I originally posted this at dkos. It got almost 1000 responses and stayed at the top of the recommend list for awhile. I was amazed at the response and most of the people who jumped in and agreed with me were men and women (particularly women) who wanted other people to understand, we are here. We aren’t giving back our rights without a fight.
I realize it reads a little “in your face”, but the response I got leads me to believe that most women are sick of giving in and conceeding our position just so that the next Northern european male can get elected.
I got many e-mails telling me that the thread would not open on dial up browser. So I thought I would post it here and perhaps with fewer members people can read and discuss in leasure.
__________________
What you don’t understand about pro-choice women and the Democratic party: There are more of us than you.
What does that mean? It means that if you put 100 democrats in a room there would be more pro-choice women than anyone else. I am not sure what the exact numbers are but I am going to guess we’d be more than half the people in the room.
<more>
Diaries :: TeresaInPa’s diary :: :: Trackback ::
Yes, African American voters and homosexual voters are more loyal by percentage than women in general, but they are a much smaller constituency and more of them are pro-choice women too.
Everyday on dkos, I read about “single issue pro-choice voters” and it is never a compliment. There are even a lot of women here who use the term with derision. But when one of the says “I am a pro-cboice woman but….” I know that they are actually anti-choice people playing a game.
Their arguments usually go something like this: I am pro-choice but I also care about unemployment heathcare etc…. to which I say “so what? We’ve run out of pro-choice democrats who also support those issues?”
Pro-choice may be a single issue but it is also the 1000 lb gorilla and if women would stop being so spineless when it comes to sticking up for ourselves there would be no question about placating the fetal obsession of some voters to win back the votes of the 15 white guy swing voters who give a shit about abortion.
We aren’t losing white guys because of abortion rights. We’re losing them because we run candidates who can’t spit out a simple sentence and tell people where they stand in a believable manner.
This idea that we have to run anti-choice candidates in states like Pa and RI so that we can win (THE POLLS THE POLLS) when all evidence suggests that, at least in Pa, on a statewide level, PRO-CHOICE candidates WIN, is nothing more than political manipulation by the senate campaign commitee who want to appease the anti-choice minority in the party.
What they ignore is the fact that there are indeed swing voters in Pa. They are pro-choice republican women. They vote for pro-choice democrats all the time. But they aren’t going to swing their vote for an anti-choice DEMOCRAT. They have no reason to do so.
Santorum does not win in Pa because he is anti-choice or against gay rights. He wins because he is a fiscal conservative. If that weren’t the case how do you explain Arlen Spector, Ed Rendell, Governor Ridge?
If Howard Dean were to run for office in Pa against Santorum he’d kick his ass all the way to 2012 and again to 2018. Why? Because he can talk fiscal conservative with authority and he’s not seen as anti-gun.
Pro-choice is the only rational moderate postion. It means you can’t chose pregnancy for me and I can’t chose abortion for you, even if I do think you have too many kids and the world is over populated.
It means you can’t chose pregnancy and motherhood for me and I can’t chose involuntary sterilization for you so that women don’t have to worry about being made criminals or forced to look at fetal portraits or wait 24 hours or beg a judge or sit through a lecture, or be an incuabator for a wealthier woman who can’t or won’t get pregnant but wants a nice white baby and not one of the thousands of minority babies growing up in foster care.
On another thread some one asked this:
Maybe you could explain (3.86 / 15)
Since you understand this post so well, help me clarify the following.
Why are THESE points true and valid:
1. The right to privacy is a fundamental principle of the Democratic Party.
2. Equality under the law is a fundamental principle of the Democratic Party.
3. A woman’s right to choose flows logically from both the right to privacy and the concept of equality under the law.And yet THIS point, in Kos’ world, is utter horseshit:
A woman’s right to choose is a fundamental principle of the Democratic Party.
Maybe you could help me understand the distinction, because I am sure not getting it.
To which I replied this:
It is the difference of having a penis (none / 0)
If one has a penis then one’s fundamental rights are more fundamental than the rights of those without a penis. If you do not have a penis then your fundamental rights are negotiable depending on whether people with penises can win elections.
