor in his/her own right mind is going to risk prosecution, or loss of entitlement to practice, by going out on a limb in a case where s/he can't guarantee that a woman will die, or suffer a debilitating stroke or some other sufficiently horrible health outcome, if her pregnancy is not terminated?

To protect the doctors (and the women who need their services) and ensure uniform application of the law, tribunals have been established, to which women's cases must be presented and authorization for the abortion sought. Now there's a fine process for a woman in a health crisis. Or for any woman, if the appointees to the tribunal in question don't happen to value her life or well-being quite as much as they pretend to value "unborn children".

PRIOR RESTRAINT on the exercise of women's fundamental rights is unacceptable, if for no other reason than that it is impossible to ensure that women's rights -- like the right to life, which is the one you are putting in issue -- are not interfered with without due process.

What on earth would be the due process that legitimized a decision that "x" amount of risk to a woman's life justified an abortion, but "y" amount of risk did not?


"Late term abortion should be restricted to extreme circumstances..even add some language of how abhorrent it is."

I'm sorry, but what's "abhorrent" is the suggestion that a woman's government make a legislative pronouncement passing moral judgment on her health decisions.

There are all manner of things about which we can make "should" statements. People should not commit adultery. People should not suntan without sunscreen. People should not go sky-diving when they're pregnant. What makes your statement a fit subject of law, and not others?

Perhaps the state, society, has an interest in protecting late-term pregnancies from induced abortion that it does not have in protecting spouses from adultery, or protecting people from melanoma, or ... hmm, protecting late-term pregnancies from spontaneous abortion. (Because what difference is there between someone who sky-dives her way to a miscarriage and someone who has the miscarriage surgically induced?)

But if the state cannot protect that interest without grossly violating fundamental rights, then we just don't generally let it violate the rights. There simply has to be some proportionality between the public interest the state is protecting and the private interests that it is impairing. And I fail to see what could outweigh a woman's life.

And if anybody can come up with a way to protect late-term pregnancies (assuming, for the sake of argument, that the state has any legitimate interest in doing that) without grossly violating women's fundamental rights, I have yet to hear it.

I find it hard to express how abhorrent the idea of "compromising" someone else's rights is to me. We simply DO NOT bargain away other people's rights, not for anything. These rights are unalienable, remember? And that means that they cannot be taken away or given up -- let alone bargained away by a third party.


And of course there's the one big point that has never-endingly to be made.

"Partial birth abortion" and late-term abortion ARE NOT the same thing. The equivalency between them in the public mind is the result of a very deliberate shell game played by the anti-choice right wing.

The technique supposedly being referred to by the term "partial birth abortion" (even if we ignore the fact that the way the term is defined could actually cover any abortion) is most commonly used in the second trimester, around mid-pregnancy -- a period that is NOT "late-term", and when the fetus is utterly and absolutely incapable of experiencing anything. It is used when, in the professional opinion of the professionals who use it, it is advisable in the interests of the woman, whether to avert potential physical complications or to spare her psychological trauma. And that is her business, and her business alone.

It is also, of course, a period of pregnancy (roughly, pre-viability) when, under your Supreme Court's decisions in the matter, the state (i.e. any level of government with jurisdiction) is in fact barred from legislating about abortion for any purpose other than in the interests of the woman's health.

[Castilleja]

62. I'm right with you, there

This is not a complicated issue, unless you are a woman contemplating your fertility options. If that's not you, no input from you is needed. Simple.

[tuvor]

66. Huh???????

"And I am not going to bend on this, and I won't discuss this with anyone who wishes to."

So why bother posting?

ON EDIT: I guess I'm guilty of a sort-of dupe. Still, it's the equivalent of announcing that you'll put your hands over your ears and go "blah, blah, blah, blah..."

Oh, well. If it works for you...

[Maddy McCall]

69. It is a statement of my position

Just like 1000s of other statements of position here on DU. You want to argue with someone who gives a tinker's damn, then go find one of the 1000s of other threads at DU and argue.

Because I ain't bending. Nothing you can say will make me reconsider my position.

[tuvor]

75. You said "discuss" not "argue".

That's what confused me. If you'd said "argue" in the first place, I think I'd've understood.

[0007]

74. No argument from me, on that issue. I'm surprised it took women

so long just to get her voting rights.

[sangh0]

80. You can expect

freepers to be making some very divisive arguments in the next few weeks, at least.

BTW, the idea that we have to "roll over on abortion" because 70% of the people vote on values and that means that 70% oppose abortion is ludicrous given the 2/3 of the population that support abortion rights. It's a dead giveaway

[welshTerrier2]

84. post election trauma

many of us didn't like it as we watched our party move to the center to appeal to more voters ... we went along but we didn't like it ...

and now, the first cries we hear are to abandon our core values to appeal to the Red states ... the logical end point for this creative strategy is to ask us to all become republicans so that we can say we won this election ...

we lost this election by very few votes ... a very small percentage ... perhaps we didn't really lose it at all ... there is a whole lot of evidence about fraud ... to throw away our core principles is hardly a way to inspire the support of those of us who believe in them ...

if you trash the core values many of us are fighting for, you can't assume that you'll gain more votes ... you have to understand that alienating your base is rarely a recipe for success ...

what we need is better organization and better communication of our beliefs ... abandoning issues like abortion and gay rights is insane ... we are for the rights of the individual ... we do not believe these rights can be revoked by the state ... or by a misguided campaign of religious zealots who seek to impose their religious views on our democratic institutions ...

