Anti-Choicers Are Truly Sick, Depraved Individuals.

GOD, and yes, I said GOD, how I hope the Freepers are listening.

Today, over the skies of Cincinnati, flew a silly little airplane. Attached to the silly little airplane was an enormous banner. I had to stop my car on a side street just out of curiosity.

The banner, which was easily the largest banner I've ever seen attached to a silly little airplane, contained a photograph of an aborted fetus, and the words "10 WEEKS - ABORTED." I'm used to this kind of crap, but I have to tell you, the enormity of it absolutely shocked me. My mouth dropped to the floor when I figured out what it was I was looking at. You pretty much had to be there. Most of Cincinnati, no small town, was.

What will we tell the children? And isn't it beyond sick that they decided to hire this silly little airplane to fly at approximately 2:45 pm, when most children would be leaving school and gazing upon the silly little airplane and the exploitative graphic attached to its rudder?

Family Values, my ass.

on edit:DISCLAIMER: I do realize there are some good anti-choice individuals who post on DU, most of whom I know and deeply respect, and it is not my intention to blame them, specifically, for this inflammatory act.

What's really ironic is that these are usually the same people who don't want anyone to see flag-covered coffins of the dead troops they so claim to support.

I would guess that it was no accident at all they were flying around at the time when kid's are getting out of school.

now sex, we must accept that most anti-abortion rhetoric is influenced by a male need to control women. A lot of women have bought into this anti-choice rhetoric because they honestly believe men are concerned with the life of fetuses, and, of course, because some truly believe it is wrong to have an abortion.

However the numbers would in no way be as strong if men weren't leading this fight, the same men who are pro-war, which kills thousands, if not millions, the same men who are pro-death penalty, and the same men who want the little wife to serve them until they are through with them or want to swap them in for a younger model.

We do ourselves a disservice not to realize the true motives men involved in this fight possess. How can they control us sexually if we have good birth control and the right to abort an unwanted fetus? Who would wash their clothes, scrub their toilets and provide sex on demand.

FYI, I have been married to the same man for forty years now. He is a wonderful man and I am lucky. Because of the feminist movement, we both became aware of our true roles in our relationship. He supports and believes in women's rights. Of course, this is certainly helped by our having three very smart and independent daughters, but, it is also because we had arguments, discussions and more discussions about his attitudes in the early days of our marriage. I was lucky. He is not a violent man; many are. Women have to grab hold of the rights we fought so hard for them to have, educate the men they love, or leave them. Some just cannot change.

are anti-choice women just dumber than pro-choice women or ar anti-choice men just better able to influence those silly women? /end sarcasm.

In other words why do men get the blame?

women, not men have been the opressed sex for the last few thousand years or so and its been men, not women, doing most of the opressing. I think its kind of understandable that they may not take too kindly to men meddling with their wombs. Also, an anti-choice woman is at least talking about something she may, hypothetically, have to deal with. It doesn't make her any less wrong, just puts hjer in a better position to have an opinion.

In other words why do men get the blame?

You're right. There were many men marching alongside the women in Washington, and there are many men who are strong, proud advocates for women's issues. While it did take women to make women's causes known, perhaps in times past the role of women was so institutionalized that good men simply did not question it. In times past, women scarcely questioned the way things were either... a few did, but only a few.

... women, not men have been the opressed sex for the last few thousand years or so and its been men, not women, doing most of the opressing.

You realize that this holds true for some cultures, but not for some others. Women's roles in other societies may have been separate, but they often held property and political power that the men did not.

It happens that women are now in the majority, numbers-wise, in this country. Still, not all women support equal rights for themselves and their sisters. For progress to be made, we absolutely need the support of the men. So... thanks to all the men out there who are feminists.

:pals:

I was only speaking of western european culture really, which is the one I have most familiarity with, although by and large that analysis can be extended to America. I know I go over the top in my rethoric, but that's I guess a sign of the cultural/social discomfort I feel as a man speaking in favour of women's rights.

It would appear, juajen, as though you have some sort of problem with power.

I agree with you about rape -- it is all about power. The power os someone strong over someone less strong. The power of someone who wants to assert his power over someone who is more vulnerable. Rape is a terrbile, terrible thing.

But what do you think abortion is all about?

Isn't it about power? The sort of power that is sometimes described as "choice"?

Because isn't the "choice" really the power of the strong over the weak, defenseless, and vulnerable?

I think I am correct when I say that it was really not too long ago that men asserted that they had the "right" to have sex with their wives whether their wives wished to have sex or not. I would suggest that a man forcing sex upon his wife is every bit as much rape as when any man forces a woman -- against her wishes -- to have sex.

Men simply viewed women a "non-persons" when it came to sex -- and men asserted the right of the stronger over the weaker. And many people agreed with that right.

Some might suggest that abortion is much the same thing. It is a case where the stronger asserts her right over the weaker -- the totally defenseless -- the totally vulnerable. The "non-person". And many people agree with that right. The right of the powerful over the powerless and vulnerable "non-person".

When it's the government exerting power over the individual, yes. I do think that's what choice is about.

When it's a woman exerting power over her own reproductive system, no. Many people do not believe a 10-week fetus is a "person" or a "non-person." If you do, don't have an abortion. That is your choice. Enforcing your beliefs on others is not your choice.

Before you were born, when your mother was pregnant, what was she pregnant with?

Before you were born, when your mother was pregnant, was "the thing" that was growing inside your own mother merely part of your mother's "own reproductive system"?

These people you speak of -- the ones who "do not believe that a 10-week fetus is a 'person' or a 'non-person' -- what is it that they actually do believe a fetus is?

what anybody else thinks it is, but many believe a fertilized egg is not a sentient being, a citizen, or a "baby."

Your beliefs are your beliefs. Their beliefs are theirs.

.....that I have stated my beliefs here.

And I am sorry that my questions cause you such discomfort.

I might take issue with you, though, when you say that many people do not consider a fertilized egg to be a "baby".

There are some folks here on DU who state that they are pro-choice -- some who even go so far as to claim they are "110%" pro-choice -- who also say that they or their spouses are "pregnant with their first child".

They can't quite bring themselves to say that they or their spouses are "pregnant with their first wanted fertilized egg".

whether you stated your beliefs, or what they are. That's exactly the point. You're entitled to them, and others are entitled to their own.

I don't believe I stated any "discomfort."

You're splitting hairs about the word "baby" now. If you do not believe that many do not consider a fertilized egg to be a baby, you are entitled to that belief, as well.

These people you speak of -- the ones who "do not believe that a 10-week fetus is a 'person' or a 'non-person' -- what is it that they actually do believe a fetus is?

... A real threat to their own life.

Tell me... if your sixteen year old son, who is already a foot taller than you are, had a sixteen inch cast iron skillet that, for whatever reason, he was threatening to bring down on your head with great force, would you not try to defend yourself?

In exactly the same way, a woman who is carrying a child that, for whatever reason, threatens her life or either her physical or mental health, she is perfectly justified in doing whatever is necessary to defend herself. If the child has to go, so be it.

That doesn't make it an easy thing for a woman to do, but it makes it the right thing for her to do.

BTW, when my mother was pregnant with me, she was sixteen. She had no choices. She had a child (me), and relinquished that child (me) for adoption. Like many people who were adopted, if I had been given the choice of being born and growing up adopted or of never having been born at all, I would have chosen to never have been born. No, no one involved suffered terribly (no abuse, no dire poverty, none of that), but everyone involved did suffer something that didn't need to happen.

Thanks, LeahMira, for clearing that up for me.

Until I read your post, I was totally unaware that each and every time a woman became pregnant, the situation was analogous to a 16-year-old tall son holding a 16 inch cast iron skillet over his parent's head.

I do hope this message -- that each pregnancy is a real threat to a person's life -- is taught in every single school -- both public and private -- to all young girls and women.

Perhaps the teaching materials could include pictures that show a threatening 16-year-old male, a foot taller than his own mother, holding a vetry big cast iron skillet over his mother's head.

The teacher could use this visual to explain to young girls and women that the threatening male in that picture is exactly like a fetus -- more powerful than the mother, and deserving, because of the threat, to be killed as soon as possible.

That would certainly clarify things for young girls and women, correct?

I am truly sorry, by the way, that you feel that you should not have been born. I can't imagine what it must feel like to go through life thinking that it would have been better never to have been born at all.

It is an issue I think about, because my mother, when she became pregnant with (do I say me or do I say with the fetus that later, when it was born, became me?) was only 20 and unmarried, and abortion was illegal. Despite the suffering and hardships, there is not a day that goes by that I do not thank my mother for giving me the gitft of life.