Think I am kidding? No I am not. There is sexism in the democratic party just as there is in the republican party. It is just as strong and it is all about men, who hold the power if not the majority, being uncomfortable in a party that more and more doesn’t look like them. They don’t just want democrats to win, they want white males to win and if not white males, then at least males. When women get power in this party in proportion to our numbers, there are going to be as many women as men in congress, the senate, the whitehouse, the political organizations and that is a scary picture to people who want to be alligned with power and have been socialized from a young age to think that mean’s “person with penis”.
I am not accusing all men, in fact I am not accusing most. I know that often sexism is not intentional. But lots of men will claim they are not sexist when they most certainly are. Even some women are anti women’s rights because they chose to allign themselves with the “don’t rock the boat and we will let you hang with the guys” contingent.
In addition, get the hell over NARAL, they don’t exist to get democrats elected. The answer to the argument that women’s rights will be protected when democrats are in power, and therefor NARAL cut their own throat, falls flat while the party is annointing anti-choice candidates. NARAL endorses incumbants because they have proven loyalty to their issue. The minute NARAL stops being non-partisan is when they actually cut their own throat. I am sure that if democrats in DE run a pro-choice candidate they have a good chance to win. But for several election cycles, just like here in Pa, they have run republican lite candidates.
In regards to the polls in PA (and RI)….. nice try Schumer. We know that polls are meaningless this far out. Most of the people who voted have no idea who Casey is or what he stands for. They recognize his name and they know he isn’t Santorum.
My prediction is that Casey will lose and if he should happen to win, women lose.
The reason Hoefful didn’t beat Spector is because Spector is pro-choice and has the endorsement of the teachers Union. Still if the party had really gotten behind Hoeffel he might have won. If the party would get behind a pro-choice democrat against Santorum, the way they are going to get behind Casey, that candidate would also win.
So insult me and minimize me and call me nasty names to try to bully me(one issue voter) but you can’t make me vote for anti-choice candidates anymore than you can make black voters vote for pro-slavery canidates.
I don’t have to, I am the majority and pro-choice candidates of every stripe are in plentiful supply in my party.
It was a real humdinger, wasn’t it?
I disagree with you that “Pro-choice is the only rational moderate position.” Particularly since I think by “pro-choice” you mean “no restrictions on abortion, let it be ‘between a woman and her doctor’.” Right?
See, I think a moderate position (not “the only” one) is mine: make first trimester abortions an unambiguous constitutional right via constitutional amendment, while prohibiting abortions after that point (except in extreme cases of medical need). I had been proposing this for some time, and meeting a lot of hostility and claims that it was “not realistic”, when I discovered that this is exactly the current law in France!
Alan
Maverick Leftist
There is nothing moderate about substituting your judgement for that of the pregnant woman. In fact your position is quite radical and authoritarian.
There’s certainly nothing moderate about calling my position (which is, you seem not to comprehend, also antithetical to the “life begins at conception” crowd) “anti-choice” (what, women have no way of making choices in the first trimester?), “radical” (pffft), or “authoritarian” (I suppose any proposal for a law restricting human activity might look “authoritarian” if you are a libertarian or anarchist, but then you’d have to be against the minimum wage, against environmental regulations, etc.).
Is France a “radical and authoritarian” “anti-choice” country, then?
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Actually, if you believe that abortion should be an option in any circumstance, then you are pro-choice. Thinking that the government can impose any “reasonable” legislation is a false notion. It really isn’t any different from the Schiavo case — who gets to make the decisions? That’s the question. The person and her doctor, or the government?
There is no such thing as “abortion on demand.” No providers do that, especially with late-term pregnancies. This is a medical procedure like any other, with many different factors weighing in to it. The only real question is do we keep it legal? Everything else is just muddying the waters.
The legislation you are proposing would only hurt people. How does a person prove what week they are in? How does a doctor establish that proof? How does one prove in court that an unauthorized procedure is for health reasons or resulting from rape or incest? How much will the pregnancy advance while these matters are settled?
And, yes, sometimes even France has bad laws. I don’t agree with their head-scarf ban in schools, either.