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

89. I'm with you. And I'm glad Kerry came out as an unambiguous defender of

Roe v. Wade in Debate #3.

[OnionPatch]

91. Well, I respectfully

have to agree to disagree with you.
I don't march lock-step with any party. I agree with 99.9% of liberal views but my view on abortion is a little different and I won't apologize for it.
I will say it's not that important an issue with me when I see thousands of people dying in unjust wars and many other issues of life and death.
I'm not going anywhere. Sorry. I thought this was the party of diversity and free speech.

[iverglas]

92. well now

"I'm not going anywhere. Sorry. I thought this was the party of diversity and free speech."

Are you one of those who say women should sacricifice their rights "for the good of the party" -- the ones about whom the initial poster was speaking?

If not, it strikes me that while you may not be part of the solution, you aren't part of the specific problem that this thread is addressing.

You might want to clarify what, exactly, you're "disagree"ing with.

[LynneSin]

95. Folks - it's going to be all about State Rights

If you live in a Blue state there's a good chance your state will keep a woman's right to choose but if you live in a Red state, well, you're basically fucked.

State's rights was an issue with the Confederacy back during the Civil War when they said that they (the state) had the right to make their own decision when it came to slavery. A war was fought over it and Lincoln tried to reunite the country and finally put an end to the horrors of slavery. The South (the close-minded citizens anyways) have been fighting for state's rights ever since.

Now that we have Bush re-selected again (because I truly believe the fix was in), now that repukes have control still of the house & senate, I believe in all of my heart that they will stack the high court with enough judges in order to overturn RoeVWade. And when this happens it will go back to the states to decide if they want to treat their women like equals or relegate us to second class citizens.

The fight will now be in our State Houses in which Michael Moore, on his website, brought up an interesting fact:

http://www.michaelmoore.com
At the state legislative level, Democrats picked up a net of at least 3 chambers in Tuesday's elections. Of the 98 partisan-controlled state legislative chambers (house/assembly and senate), Democrats went into the 2004 elections in control of 44 chambers, Republicans controlled 53 chambers, and 1 chamber was tied. After Tuesday, Democrats now control 47 chambers, Republicans control 49 chambers, 1 chamber is tied and 1 chamber (Montana House) is still undecided.

That's great news because we have a strong chance to help influence these state congresses into making a difference in our country since let's face it - Washington DC has become useless to most of us anymore.

Keep up the fight. Delaware(my adopted state where I live) & Pennsylvania(my home state) are Blue States and I plan to fight to keep us that way for as long as I breathe!!!

[greymattermom]

99. offer them what they really want

Death penalty for any woman who has a abortion. That would make them think. Maybe. Maybe death penalty for a male fetus, life imprisonment for a female fetus.

[seabeyond]

100. anti abortion, will not cannot work regardless, that is the stupid

outlaw abortion. woman goes to jail. children go to foster. reproducing mate go to jail with her.

decide who gets one who doesnt, rape warrants abortion, mothers life warrants abortion, but a 15 year old gonna commit suicide doesnt

this is a law that will never work. those that go to i am pro life, (anti abortion) dont think past that. just mouthing off a world they want but without think repercussion. not the way an adult should walk thru life. a greater responsibility

[TexasSissy]

105. You don't have to a far lefter to be pro-choice. This is part of the

Party's Platform. To be a Dem. is to be pro-choice, although there are some Democrats, no doubt, who disagree with this particular issue, but they would be few. Even a number of moderate Repubs are pro-choice.

[BiggJawn]

107. I'm with you.

Right down the line.
I'd also add that if you don't believe a woman has the RIGHT to decide her destiny, the you're not even a Human.

[LibInternationalist]

108. Agree whole-heartedly

but we need to start taking measures to legalize abortion where we do control state legislatures IN ADDITION to fighting for Roe v. Wade

[Nederland]

114. This is great

Anybody else have any other issues that should be a Democratic litmus test? Anti-capital punishment perhaps? Opposition to school vouchers? Pro affirmative action? Pro Gay Marriage? I bet if we try real hard, we can wittle this party down to half its size and lose elections for the next fifty years. But we need to work hard people. Hard. Think dammit.

</sarcasm>

[sallydallas124]

116. thank you

"If you don't support a woman's right to control her own fertility, then you are not a progressive. You are not a liberal. You are not even a Democrat, by my definition. Period."
Amen.

[LiberalAndProud]

118. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion.

Back in the day, when I could listen to Rush without breaking my radio, I heard him say that NOW nags (or whatever he calls us) WANT every woman to have an abortion. Seriously. And those people who have not yet broken their radios BELIEVE that nonsense.