... that someone who is so grateful to his mother for giving him the gift of life would so gladly permit anyone, even his own child, to take that life away.

I also assume (perhaps wrongly?) that your own mother raised you. Perhaps you might feel differently if you had to wait until your first child was born to hold the only blood relative... the only person in the world who looked like you... that you would ever be permitted to know.

where is it, exactly, that I ever suggested that I would, "gladly" or otherwise, permit anyone -- anyone at all -- to take the life of another?

for whom abortion would presumably never be a choice in your own life that you would ever possibly consider (and I'm assuming that you are not contributing to the creation of any potential persons)...

you sure are opinionated about what decisions others make.


In fact, I think you are the most obsessed person on DU about whether WOMEN choose abortion.

I should just shut up and mind my own business, shouldn't I?

I mean, what right does any gay male have to hold any opinion on the issue of abortion?

I suppose it is OK for a gay male to hold theopinion that women ought to have a completely unfettered right to abortion for any reason and at any time during an abortion. I'm just not sure what the "proper" or "most appropriate" position for us gay men to have on abortion is, exactly.

Perhaps you could inform me on that, and thereby put me in my place.

Perhaps you might also want to tell me what my position should be on the issue of wife-beating and child abuse.

You see, as a gay man, I have some pretty strong opinions about the choices other men sometimes make regarding how they treat their wives and children. Some folks might even suggest that I am obsessed about how husbands ought to treat their wives and children.

And yet, as a gay male, I will never have a wife and I will certainly never have any children.

SO will you please tell me what position I should hold on the issue of wife-beating and child abuse? Should I simply shut-up and remain silent when that topic is discussed anywhere? Do I forfeit my right to have an opinion, too, on those subjects, because I am a gay man?

Can I even ask questions of other people regarding their positions on wife-beating and child abuse, or does my status as a gay man preclude me from even doing that?

I do appreciate your efforts to let me know of the correct and most approrpiate thing for us gay guys to think regarding abortion.

Please -- by all means -- do inform me concerning what we ought to think and say about wife-beating and child-abuse.

Thanks -- so much -- in advance.

suggesting that people concerned about Woman's Lives are like terrorists....

your comparing of pro-choice people to wife-beaters and child-abusers.

Maybe you and Karen would have a nice, peaceful conversation.

to compare people who are pro-choice to wife-beaters and child-abusers.

And I regret that you drew such an unintended inference from what I actually said.

Perhaps now you can understand why I get upset when people accuse me of saying things I did not say.

And perhaps now you will also understand my point: Just because I happen to be a gay male does not, I think, mean that I forfeit my right (or even my privilege, when it comes to posting here on DU) to have an opinion concerning something "I will never have to confront".

Let me ask you something:

Do you have any opinion on the issue of Roman Catholic priests abusing young boys?

Will you ever, yourself, be a Roman Catholic priest? Will you ever be a young boy?

Even though I have no chance at all of ever becoming a RC priest, and even though my days as a young boy are long past, and even though I will never have a son, I still have very strong opinions about RC priests who abuse young boys -- and about the efforts of the RC Church to "manage" the problem. I am not even Roman Catholic.

Are you suggestinng that because I will never have to deal -- personally -- with the issue of the abuse of young boys by Roman Catholic priests, that I should not have an opinion?

YOU are the one who raised the issue of my opinion, and I think you came awfully close to suggesting either that I held the wrong position on abortion or that I should have no opinion at all -- because, I think yopu said, I am a gay male who will never have to confront the issue of abortion personally.

There are, I would suggest, a great many issues of our day that neither you nor I will ever have to confront personally.

But, at least as far as I am concerned, that does not mean that either you or I should not hold carefully-informed views on those issues and express our views in civil and respectful ways -- without distorting the positions of those who disagree with us.

The pro-choice position is about women being able to choose what seems like the most ethical decision for herself at the time.

You will never have that choice.

You don't think that it is a matter of the woman making a choice.

It seems to me, based on your posts that you equate abortion to murder, because you think that it is the taking of a human life. So if you don't think that people who have that done are at least as bad as wife-beaters or child-abusers, then, I don't know...



And you are right, I can and do get worked up about a lot of things - like the war - though that is my tax dollars at work....

I just don't understand why you are on a mission about this. Some women here get very involved with threads about violence against women, because it happened to them. So it makes sense to me.

Seems to me people usually have a reason when they are as fired up about a topic as you are.

To me it makes more sense to be concerned about people who are alive. Living people have enough problems as it is without worrying about whether this or that woman decides to bring another life into the world.

You obviously think differently.

I suppose you are right, again.

The issue is really so simple.

And I guess that explains why, more than 31 yearsa after Roe v. Wade, this nation is still divided on the issue of abortion.

Part of the reason, I think, is that sometimes people make unwarranted assumptions about people who have different viewpoints on this issue.

For instance, you write, "It seems to me, based on your posts that you equate abortion to murder, because you think that it is the taking of a human life. So if you don't think that people who have that done are at least as bad as wife-beaters or child-abusers, then, I don't know."

I'm not sure that I have ever said that abortion is murder, and I do try to choose my words very, very carefully.

I may have suggested that a fetus is human life. But there the subject becomes very complex.

You seem to think that the taking of a human life is always murder. I have never said that. I can think of several situations in which the taking of a human life is not murder. But you never bothered to ask me about that.

For you, the issue is just simple. Really simple.

For you, I guess, it is better just to act on your assumptions about what other people -- especially people who hold different opinions -- believe and think than it is to ask.

And it also appears to me that you still think that some people are not entitled to hold opinions -- or, if they do, they must hold opinions that correspond with your own.

I am the one advocating that different women may hold different opinions and will act differently accordingly.

You are the one saying that you think abortion should not be an option and so it wouldn't matter if people thought differently or not. They would not have a choice.

I really must object here, bloom.

You say to me that I am "the one saying that you think abortion should not be an option and so it wouldn't matter if people thought differently or not."

I have never said any such thing, and I absolutely defy you to show me otherwise.

Where is it, exactly, that I have ever said that abortion should not be an option.

Show me.

I saw that on CNN up here in Canada. (I dunno, maybe it's her stock in trade and not just an isolated performance, but that's where I saw it a couple of days ago.) I wondered whether anyone caught it, if it was a one-off.

To paraphrase her: Anti-choicers believe in values like the sanctity of human life ... the values that the terrorist enemies of America hate.

I just about puked. Cripes, if anyone ever needs a definition of "evil rotten vicious demagogue", keep a picture of that one handy.

.

where is it, exactly, that I ever suggested that I would, "gladly" or otherwise, permit anyone -- anyone at all -- to take the life of another?

You did that when you argued against abortion. If a "mere fetus" threatens the life or the physical or mental health and well-being of a woman (no matter that the fetus can have no intent to be a threat) you claim that she has no right to choose to abort it. I am stating that any woman absolutely does have the right to defend herself against such a threat, even if that means that the life of the fetus is sacrificed.

"If a "mere fetus" threatens the life or the physical or mental health and well-being of a woman (no matter that the fetus can have no intent to be a threat) you claim that she has no right to choose to abort it."

Do you have a link to any place where I have ever said such a thing?

You say that I have made a claim -- a claim that a woman, whose life, physical or mental health, or well-being is threatened by a fetus, has no right to choose to abort it.

I have never -- NEVER -- made any such claim.

If you have a link to disprove my statement about never having made such a claim, then please provide it.

Otherwise, absent at least an acknowledgement that you have mis-stated my position, I will assume that you are intentionally engaging in a personal attack.

Do you work for an anti-abortion advocacy group?

No.

I do not work for any anti-abortion advoccy group.

I never have.

I am merely a US citizen who has some concerns about our laws on abortion.

That's it.

What if you really believed that the fetus was a fully-sentient living being infused with soul, whose death was a homicide as real and voluntary as machinegunning a baby in its crib? The Anti-Choicers look at abortion as a Holocaust, and they aren't just kidding about it either. So of course they're hysterical, they think it's mass murder condoned by the state.

If bush opened up a Dachau-style death camp for Muslims in your hometown, maybe even just down the street from your house, you'd probably do whatever you could to raise issue awareness, even if it meant flying a silly little airplane with a banner and disturbing photographs over a residential neighborhood. I know I would. Maybe a few extremists would even take to shooting at the death camp guards, or putting bombs in the commandant's mail?