The first sentence of your post is deliciously ambiguous. <g> I read it and first thought you were supporting me as being “pro-choice”. Read it again and I think you’ll see what I mean; if not I’ll try to explain.
If we’re going to get into the Schiavo case, I did think the tube should be left in, though I didn’t relish being “on the side” of vile cretins like Hannity and Rush. “The person” in this case was Terri Schiavo, and she did not get to make the decision. I absolutely believe that mentally competent adults should be able to choose suicide if they want to, and think that it’s a travesty of justice that Dr. Kevorkian is in prison.
If you are completely unwilling to see late term foetuses as people, as I and many others do. (I believe one reason I’m a “moderate” on this issue, though, is that I consider it laughable to call a fertilised egg or blastocyst a person.)
I don’t know the exact medical details, but it is my understanding that they can determine this pretty precisely. In fact, a different method of abortion has to be used after the first trimester–it is essentially an induced labour and birth.
I’m not advocating an exception for rape or incest; I think those kinds of proposals are nonsensical. (If we’re protecting an unborn child, it matters little to that child how it was conceived.) As for health reasons, they would have to be decided by some kind of medical ethics review board, I suppose. We have a couple French citisens here; maybe they could clarify how it’s done there?
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Absolutely true, on both counts.
Nothing could be more wildly inaccurate.
And could you include a link to some kind of reputable source (say, ACOG) as proof? Thanks.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
WebMD has a fairly comprehensive article on Dilation and Evacuation.
Nowadays the most experienced practitioners often use medication to effect the dilation of the cervix within 90 minutes, which avoids the necessity of overnight dilation with laminaria (osmotic dilators), as well as further increasing the safety of the procedure.
The only other information from the article that I’d quibble with is the given time frame. Most second tri abortion procedures don’t take half an hour, although of course some could.
Enlightenment, #101
2005 Guttmacher state policy briefs, etc. (not “beliefs” or perceptions) in the states–all aspects of reproductive healthcare.
http://tinyurl.com/77on7
But let me get this straight.
If you are completely unwilling to see late term foetuses as people, as I and many others do. (I believe one reason I’m a “moderate” on this issue, though, is that I consider it laughable to call a fertilised egg or blastocyst a person.)
Because you have to split the difference on competing beliefs about when life begins, that makes you “moderate?” I have said before, that I don’t even think the discussion about when life begins has any place in law. It’s based on spiritual beliefs, and to haggle over this gets dangerously close to hacking into the Jeffersonian wall.
Exactly. It’s based on spiritual beliefs. Which is why pro-choice is the only sensible position. It means that a pregnant woman has the right to make the decision about when, prior to its birth, the cluster of cells growing inside her has become a life.
There is no-one else who is qualified to make that decision, or has the right to try.
Not a single person.
There’s also the tiny problem that Slacker’s Law leaves the door wide-open for legislated “waiting periods” and other bullshit that keeps pushing the deadline farther and farther forward, until abortion is effectively illegal.
Nice sentiment, Slacker, but totally impractical and immoral.
would not push the deadline further and further. It would, in unambiguous legal language, guarantee the right to first trimester abortion. And I would absolutely be willing to say that this would mean the government would have to provide the means for women to get abortions if they were in far-flung locales where this was difficult. So, either establish an “outpost abortion clinic” or provide free transportation, whatever it takes. It also should go without saying (but, I suppose, does not) that there should be universal health care including high quality prenatal care available for every woman.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
No, your law wouldn’t. But Republican lawmakers would have a field day. You’d have handed them their dearest dream – since most women don’t notice their pregnancy until about two months into it, if they can delay the woman by a month, the woman is suddenly unable to have an abortion. Ever. Which means even more mandatory waiting periods, thinking it through time, literature review, notification, oversight review, and other bureaucratic nonsense. Gotta make sure it really is the first trimester, and all the rest.
And you still haven’t addressed the problem of your law, as proposed, being immoral.
The constitutional amendment I propose could easily be made to clearly prohibit any barrier to a first term abortion, so that’s kind of a red herring.