Imagine that you can't see a difference between the two situations, and you'll be a step closer to understanding the Anti-Choicers' "sick depravity". You think they're vicious and irrational, they think they're fighting for the lives of children whose only crime is not being wanted by their mothers. Frankly, I think it's a miracle those folks are as well-behaved as they are, considering what they believe to be happening.

From my experience, the anti-choice crowd sees abortion as a holocaust - until they need to have an abortion. Then suddenly its a medical procedure that must be done. It happens all the time. I wish I had a nickle for every time I saw a spokesperson at an anti-choice rally who has had at least one, two, or sometimes even three abortions.

These people don't give a shit about the "rights" of the fetus. They just get off on invoking moral superiority and telling other people how to live.

I know dirt-poor women who've crippled themselves giving birth to their 6th or 7th kid, because they believed so strongly that abortion is murder. I know quiet people, male and female, who wouldn't think of "telling other people how to live," but the Anti-Choice issue is the litmus that decides their vote in every election. For them, it really is a serious black-and-white matter of legalized murder.

Just hang with some devout blue-collar fundamentalist Catholics some time, and you'll see what I mean.

The ones I see come to my campus, and sometimes bring along their "god hates fags" buddies.

Yeah, they showed up at my college a few times, too. Once, one of my dormies stole their aborted fetus sign. Their visits always led to some hilarity, like some of the philosophy upperclassmen totally thrashing the "reverends" on various biblical contradictions, nudists climbing the trees over their "rally", drunken bisexual love-ins on the steps of the student union... Really brought out the best in us!

But even some of those guys (and they were overwhelmingly male) are sincere. Some of them really believe they have a mission to "save" us faggot abortionist adultering romanist (yes they hated Catholics, too) sinners before we fall into the pits of hell. They're the ones who could potentially outgrow it, IMHO. There are also the hypocrites, the ones who do it just for fun and profit. They're a repulsive lost cause.

You can't write off the whole thing just on the basis of the campus crusaders, tho. When you're out of college for a while (gawd I hate sounding like an old fart) you'll see -- there are plenty of sincere people in their ranks. Some of them work at soup kitchens and march in anti-war protests, too. Seriously, see if there's a devout Catholic church somewhere near you, one that does a Latin mass without any of the watered-down singalong crap, go there to check it out. Betcha you'll see some of the true believers.

about something completely unrelated to reproduction. But because I'm female and at the time, I was in my early twenties, obviously I was a pregnant slut no better than I should be and a murderer to boot.

The protestors that stood outside the clinic picked on each and every female of child bearing age, assuming that A: they were pregnant. B: they were there to get an abortion. C: That no woman ever sees a doctor about anything else.

It's always the same group and they're mostly men. They can be very in your face about the harassment. If you could see the look in the eyes of the most rabid, it's like looking into an abyss and seeing that the possessor of such eyes doesn't consider you human. It was chilling.

These are the ones who nearly killed me by blocking my line of sight as I was trying to leave the place. Their van blocked line of sight on one side, the protestors were on the other and I couldn't see any of the traffic on this very busy street at 5PM on a weekday. Thanks to them converging on my car I didn't see the car coming and nearly got into an accident. Guess a fully grown female in her twenties isn't as valuable to them as a fetus that only existed in their imaginations instead of in her uterus.

It's people like these that make me wish the technology existed to transplant a fetus from a woman who doesn't want one into someone who does.

This clinic is a general clinic like hundreds of other clinics. It also happened to have a doctor who performed abortions. I offered to be an escort, but so many people who lived closer than I did also volunteered and they didn't need to call me.

By the way, my blue-collar, Catholic, Republican father goes to that clinic and a few years ago he saw the protestors harassing a young woman (who wasn't me, I can made smartass remarks with the best of them) and he went up to them and said: "I can guarantee you that I'M not pregnant."

>I know dirt-poor women who've crippled themselves giving birth to their 6th or 7th kid, because they believed so strongly that abortion is murder.

Too bad they're not so concerned about murdering themselves. That'll kill them after a while

giving birth to their 6th or 7th kid"--apparently their convictions also forbid contraception. They--and their husbands--need to learn some self-restraint. They're fucking themselves into an early grave as surely as some barebacking party boy. Sorry for the vulgarity, but that's reality.

I agree that not all anti-choicers are woman-hating control freaks. But the subset you identified is not a good example to emulate.

"They just get off on invoking moral superiority and telling other people how to live."

This "they" that you are speaking of.....????

Would it by any chance include people who suggest that those who disagree with them on a particular political or social issue are "sick" and "disgusting" individuals?

Or might it include those who condemn others who disagree with them as being moral deficients because they do not share a morality which says that killing totally weak and totally defenseless creatures -- purely as a matter of "choice" -- is correct?

I know that you would never say that your morality is superior to anyone else's.

But I think that there are some people who call themselves "pro-choice" who, as you say, "get off" invoking their own moral superiority on this issue.

the south sacrificed a lot of lives to keep slavery intact -- that sacrifice didn't make it right.
and your statements don't address the issue of who owns a woman's body -- in the 21st century it is apparently still a revolutionary thought. and that is the pivotal argument right there.
a woman's body must be her own -- determine her own destiny. not the majority or minority -- certainly not men -- not religion -- but a woman, by her self determining her own existence.

Sure, it's easy to say that the Confederates were wrong-headed in hindsight. If they'd known that beforehand, they probably wouldn't have died trying to secede. The problem is, they believe themselves to be right every bit as much as you believe them to be wrong. So what happens next? Pull out the big guns? And if they'd won the war, who knows what you'd believe about right and wrong now?

As to who "owns a woman's body", I think most of the consistent Anti-Choicers would say that God owns the bodies, male and female, born and unborn. How are you going to argue with that? You think you're exercising your property rights, they think you're vandalizing God's property, who's right and who's wrong? Is it only because you believe it to be so?

See, I agree with you on the essence of self-determination. Independent of the life of the fetus is the overwhelming tragedy of what happens to women's privacy if we adopt the Anti-Choicers' point of view. They happen to think such a sacrifice of liberty would be for the greater good. We need to counter dogma with something other than dogma, or there is no "pivotal argument", but only a major disagreement which polarizes us into the blue and the gray all over again.

masturbation which would thereotically stop men from reproducing. There's a double standard here that is not excusable by using the "life is sacrosanct" to them argument.

whether we have fertilized eggs or not.

what about your further explanation did you think i didn't understand the first time?
i don't buy the argument that people didn't know slavery was bad -- there was far too much discussion about it to believe that those in charge really believed there was anything right about slavery.
and it's the same now -- the gulf between the two sides is about one sides unwillingness to give up it's notion of how to control people.
they know that -- they are not naive. they would prosecute and jail people who would seek or perform abortions.
they know that spirituality and religion shouldn't be held over the head of the individual -- they try to do it through the law and outrageously manipulate the conversation.
using psychological fear, intimidation and murder to force their way.
we've known since the 19th century{speaking of american culture}, at least, that a woman can determine her own existence -- is a full person in her own right. the issue.
and you cannot leave every question of an individuals right to determine thir own existence up to the mob.

"i don't buy the argument that people didn't know slavery was bad -- there was far too much discussion about it to believe that those in charge really believed there was anything right about slavery."

An interesting comment and observation, xchrom.

There was, indeed, quite a lot of discussion about slavery in the years leading up to the Civil War. In fact, much of the discussion focused on just what Black folks were.

Those who supported slavery (And I suppose it is more accurate to say that the debate waas really not between those who "supported" slavery and those who were against it. Rather, the debate was between those wh o thought that some should have the "choice" as to whether or not they wanted to purchase Black folks and hold them in bondage and those who were "anti-choice" regarding this option) argued that Black folks were not really human beings. They de-humanzied them.

That was one of the big points of discussion between the "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" folks of the day. It sometimes played out in arguments about "states rights" -- the rights of states to permit choice regarding slavery.

No less than the Supreme Court of the United States weighed in on the discussion. The Supreme Court ruled, in the Dred Scott case, that Dred Scott, a Black, was not a human being. And therefore he could be bought and sold and held in bondage.

Yes, there was a lot of discussion about slavery -- and about the "morality" of it. Lots and lots and lots of folks -- including a majority of the Supreme Court -- thought that it was perfectly respectable -- indeed, moral -- to be pro-choice regardng slavery. Because they de-humanized that over which they sought to exercise their power.

There's such confusion over this one. Kinda like that business about how the US Constitution said that slaves were "3/5 of a person" ... which it never said.

No less than the Supreme Court of the United States weighed in on the discussion. The Supreme Court ruled, in the Dred Scott case, that Dred Scott, a Black, was not a human being.

Did it really?? That just isn't how I've understood the matter. I thought it was more like this:

http://library.wustl.edu/vlib/dredscott/chronology.html

Scott and his lawyers appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Scott v. Sanford the Court states that Scott should remain a slave, that as a slave he is not a citizen of the U.S. and thus not eligible to bring suit in a federal court, and that as a slave he is personal property and thus has never been free.

If he weren't a human being, how could there even have been an issue as to whether or not he was "free"??

Me, I'm not a citizen of the US either. But I don't think that your Supreme Court would have said that I'm not a human being.

Of course, I'm also not a US constitutional scholar. Perhaps someone who actually is could enlighten us on this point. Or perhaps outinforce himself will just provide some authority for his own statement.

Here's an interesting tidbit:

During this time, Scott marries Harriet Robinson, also a slave.

Hmm, a non-human being getting married. That's kinda odd. I don't think my cats or my chairs can do that.

Then there were all those rich old white guys busy engaging in sexual activity (whether consensual or non-consensual) with slaves. Did they also engage in sexual activity with their sheep? As I have often asked (but never been answered), would Thomas Jefferson have taken kindly to an assertion that he was engaging in bestiality?


In fact, much of the discussion focused on just what Black folks were.

I'm sure it did. There's been a lot of discussion lately of just what Saddam Hussein was. Anyone who thinks that just what Saddam Hussein was had much to do with the decision to invade Iraq would be about as credulous as anyone who thinks that the discussion of "just what Black folks were" had much to do with advocating permitting slavery ... or that the discussion of just what fetuses are has much to do with advocating prohibiting abortion.

.

perhaps the most prolific writer on the issue of slavery, humaness, etc. before you go down this road.
you should also research some of the sermons by north east pastors on the same subject,
and the conflicted musings of thomas jefferson -- oh he knew all right.
there is only one issue and that is does a woman own her body or not?
you can try all want -- from here to kingdom come -- to make this a slippery argument. but you cannot do it.
a womans body MUST be her own and what she decides to do with it is her own business -- that called human rights. fetuses are not human beings. period

And I agree with everything you say about him and his writings.

I think you are suggesting that from our vantage point, everyone who read Douglass's words or listened to the sermons of the northeast pastors on the subject ot slavery should have immediately known what the only moral position on the subject of slavery was.

Abolition.

Am I correct?

But did you know that there were many people who seriously argued that the only issue concerning slavery was whether a property owner (for that is what slaves were considered -- property) own his property or not?

They considered property rights (including the right to buy, sell, and own "colored people") to be the first and foremost of all rights.

They were just fine with people who did not own slaves -- and even with states that did not permit the purchase, sale, or ownership of slaves.

They simply wanted to be left alone to exercise what they considered to be a very basic human right -- the right to own property -- THEIR property.

To them, any suggestion that "colored folks" should be considered as full human beings -- with rights that would conflict with the slaveowners' rights to own and control their property -- their slaves -- would most likely have been met with at least these two comments:

1. There is only one issue and that is does a slaveowner own his slave or not? and

2. Slaves are not human beings. period.

Of course, we see not how totally immoral those positions were.

Don't we?

As to who "owns a woman's body", I think most of the consistent Anti-Choicers would say that God owns the bodies, male and female, born and unborn. How are you going to argue with that?

Well ... how about by demonstrating that it is irrelevant -- to them? That it is *not* the reason that they propose to prohibit abortion.

If it were -- if they actually placed the "life" of the z/e/f above the "convenience" of the woman as they claim to do, for the reason you state -- then there are a whoooole lot of other things they would be doing too.

They would be advocating compulsory blood, bone marrow and kidney donation, just for starters. Obviously, they value the lives of the people who die for want of such donations above the convenience of the people who choose not to donate. So obviously, they must advocate mandating donation, just as they advocate mandating the continuation of pregnancy and childbearing.

Except ... they don't. They actually seem to think that people have some right to decide what will be done with their own bodies, even if someone else dies as a result of their decision.

It is so very easy to demonstrate the fundamental hypocrisy of this claim to a "belief" that it barely merits notice.


You think you're exercising your property rights, they think you're vandalizing God's property, who's right and who's wrong? Is it only because you believe it to be so?

I'm not sure that what the poster said about women's rights in respect of our bodies could be accurately characterized as "property rights", and in any event I think that your doing so is trivialization engaged in to produce a false dichotomy.

I think women are exercising their fundamental human rights, not to be coerced into risking their lives, relinquishing their liberty and submitting to interference with the security of their persons.

And I'M RIGHT because my society has adopted the values that I am defending. They're set out in my constitution.

Anyone who disagrees with them is entirely welcome to propose that the constitution be rewritten to eliminate the right to life, liberty and security of the person. But unless and until that happens, I am right, by definition. The only arbiter of what is "right" in this instance -- in respect of whether abortion may or may not be prohibited by law -- is the constitution which determines the validity of such a law, and which reflects the values adhered to by the society.


They happen to think such a sacrifice of liberty would be for the greater good.

Of course, anyone who is of the opinion that the violation of rights is justified by the standards that apply to jlaws that violate rights is also perfectly welcome to make that argument.

If they think that "such a sacrifice of liberty" (and let's not forget the "sacrifice" of the lives of the women who will die in unwanted pregnancies and deliveries, and by those whose lives will be made a misery and in many cases shortened by the known effects of unwanted pregnancy and childbearing) "would be for the greater good", let them argue within that paradigm. Let's hear what that "greater good" is, and how it justifies those consequences, and how outlawing abortion will achieve it.

"God" just doesn't come into it, I'm afraid.

We need to counter dogma with something other than dogma, or there is no "pivotal argument", but only a major disagreement which polarizes us into the blue and the gray all over again.

And there, you're simply wrong. The FACT is that women are persons with constitutional rights, and human beings with human rights. That is not dogma; it is the fundamental consensus on which our societies are built.

And the "pivotal argument" is that no adequate, proper justification has ever been given for violating those rights.

.

There isn't a Christer in the world that can outshock me.

I usually point and say in a loud voice "DINNER!"

OK... that would get attention.

;-)

I agree that it's useless to try to argue with any of them or to try to shout them down or even just ignore them. They're like the everready bunnies... they just keep on going. I do find that laughing at them or using humor (even gallows humor) does have an effect.

Probably we all take them too seriously for their own good. No need. If they can't intimidate or they're made to seem foolish, they lose their cool completely... and sometimes their sheer meanness is exposed.

Before I launch into this statement I wish to clarify my personal stance on abortion so that there is no misunderstanding on my viewpoint and how it likely colors my words that I attempt to maintain at a relatively objective and logical point of view.

I believe abortion is an abused subject and an abused procedure. I personally think it should be used primarily when the woman has made an informed decision with a reasonable waiting period of 72 hours in which they have time to look over the information they've been told and come to a rational decision. I feel at present that abortion is abused by the Neo-cons as an issue to keep people under their control and abused by many people who use it in place of a condom, to 'mop up an accident' or, as I wish I had not been exposed to, used to control a husband by threat. I feel that only in the case of marriage without evidence or claim of abuse should the husband not be allowed to at least have the option to plea for the fetus he contributed to in basal construction. I believe in only the legalization of 'nonviable' abortions that are not threatening the mother. IE - The baby can be delivered by C-Section right then and the mother wants it aborted for some reason. Now that you know my personal view I will make my comments, take them as you will.

The idea to take away from someone the right to make a decision about their body when it does not directly affect another person is the heart of this issue, while there are rational and thinking people on both sides there are also extremists. This plane incident is most likely the idea of a fairly extremist group of individuals that feel that any and all means to get their message out an across to their victims is acceptable. It seems as though to them the idea is that the ends justify the means. Though this is a far cry from the much more radical activities that have been done, such as blowing up abortion clinics, shooting people who either worked or had an abortion there, or even slightly lesser crimes such as assaulting or grafting abortion clinics it is none the less something that is criminal in intent and action. This action was obviously timed so that school children who are at an impressionable age would see this horrific picture, not just older school children as many people think of first, but those who are the youngest, some kindergartens, along with first, second and third graders. While the media purports these children are quickly becoming hardened criminals it seems that hardened is more the appropriate term with the exposure to this sort of disgusting display of inappropriate material for young children.