As to your other question, I confess I hadn’t even noticed the word “immoral” there. Obviously, I believe just the opposite, as this proposal comes from the core of my morals. I guess you’ll have to explain what is so “immoral” about it.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
It comes from the core of your morals. Your morals are not my morals, or the pregnant woman’s morals, which are the only ones that are relevant. Thus, you are attempting to impose an external morality on a victimless action, which is immoral.
And yes, it is victimless, unless the pregnant woman decides otherwise, in which case she will not have an abortion. There is no scientific or philosophical method for placing a dividing line, other than birth, that is not totally arbitrary. Believing that your arbitrary dividing line is somehow right and deserves to be enshrined in law – even though you will never, ever have to deal with the consequences of your choice, as those who you deny that choice to will – is arrogant, narcissistic, and selfish.
In short, what makes you more qualified to make this determination than the woman who is pregnant?
Your proposed amendment is absurd. It is without any foundation, medically, constitutaionally, or politically. From my experience over many years, this is an idea that would generate zero support in either political party. It is so hypothetical that to push it in the way that you are borders, in my view as the act of a provocateur.
Assuming you are sincere, naturally you would not see it that way. However, I want to tell you that your hypotheical notions about a highly charged issue like this really have no place in reasoned discourse on this subject. I am not saying you should not hold your views or should not say them. I am saying that reactions to them are likely to be negative almost everywhere you go. And its not because people don’t understand. It’s because they do.
If it’s so absurd, how do you suppose it got to be the law of the land in a major (and progressive, I might add) country like France? How do you explain the poll finding, mentioned elsewhere in the comments, that 55% support “the right to abortion in the first three months of pregnancy”?
You’re right that neither party’s base would be very open to this amendment, at least at first. But when you have an issue this apparently intractable, one which is treated as the most important issue for the federal judiciary (when in fact, preserving civil liberties and the rights of the accused are much more important), why not look for a compromise to settle the issue? And why accuse someone seeking such a compromise of being a “provocateur”?
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Easy answer re: France. Different system of government, different rationale for the law. Perhaps they are not as progressive on this matter as the United States.
In anycase, just because “they do it in France” doesn’t mean its right medically, constitutionally or politically here.
As for politics. Its a non-starter for the same reasons I gave above. The fact is there is no compromise. Medically or politically. If the courts revisit the question, how they rule will be how they rule. Parsing rights is tricky. Not the stuff of split the difference compromise you are talking about.
You say it is only the “base” that would oppose this. I venture to say this would enjoy no support period. Frankly, it is such an obvious point, and as you say, its what France has, if there were any possible traction for this, it would have been floated a long time ago. Do you think that no one thinks about these things?
If you are that well-read on the situation in France, you must have come across the readings that I have — that the law is basically not enforced, that the reality more closely resembles the law here (at least the federal law, although we flout it and the Fourteenth Amendment with all the state restrictions).
And, as was pointed out above, this is so in France because most of us — apparently not your gender — who have been pregnant don’t know it for two to three months, if we have ahem certain irregularities I’d rather not go into here.
I didn’t even realize it the second time around, nor did my doctor who was treating me for anemia since I said I was sure I wasn’t pregnant . . . and it was my husband who figured out why I was so tired. He happened to follow me up the stairs and noticed that my ahem posterior was sort of, well, spreading.
So here’s the thing: we can follow your plan as soon as you can figure out how to put eyes in the backs of our heads so we can see our butts in the mirror.
And so is Nat Hentoff, a prominent progressive prolifer who writes for the Village Voice (and used to have a regular column in the Nation). It’s not always about spirituality. All of us believe that human life deserves legal protection, regardless of the parents’ wishes, at some stage of maturity. You might make the “line” at “birth” (when exactly has “birth” taken place, btw?), and I might make it at the beginning of the second trimester. Both of us are making an arbitrary line.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Exactly. So why should your arbitrary line have the benefit of being enshrined in law? What about your arbitrary line makes it better than mine or, more importantly, the woman who you are attempting to force to have a child she does not want? I contend that the line cannot be scientifically defined – it must be left up to the pregnant woman, as no-one else has the right nor is qualified to decide that for her, as you try to.
Why should your arbitrary line be enshrined in law? Why shouldn’t parents have the right to have “postnatal” abortions, as Princeton ethicist (and founder of the animal rights movement) Peter Singer has proposed?