These people do not offer alternative solutions, logic, compassion. Nay, they offer fear, threats from GOD above and use scare tactics to convert people to their cause. This is an action as low as using a separate disaster to sell a war. Such is often the way a radical works though, they redouble their efforts while forgetting their cause. These people have done little better. Exposing these images to College Students is one thing, while the images are still inappropriate, those who are of college age are usually capable enough of handling such sights and understanding their source and nature, children though do not have this ability, thus they are being assaulted by visual images offering them little alternative, capitulate or grow cold.

Regardless of your stand on this issue, I feel that we must all remember to act like adults, take personal responsibility and remember to keep the kids out of it, they are truly the innocent ones, let us do what we can to allow them their childhoods.

(Edited in Non to viable due to carelessness)

Most of the anti-choice people you see at pro-choice rallies yelling are old fat men.

I'm against abortion, but I think it would be wrong to force someone to have a child.

But in my state we have our conservative Republican governor pushing his "abstinence only" sex ed program.

If you make sure that all teens know that they should wait until they're ready to have sex, AND how to use birth control properly and most effectively. Abstinence at the expense of everything else is ignoring reality.

I like backup plans.

If, as some here suggest, abortion is a mere "medical procedure", why are you against it?

Are you against other medical procedures -- extraction of teeth? appendectomies? tonsillectomies?

But would you deny them their right to advertise it?

Perhaps we should pass some new laws that prohibit free speech to those groups that exhibit your definition of "disgusting".

show those images in public, especially at 2:45 PM where children might see those images.

I still think they shouldn't...
show those images in public, especially at 2:45 PM where children might see those images.

You are absolutely right... and these are the same folks who had a cow when Janet Jackson's breast showed up on the Superbowl!

Have no doubt of it. The anti-choicers plan for children to be exposed to these pictures . They want the smaller children, who really don't understand what they are looking at, to go home and ask Mom or Dad about them... along with asking if Mom or Dad was going to do that to the child who's asking, or if Mom or Dad ever would do that. They want the children to get upset that maybe their "little brother or sister to be" died that way. The whole point is to get Mom and Dad to rethink their position on choice when they see the children's reactions.

Most of us who are parents prefer to discuss these kinds of things when we think our children are at an appropriate age. I suppose we do tend to see our children as less "aware" than they really are, but no child of six or seven or eight needs to be exposed to these pictures. Good grief! They still get bad dreams from the monster movies. But the anti-choicers don't care what they are doing to real, born children. A four-celled embryo seems to be more important to those savages.

"Good grief! They still get bad dreams from the monster movies."

Are you suggesting that there a parents who would let their children, before they are at an "appropriate age", view monster movies -- monster movies that are so upsetting that the children have nightmares about them? Children as young as six or seven or eight?

And are you then suggesting that these same parents -- the ones who permit their six and seven and eight year old kids to view monster movies that give their kids nightmares -- are unable to discuss intelligently with their children the nature of the power that a mommy has over a mere fetus?

Good Grief!

And are you then suggesting that these same parents -- the ones who permit their six and seven and eight year old kids to view monster movies that give their kids nightmares -- are unable to discuss intelligently with their children the nature of the power that a mommy has over a mere fetus?

I see that you have a reading problem.

Parents generally do not permit their young children to see movies that parents know will give them nightmares. In the same way, most parents do not show their young children pictures such as the ones referenced here that the parents know will upset their children... nor do most parents discuss mommy's "power" over a fetus with their young children.

I really can't imagine any possible reason to have such a discussion with a young child at all unless, of course, the child was exposed to those pictures by a group of anti-choicer bullies who would like to remove that choice from parents as well.

thank you.

I do believe it was you who wrote this:

"Most of us who are parents prefer to discuss these kinds of things when we think our children are at an appropriate age. I suppose we do tend to see our children as less "aware" than they really are, but no child of six or seven or eight needs to be exposed to these pictures. Good grief! They still get bad dreams from the monster movies."

I agree that "most" parents "generally do not permit their young children to see movies that parents know will give them nightmares."

But I think the comments from you that I cited above could reasonable lead one to believe that you do think that there are some parents who do let their children of six or seven or eight years of age view monster movies -- movies that give the children "bad dreams".

I am interested in what other possible inference could reasonably be drawn from your comments that I cited above>

Now, if there are some parents who do permit their kids to see movies that end up giving the kids bad dreams, I am at a loss to understand why anyone would think that these parents would not also want to expose these same kids to pictures that celebrate choice!, and to have a discussion about those pictures.

After all, the parents who do permit their kids to see bad-dream-inducing monster movies would appear, at least to me, to have no difficulty exposing their children to disturbing visual images. So why would they hav e a problem seeing mere tissue -- with a little bit of blood?

The kids have, do doubt, seen much worse on the movie screen.

If the anti-choicers are running protests in a similar manner as PETA runs theirs, I have a serious problem with them. Such a scenario is not unlikely, since I understand that PETA took tactics from Operation Rescue.

For instance, PETA recently came out with a flyer that said "Your Mommy kills bunnies!" complete with a mother violently stabbing an innocent rabbit over and over again.

Now, imagine being six, and being told that your mother killed your little brother or sister, and to be careful because she might kill you next.

I'd hope you would condemn such a protest.

condemn such a type of protest by PETA. In fact, if memory serves, there was a thread here on DU that had that particular PETA protest as its subject.

And I think I made my views on that post rather clear.

But, for the life of me, I cannot see how a discussion about female reproductive rights -- especially with born, living and breathing children -- has anything, really, to do with this protest of PETA's.

I would think that parents who have permitted their children to see violent monster movies -- the kinds that give kids nightmares -- would be able to sit down with those same kids and discuss pictures of aborted fetused without any threat that those children -- the children that are already born -- would ever feel threatened by their own parents.

Why would you suggest such a thing?

My understanding, as I said, is that some anti-choice protestors did the same thing; only, instead of saying that Mommy kills pets, they told children that Mommy kills children; instead of saying that you should hide your pets from Mommy, they told children they should hide from Mommy.

For instance:
http://www.refuseandresist.org/ab/052999buffalo.html
One of the most effective of OR's tactics was their concentration on Buffalo's public high schools. They are trying to instill in youth the mindset that, having been born under Roe, one-third of their generation has been lost to the "abortion holocaust." OR has announced plans to launch a spin-off group for youth called "Survivors." This, "it could've been you" scare tactic is coupled with other lies and distortions such as the mini comic book distributed at the schools. Entitled "The Clinic," it depicts abortion providers with dollar signs for eyes and is loaded with medical inaccuracies.

Or the entire website of the group:
http://www.survivors.la

Perhaps we should pass some new laws that prohibit free speech to those groups that exhibit your definition of "disgusting".

Well ... if you really want to propose that, go right ahead.

I don't imagine you'll get very far with it, and I certainly don't see anyone else advocating or supporting such legislation; but hey -- you have freedom of speech, so go for it!

Just be prepared for somebody calling what you say "disgusting", okay?

.

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

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

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

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

They do that at the beaches around here. Try avoiding that with your kids when a plane flies 100 feet above the sand with a grotesque picture flapping behind it.

My husband and I were driving through a beautiful neighborhood the other day enjoying the spring weather, and there they were with their ridiculously obscene and untruthful signs. They were lined up on my side of the road, so I turned my head away from them as we drove by. My window was down, and I heard a man start shouting, "Don't turn your head away ..." Well, it happened without forethought and I truly regret it, but I flipped him off. So, there you go.

Pleeeeease anyone, explain why it is so sickening for children to see Janet Jackson's nipple, but it's OK to force children to look at disgusting pictures of aborted fetuses?

It is our right to have ACCESS to uncensored information. But it is NOT someone Else's right to FORCE people and their kids to see something they don't want them to see.

PS Way to go Lulu! Good for you!

Who is it, exactly, that is "forcing" children to look at pictures of aborted fetuses? (Why in the world you would ever suggest that such pictures are "disgusting" is completely beyond me. Aren't they merely a celebration of "choice!"?)

Was there some teacher at the school who held the head of each and every child, pointed them skyward, and said "Look, Behold! See and fear, child!"??

Or was there some ray, emitted from the plane that had the picture in tow behind it, that went into the brain of each and every child, causing him or her to look skyward?

I agree completely with your premise -- it is NOT someone Else's right to FORCE people and their kids to see something they don't want them to see.

I just don't think anyone forced anybody to do anything here.

and weighs about half an ounce. think about the size of your thumb. it just lost its tail and still has webbed fingers.


of course they would have to blow it up to the size on an airplane banner for it to look "life-size" and like a fully formed baby as is the method of many of the anti-choice groups.