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Because at that point, it can no longer be questioned that what we have is a human being. At some point prior to that, it became one, but it is impossible to empirically determine when that point is. The only person qualified to make that determination is the mother – the only person. She is the one who must deal with the consequences of her choice – the fact that she had an abortion, or that she must give her child up for adoption or raise it herself.
are based on my spiritual beliefs. And if a body of law was created around such concepts, it is very likely that they would not jibe with my spiritual beliefs. For instance, my spiritual belief, in no way precludes abortion. Abortion is completely consistent with my spiritual belief system. So if I am denied by law to seek abortion because of a differing view on when life begins, it becomes an issue of conflicting spiritual beliefs. It would be as outrageous as forcing Catholics to have abortions in contradiction of beliefs they are very much entitled to. When life begins, the nature of human existence… these are things that have no place in a secular body of law.
So how about if someone’s spiritual beliefs told them they should feed their infant child nothing but watermelon and lettuce? I don’t believe that people’s spiritual beliefs should be of much if any consequence when deciding public policy.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
It’s all about proof and evidence. One can prove that feeding a child such things would be harmful to its health. One cannot prove, universally, when a collection of cells becomes a human life prior to being born. It’s simply impossible – at least, impossible without solving the mind-body problem, which would render the entire question of abortion somewhat moot. This is why the choice must be left up to the pregnant woman, as she is the one who must deal with the consequences.
I don’t believe that people’s spiritual beliefs should be of much if any consequence when deciding public policy.
That’s my point! It’s called the “establishment clause.” “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof…” It’s the First Amendment to the Constitution.
There are existing laws to prevent child endangerment, like you describe. Yes it is a tricky area of public policy, such as the Christian Science perspective on medical care and whether the government can mandate medical intervention for sick children of Christian Scientists. There are definitely gray areas. But, there is a huge difference between laws that seek to protect children who are a viable and are surviving outside a mother’s body, and fetuses that aren’t. When it’s still in my body, it’s about my spiritual beliefs. To impose any other standard, is a further violation of my spiritual beliefs.
Others here (including one to whom I will no longer respond, because I was too offended by one of their posts) have hewn closely to the most extreme pro-choice position, that there is no baby involved (just the “woman’s body”) until birth. Is that your position too? You used the word “viability”–does that mean that this is the line you’d draw? I think that is a reasonable position, even though it is not identical to mine. But of course “age of viability” goes ever earlier, as technology and methods of care for premature infants (including the non-technological “kangaroo care” approach) improve.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
No, that is not my view, but I would defend to the death, her right to hold that view, and make her choices accordingly. But, I believe that the souls of mother and child are intwined until the baby leaves her body. I don’t believe it is possible for a mother to make a decision that is different from that gestating fetus, because they are so intertwined. I don’t know what the latest advances are, in terms of premie care and viability, but I do believe that it is only after physical separation, that the baby becomes a discreet entity, and it’s self determination takes on it’s own direction, separate from that mother.
The legal meaning of viability is different from your medical meaning.
Where would you draw the dividing line between the first and second trimesters, and upon what developmental basis would that be justified?
Why should a fetus at 15-16 weeks be inherently more worthy of protection than it was three weeks ago?
What kind of circumstance qualifies as an “extreme case of medical need,” and who gets to define that? The woman? Her physician? Or Congress and other lawmaking bodies?
Why would you suppose that all women are able to make “these choices,” or even realize that they need to, in the first trimester?
And upon what slippery slope did you stumble across your opinions about abortion, anyway?
Just wondering.
“What kind of circumstance qualifies as an “extreme case of medical need,” and who gets to define that? The woman? Her physician? Or Congress and other lawmaking bodies?”
I keep hearing people say “in certain exceptions”, and then I think about the practical aspects of that statement. I think about a woman being forced to go in front of the judge or special master to “plead her case”. Does she have to pay the doctor to testify? I also think about how long it takes to even get an initial court date in the current environment, and how time is of the essence with first trimester abortion.