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

duh.

Call 'em what they really are...The coat hanger crowd.

Bottom line, if you want Roe v Wade removed, then you are for ILLEGAL ABORTION, period!

I think I am correct when I say that Roe v. Wade permits states to outlaw abortion during the final trimester of pregnancy. I think Roe v Wade allows states to forbid doctors from performing abortions on perfectly healthy women, whose life and health are not endagered by the pregnancy, and whose fetuses are perfectly healthy.

Do you agree that making such abortions illegal -- putting such restrictions on a woman's right to choose -- is a bad thing?

I never advocated restricting abortions at all. It matters not what RvW will allow states to do. What does matter is that if RvW is overturned, abortions won't end, they will just become illegal, and dangerous, and put many more women at risk of death.

Yes, it's a bad thing to restrict a woman's right to choose just to restrict her access to information and care.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortions won't end, they will just become illegal.

This is truly news to me.

I do think that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that abortions will still be legal in many states. I think that Maryland, for instance, has passed legislation that specifically says that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, women will still be able to exercise the power of life and death over the totally powerless life that is growing inside them.

And I think that abortions would still be legal is New York, California, and other states where abortion providers have used their financial clout to ensure that their business will be able to remain and thrive even if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Do you want to continue to this discussion using only bumper sticker slogans?

while you said the blue states will let women have abortions if Roe V. Wade were to be repealed.

That's not what I am saying.

And you know it perfectly well.

n/t

"If Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortions won't end, they will just become illegal.

This is truly news to me.

I do think that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that abortions will still be legal in many states. I think that Maryland, for instance, has passed legislation that specifically says that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, women will still be able to exercise the power of life and death over the totally powerless life that is growing inside them.

And I think that abortions would still be legal is New York, California, and other states where abortion providers have used their financial clout to ensure that their business will be able to remain and thrive even if Roe v. Wade is overturned."

You're saying that women in blue states would still have access to abortion, but women in red states won't have access to abortion. And there is NO guarantee that the blue states will still provide abortion to women if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

The post I was responding to said that if Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion would be illegal.

I merely pointed out that that statement was untrue.

how sickening.

How disgusting that you would intentionally misstate my position.

n/t

mother's rights.

to tell me what I want.

Could you also let me know what I want for dinner tonight? I'm having a tough time deciding that.

I do think that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that abortions will still be legal in many states.

That is possible. Before Roe, abortion was legal in many states, but the case was brought in Texas because abortion was not legal there.

This is not simply a matter for the states to decide, however. It involves rights... the right to privacy, the right to ownership of one's own body, the right to defend one's life against a threat to life, etc. These are rights that states are obligated to guarantee. That some did not in the past in no way means that they can now decide again to deny them.

Rights are not decided by majority vote.

was decided by majority vote.

I think.

Please let me know, though, if I am wrong about that.

The rigths of Dred Scott were also decided, by the Supreme Court, in a majority vote.

"on edit: DISCLAIMER: I do realize there are some good anti-choice individuals who post on DU, most of whom I know and deeply respect, and it is not my intention to blame them, specifically, for this inflammatory act."

You know how you show your "deep respect" for those opposed to abortion here (which does not include me) - by actually doing it. And you DON'T do that by making an over the top all encompassing all or nothing subject line and lumps every "anti-choice" person subject line and then hastily tacking in a quick half ass qualification.

By the way, while we're at it - the same free speech rights that ought to protect me ought to protect them as well. Not only this, but even though I am pro-choice I have to ask - what makes you the most angry - the tactic or the fact that its uncomfortable to be brutally reminded of the harsh and ugly reality of abortion?

As with any other group, including clearly our own, there are some who are sick and depraved and others who are not. I don't think my best friend is sick or depraved at all. Her thoughts on abortion have come after a lot of painstaking thought, and she has certain convictions. Doesn't mean she would ever act like that and I'll tell you something else - not all her points are invalid.

It's time to stop mass stereo typing everyone who doesn't support roe v. wade as despicable evil person. That's just as much bullshit as anything that comes out of the Liar in Chief's mouth.

that the anti-choice people aren't despicable, but their views are.

You know, love the sinner, hate the sin sorta thing. ;)

You just can't lump everyone together like that.

And despicable isn't the right word to describe people who honestly, genuinely believe that abortion is murder and don't understand the fact its an unfair analogy.

My parents are simple people - they are some of the most loving and caring people I have ever known, but very simple people by their own admission. They're not hateful, hostile or combative. But all they know about abortion is to them, its ending the lives of little people, and they feel they these little babies should be projected - that's all. They don't understand any difference between a six week old baby and a six week old fetus - they gist don't get it. They're not more sophisticated than that.

They're also not out spewing hatred at other people who disagree with them.

Sure, you and I can try to show them a more nuanced view, try to persuade them, help them understand the truth, etc. But neither they nor their "views" are despicable. They are not hateful or hurtful, but the reason they don't believe abortion should be legal is the same reason why they don't believe murder should be legal - we may not agree, but I can at least understand where they're coming from.

By the way, while we're at it - the same free speech rights that ought to protect me ought to protect them as well.

I would not have expected you to drag this smelly straw herring into the discussion.

Free speech may protect the activities that the poster objected to -- but it also protects her objection to them. You are just as free to object to her objection. But to characterize her objection as an attempt to limit free speech, by dragging the issue in where it does not pertain, is improper.

The right to freedom of speech entitles people to say things. It does not protect them from criticism of what they say. This is pretty fundamental, and in fact is pretty much the definition of freedom of speech.

If I missed where she advocated that these people be prohibited from engaging in the activities in question (or failed to offer the appropriate justification for such a prohibition), please correct me.


Not only this, but even though I am pro-choice I have to ask - what makes you the most angry - the tactic or the fact that its uncomfortable to be brutally reminded of the harsh and ugly reality of abortion?

Gosh, ask loaded questions much?

How about the fact that the "speech" in question is no more than dishonest demagoguery, which does not portray the "reality" of ANYTHING? The fact that this dishonest demagoguery is being perpetrated in support of an attempt to VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF HUMAN BEINGS?


As with any other group, including clearly our own, there are some who are sick and depraved and others who are not. I don't think my best friend is sick or depraved at all. Her thoughts on abortion have come after a lot of painstaking thought, and she has certain convictions.

Who cares about her "convictions"? Does she advocate that women be denied access to the means to exercise their rights?

If she does, she fits *my* description of "sick and depraved", just as would anyone who advocated any other such gross and horrific violation of human rights. As a "tactic", calling this spade what it is, is just fine with me. I happen to have no respect at all for any of them.

So, what do *you* object to most about calling anti-choicers "sick and depraved"? The "tactic", or the fact that it's uncomfortable to be brutally reminded of the harsh and ugly reality of anti-choice ideology and activity?


It's time to stop mass stereo typing everyone who doesn't support roe v. wade as despicable evil person. That's just as much bullshit as anything that comes out of the Liar in Chief's mouth.

Yes, there are for sure some charming, well-intentioned people in that crowd. Their intentions pave the road to the same place. If I may take a leaf from our colleague's book, I'm sure there were charming, well-intentioned people who supported allowing slavery, too.

.

"on edit: DISCLAIMER: I do realize there are some good anti-choice individuals who post on DU, most of whom I know and deeply respect, and it is not my intention to blame them, specifically, for this inflammatory act."

You know how you show your "deep respect" for those opposed to abortion here (which does not include me) - by actually doing it. And you DON'T do that by making an over the top all encompassing all or nothing subject line and lumps every "anti-choice" person subject line and then hastily tacking in a quick half ass qualification.


All other points are parenthetical at best.

I do realize there are some good anti-choice individuals who post on DU, most of whom I know and deeply respect, and it is not my intention to blame them, specifically, for this inflammatory act."
You know how you show your "deep respect" for those opposed to abortion here (which does not include me) - by actually doing it.


That poster can respect any or all of 'em, all she wants. I don't, any of 'em, at all, as I did say. I don't respect people who are engaged in attempts to perpetrate violations of other people's fundamental rights in such rotten, vicious ways.

If you wanted to offer some reasons why anyone *should* respect any of them, at all -- other than a report about how much you happen to respect your best friend, for reasons unknown to us -- go right ahead.

Me, I'm not bothered by anyone not respecting them, or failing to show the kind of respect anybody else thinks they should get in the way s/he thinks they should get it.


All other points are parenthetical at best.

That being the case, I wonder why they were made, on your part.

The ones made on my part were not parenthetical in the least.

The point that attempts to outlaw abortion are attempts to perpetrate violations of other people's fundamental rights in a particularly rotten, vicious way is precisely what makes the people engaged in them deserving of no respect whatsoever.

.

"Who cares about her "convictions"? Does she advocate that women be denied access to the means to exercise their rights?

If she does, she fits *my* description of "sick and depraved", just as would anyone who advocated any other such gross and horrific violation of human rights. As a "tactic", calling this spade what it is, is just fine with me. I happen to have no respect at all for any of them."

If a person believes that abortion is murder, then they have every right to deny you the right to commit murder. There's nothing sick and depraved about people concerned about human decency and fair treatment. In fact with all your talk about human rights, a lot of people on the other side of the issue would argue they are fighting for the exact same thing.

The problem here is that people like you refuse to do anything but absolutely polarize the issue. There are pro-life people who have very valid points to make, and there are pro-choice people who have very valid points to make. There are pro-choice people who are totally wrong in their arguments, and there are pro-life people who are totally wrong in their arguments. The only thing that makes me more angry that radical pro-life extremists are closed-minded pro-choice extremists who represent ALL the characteristics they claim to hate in their right wing counterparts - hatred, ignorance, closed mindedness, all or nothing thinking, absolutism, vitriolic rhetoric, etc.

I may me pro-choice myself of a lot of complicate reasons, but I do not support abortion. In fact I believe abortion is wrong - but I also appreciate that the issue is so complicated and so difficult and so nuanced and so contextual that there is no possible way that I could ever be qualified to make this complicated decision for anyone else. There is just no way - I believe the right to decide this complicated and deeply personal and serious issue should be left to the individual in consultation with a medical professional and without interference from the state. However there's a big reason why I am able to say this: because I DO NOT believe that abortion can be rationally equated with murder.... if I DID I WOULD HAVE MUCH DIFFERENT VIEWS. I have great sympathy for people who honestly feel like the government is allowing the murder of innocent children. We get so jaded that we act like those are only talking points and that no one actually believes that - but I know better than that. And I have sympathy for people whose wrong views are at least motivated by COMPASSION concerns and not hatred. In fact I have more respect for people who's wrong views are motivated by compassion than for people whose RIGHT views are motivated by hatred.

You and I may have different views on the subject, but I do happen to think that this is one of the best posts I have ever read.

It should be, in my humble view, required reading for anyone who wishes to engaged in a discussion about abortion.

Someone who has -- by his own past assertion -- no idea what you were responding to thinks that your post should be required reading.

If a person believes that abortion is murder, then they have every right to deny you the right to commit murder.

EXCUSE ME? If I believe that killing cows is murder, then I have every right to deny you the right to commit murder?

(Forgive me for following your model, which actually didn't make much sense. I assume that you meant that this person is entitled to prohibit me from having an abortion, and so I would be entitled to prohibit you from killing cows.)

No person has the right to deny me the right to do anything at all, actually.

That just is not how societies, particularly liberal constitutional democracies work, is it now?

NO ONE'S "belief" is justification for denying ANYONE the ability to do ANYTHING that s/he has a right to do. Period.


There's nothing sick and depraved about people concerned about human decency and fair treatment.

And you say this à propos of ... what?

The fact that some people frame their proposal that women's fundamental human and constitutional rights be violated as "human decency and fair treatment"? And I would care about this ... why? You and these strange friends of yours really just do not get to frame the issue.


In fact with all your talk about human rights, a lot of people on the other side of the issue would argue they are fighting for the exact same thing.

Again -- so what? The fact that someone claims to be doing something does not mean that I have to agree that it is what s/he is doing, or mutely accept the claim that s/he genuinely "believes" that it is what s/he is doing.

What *I* say makes sense. It is consistent with the consensus by which public policy is judged: the consensus set out in constitutions, in particular.

If you can find me an anti-choicer who can present a coherent argument for his/her proposal that abortion be outlawed -- one that is consistent with the US or Cdn constitution, for example, and that could be implemented without either violating that constitution or requiring that it be rewritten in a way that would do violence to our entire belief system -- then bring him/her on. I've been waiting for just such a person for a long, long time.


The problem here is that people like you refuse to do anything but absolutely polarize the issue. There are pro-life people who have very valid points to make ...

Like I wuz saying -- find 'em, and bring 'em on. Now, I'm sure that they have valid points to make about lots of things, and even some things that relate to abortion, like the need for social justice and women's equality and all that blah. But none of those is in issue. What's in issue is the proposal to prohibit abortion, when we're talking about "anti-choice". And if you can find a valid point that supports prohibiting abortion, I want to hear it.

"People like" me tend to insist that people like whomever you're talking about engage in the discourse honestly and transparently. We just don't see any doing it.


There are pro-choice people who are totally wrong in their arguments ...

Undoubtedly. But the fact that someone says that the moon is not made of green cheese because it is made of blue cheese does not mean that the moon is made of green cheese.


The only thing that makes me more angry <than> radical pro-life extremists are closed-minded pro-choice extremists who represent ALL the characteristics they claim to hate in their right wing counterparts - hatred, ignorance, closed mindedness, all or nothing thinking, absolutism, vitriolic rhetoric, etc.

Really. Just what level of genteelness do you find appropriate on the part of people whose fundamental human rights are up for smashing?

That's quite a laundry list of faults you have there. It's evident that I'm a paragon of all of them. Too bad that all you've done is accuse, rather than substantiate.

But what the heck. Yeah, I tend to hate people who express their hatred of me by trying to violate my right to life, liberty and security of the person. I have no idea what I might be "ignorant" of in this instance, other than being ignorant of any sound basis for the proposal to violate women's rights. Is my mind closed? No sir! I say it over and over and over: anyone who can offer me justification for violating women's fundamental rights, anyone who can tell me how what they propose is going to work, will get a full hearing from me. All or nothing thinking? Well, once again: offer me justification for denying me any part of my rights, and I'll think about it. Absolutism? Yeah, I'm a bit of an absolutist about rights; anybody who wants to violate them is absolutely going to have to justify their plan. Vitriolic rhetoric? Damn, I just find it so hard to say nice things about would-be human rights violators.


I may <be> pro-choice myself <for> of a lot of <complicated> reasons, but I do not support abortion.

And I don't give a good god damn what you support or don't support, as long as you don't support proposals to violate women's rights without justification. Just as I would expect you to feel if I didn't support your eating meat, or worshipping graven images, or committing adultery, or going barefoot in the park -- but didn't propose to make it illegal for you to do so.

And I'd be perfectly happy -- well, not happy at all, but whether I'm happy is of no consequence here -- if you went around trumpeting your lack of support for abortion, as long as you never did so in a way that offered aid and comfort to those seeking to prohibit it, or that contributed to it becoming prohibited.


There is just no way - I believe the right to decide this complicated and deeply personal and serious issue should be left to the individual in consultation with a medical professional and without interference from the state.

And that's nice -- but your beliefs aren't really any more relevant than the anti-choicers, unless they are based on a proper foundation. And then it is that foundation, and not your belief, that is relevant in any event. Human rights, and the consensus that we have 'em and must protect 'em.


And I have sympathy for people whose wrong views are at least motivated by COMPASSION concerns and not hatred.

As do I. I have sympathy for people who vote for right-wing parties because they believe that tax cuts create jobs. And I'll use the appropriate rhetoric and tone of voice if I'm ever talking to any of them. Actually, I have several converts to the cause, by internet, under my belt. I just haven't noticed any of these innocently misguided souls hereabouts, so I have never felt the need to break out the tea and crumpets for their benefit here.

The point remains that whatever their motivation may be, or they may claim it to be, what they are proposing is monstrous. If you don't "believe" it is monstrous, that's your choice. It is by definition, by the common consensus of our societies that individuals have rights and that those rights may not be violated without justification, just as monstrous as any other proposal that would so hugely deny individuals the ability to determine the course of their own lives, and lead to the misery of so many people.


In fact I have more respect for people who's wrong views are motivated by compassion than for people whose RIGHT views are motivated by hatred.

And I have very little respect for people who speak in innuendo.

Your comment would be entirely pointless if you did not have someone in mind on both sides of that coin. Did you have something you wanted to say?

.

By the way, while we're at it - the same free speech rights that ought to protect me ought to protect them as well. Not only this, but even though I am pro-choice I have to ask - what makes you the most angry - the tactic or the fact that its uncomfortable to be brutally reminded of the harsh and ugly reality of abortion?


The tactic.

Does anyone photograph other types of surgeries and then paste the photos on airplane banners?

I'd imagine that anyone here who's had a surgery of any sort would not especially care to see the photos of whatever was added or removed from their persons... and certainly would not care to see the pictures flown above a school when the children were being let out for the day.

Or, perhaps you'd understand better if I suggested that some of the magazines with photos on the covers of various couples in various activities be displayed on the racks in stores where school children stop in with their parents for a loaf of bread or a quart of milk.

The Constitution does indeed affirm the right of free speech, but no where does it affirm the right to an audience.

I think the first poster tried to be careful not to stereotype the anti-choice folks. No one here that I've ever seen has posted photos of aborted fetuses... nor would anyone here, I'd hope, pitch in to charter a plane to fly the pictures over a city. Clearly, the problem is with those others who are choosing to argue their case (rather tastelessly, IMO) with those who are not interested in arguing with them... including school children. Maybe the disclaimer didn't suit you, but I see this as a post that was made in the anger and frustration of the moment. Not everyone arranges their posts into proper essay form before they hit the "post message" button.

Without stating a position on this issue (I don't think I'll be responding to any accusations, so don't bother), let me point out something peculiar because I think it might be a unique observation (though I don't know because I haven't read most of the replies on this thread).

You could argue that the person having it flown is "anti-choice", or that it's meant to get more people to that position, but nothing on the banner advocates outlawing abortion - it's a picture and a description. The pro-choice position is supposed to be that if you don't like abortion then don't have one, right? So then what is wrong with someone flying a banner that presents information that might influence that decision? You could attack it if it wasn't accurate or something, but assuming it is, what's really wrong with it from a pro-choice standpoint, if you really believe in choice?

Now I suspect I'll get a shrill response for this, but let me tell everyone this - this kind of thing isn't lost on people that disagree with your position, and if you want to protect the credibility of yours, you'll at least think about this.

I do find it funny that you put the disclaimer there and didn't change the subject line. :eyes:

Isn't it truly amazing how so many folks just assume that the person who chartered the airplane and who had this banner flown was "anti-choice".

As I understand it, all the banner contained was a picture of a 10-week old fetus that had been aborted, and the words "Aborted. 10 Weeks".

I would think that anyone who celebrates choice! would have no problem with such a banner -- a banner which demonstrates for all to see, I think, that a mere 10-week-old fetus is no different from any other thing that is "part of a woman's body">

Would a banner than displayed an appendix removed from a woman be thought to be the work of someone opposed to appendectomies? I think not. Or how about a banner displaying teeth that posed a threat to a woman's health or life? WOuld that be assumed to have bee the work of someone opposed to the extraction of teeth from women?

I think not.

I think, rather, that such banners could be said to show, for all to see, the nature and threat posed by these body parts -- body parts that must be removed in order to remove the threat posed by diseased or invasive, parasitic body parts.

The anti-choicers are entitled to their opinions. I think most of them are also opposed to gay marriage and all the other decoy social issues the repugs love divert attention to. It all comes down to these people who want to tear down the separation of church/state to legislate their religious beliefs - which is wrong. Their methods are just a tactic to get to this end goal. Remember, Bush* bought an illegal abortion for his girlfriend in Texas. The religious right are all the biggest hypocrits ever. Their "compassion" ends with birth.

PETA.

...I am "pro-life" (by the way i call you pro-choice, don't call us anti-choice, please? :) )... yeah a pretty extreme thing to do... that said I worry that both sides of the argument are lead too much by zealots and this worries me... as it is such a polarizing debate... ah well... tis the world we live in... I am sorry you and the good people of Cincinnati had to see that imagine... that said i do think many people don't really get the idea of what abortion is and what it involves... that said i think these actions of "pro-lifers" where pretty inexcusable imho...

Pro choice pro lifers disaprove of abortions and probably wouldnt have one while respecting other womens right to autonomy of her body while an anti choicer/prolifer doesnt like abortion and thinks no woman should have control over her body

RL

:puke: :puke: :puke:

:puke: :puke: :puke:

RL

...Kinda ironic when you say we should try and be more tolerant...that you yourself are so intolerant and abrasive towards good loyal democrats who care about both their party and their country... so thanks real clever comment jack***!

:grr:

But you wouldn't understand Choice.

Deal with it...

RL

p.s. Your DLC avatar speaks volumes...
p.p.s. Where did I say be more tolerant? I don't give a sh*t about your tolerance level.

There you have it.

The answer of the intolerant:

"Deal With It".

and

"I don't give a sh*t about your tolerance level."

so-called leftists who talk about free speech except when they don't like what they hear.

:cry:

RL

...you are the one who when two people suggested that they did not support the idea of abortion generally decided to launch into your oh so eloquent tirade of "Deal with it" and basically I hate you's your not real democrats... my what an accepting place your idea of utopia would be...LOL... you seem to offer no semblance of tolerance... you just don't get it that some people could have a legitimate moral argument with abortion and the death penalty and surprisingly! murder but hey it can be tricky to connect the dots i guess... come back when you've progressed beyond name calling and realized that toleration mean accepting that their are many beliefs in this world derived from a deeply held moral principle...

:puke:????

You must be clairevoyant too!

RL

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

The answer of the intolerant:
"Deal With It".

Actually, that's kinda the definition of TOLERANCE.

Ya may not like "it", but that's nobody else's problem; deal with it.

Tolerance in a nutshell.

.

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

of LW people who hate males?

MY BODY MY RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!

cause we want autonomy over our own damn bodies!!

that you would think of yourself and the people who agree with your position as being "just abuncha feminazis and manhating dykes".

I would never consider people who simply have a different point of view on one of the most divisive issues of our day to be "just abuncha feminazis and manhating dykes".

Never.

I prefer to discuss issues civilly.

That is why I make every effort to refrain from calling other people names or to belittle them simply because we disagree.

because we want to keep our reproductive rights to ourselves!

Where? Who is doing that???

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

if we were tolerant of one-eyed, one-horned, flyin' purple people-eaters.

If we ever meet any. Just as you should probably be scared if you were tolerant of LW people who hate males if you ever meet any.

I think that a new word is called for here. (Has been for a long time, I only just thought of it.)

Disingenuendo. Anybody whom that shoe fits is welcome to wear it. Of course, just as the absence of clothing was obvious to all who looked upon the emperor, the presence of the disingenuendo shoe is obvious to all who look on its wearers.

.

I love the equivocation.

"Tolerance" -- to the person being spoken to, who is the target of the accusation of intolerance and thus hypocrisy, it generally means something like "allowing people to follow their own consciences in private matters and not prohibiting them from doing so or penalizing them for doing so". Like how religious tolerance means recognizing people's right to believe what they want and practise their beliefs, even if one thinks they're flat out wrong and evil, and opposing anyone who wants to make them pray to a different god from their own or deny them equal tax benefits, or whatever.

Questioning whether someone who is anti-choice is "liberal" or "democratic" -- intolerant? Not by that standard. It's not saying they should be prohibited from being anti-choice or penalized for being anti-choice; it's just saying they're disgusting.

To some, "tolerance" seems to mean that they should never be spoken harshly to, even when they propose to violate our rights. Presumably, they themselves would never say a mean word to anyone they regarded as engaged in a monstrous, evil enterprise. Surely they say only nice things about George and Dick and Condi, right? To do otherwise would be intolerant!!

Attempting to perpetrate monstrous human rights violations by denying others the ability to make choices in their own best interests, to pursue their own goals and aspirations in ways consistent with their own values -- and then whining "intolerance" when one is portrayed as less than "liberal" and "democratic" ... well, that goes a ways beyond ironic, actually. ;)

.

...I am not the one who is just casually dismissing an argument... I will be honesty yeah I'm mildly pro-life...that said i respect others positions and tolerate them...however this is increasingly not the case on either side of this debate... I was lampooning a ridicules and infantile tirade which backed its argument up with?...er...well nothing actually not a solitary piont... and yet the poster accused me and others of being intolerant... I was not being intolerant toward them, I was simply frustrated by there lack of argument and their resorting to hurtful slurs against good democrats and progressives... I don't know what what your definition of tolerance is but I think simply giving one word insults to those who hold a belief cant really be called tolerance...

I guess we can excuse their fascism.

NOT...

RL

that this might be one arguement for legalizing shoulder-launched SAM missles.

individual, and is a twisted, money grubbing, lying piece of dog shit, (that regularly had sex with his mother)? Hmmm...maybe Larry Flint was right!!!

Usually more effective at getting publicity than anything else.