To me, it sounds like cruel and unusual punishment for the “crime” of having sex. If someone has been raped, they’ve already been pt through enough. If someone has a pregnancy that they know will not result in a positive outcome (ie, severe brth defects), they are already grieving the loss. If a woman hs an unintended pregnancy that could negatively alter the course of her life, she is under enough strain as it is.
In the end, it is a decision that the individual woman is best suited for making with her doctor. Not the courts, not the government, not the theocrats.
It is my understanding that a solid (though sadly, not “vast”) majority of abortions are carried out in the first trimester. Your post here blurs my position with that of someone who wants to ban all abortions, when I am far from that. In fact, I want a constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to such abortions. That is far better protection than Roe v. Wade, a decision that even many abortion rights advocates admit rests on a shaky legal foundation, and can be undone with only one or two more conservative appointees to the bench. (Before anyone thinks that I’d welcome such appointments, think again: I detest what Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist represent, particularly their willingness to ignore the clear meaning of the Bill of Rights.)
Alan
Maverick Leftist
I think not.
I was making a more general statement about how the “exceptions” would logically play out; it applies to first or second-trimester abortions, although I only mentioned first trimester in my comment. Apologies for the oversight.
SlackerInc, if I’m understanding you, you believe you have the moderate position between “abortion on demand” (anytime, anywhere?) and banning. So between these two extremes, you feel you’re somewhere in the middle — is this right?
Further, your objection to the abortions you don’t approve of, seems to be that you believe there is a line which is crossed and the fetus becomes a human being before birth. You don’t think that those humans should be “killed” — is this a fair assessment?
If this is the case, I think you should at least consider that you might be making your judgments on some “facts” that aren’t factual. Here’s some I think are pertinent:
I believe this last point, especially, is why some have said your argument is a straw man. Because it is. Sure, some terrible things happen in the medical world. Does that mean we should pass legislation? Start a drumbeat for the aforementioned force sterilization? How about demanding laws which required doctors show necessity before removal of organs?
There’s all kinds of ways we could work around in the ethical chinks and frame it so that it was saving someone or other or preventing some harm. But that would be immoral. It would be letting congress play doctor. Worse, it would be letting them play God.
No one–on either side–seems to talk about it much. I’m aware that third trimester abortions are rare, and that elective third trimester abortions are rarer still, perhaps nonexistent. It’s the second trimester abortions I’m concerned about.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Why do you care? Do you not trust the woman to make the decision about when the cluster of cells within her have become a life? If you don’t trust her to make that decision, why do you trust her to raise that child?
Why are you worried about the second trimester? I would say that’s the gray area. I’m gonna bow out of this discussion now and want to say I appreciate how civil you and everyone else has been on this thread. I know it’s a touchy subject and tempers run high.
The is a question I’d really like you to answer, because I don’t understand the thinking on this. You do believe abortion should be legal in some instances, so the only question really is who gets to make the decision — the doctor and patient, or the government.
You’re saying you think the government should make the decision. I’d like to know why? How is that better? Do you not trust the doctors? If not, should their other activities be legislated and should they have to prove they have the best interests of the patients at heart? What all of their other activities should we legislate?
Or is it the women you don’t trust? Do you think they don’t have their own or their potential children’s best interests at heart? Or do you think they’re incapable of deciding? Do you think someone who isn’t capable of making a good decision should be forced to be a parent for 18 years? As a male, which medical decisions do you think we should take out of your hands?
Okay, so that seems like way more than one question, sorry. But I would really like to know why you think the government would make a better decision that the patient and doctor.
But doctors and mothers are regulated. Doctors are often sanctioned or lose medical licences. Mothers can be investigated by child protective services and can and do have their children taken away (not always justly, but that’s another topic). That’s precisely why I find it odd to elevate “the woman and her doctor” to some supreme level when this topic is discussed.
I do agree with you in appreciating the mostly civil tone of this discussion. So far I don’t think I’ve even been troll rated! LOL
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Ah, but there are two distinct differences that you miss here. In both of the situations you describe, judgement is applied after unacceptable behaviour towards an unarguably human being is observed. Your proposed law applies judgement before supposedly-unacceptable behaviour towards an entity that is, at best, arguably human.
I trust you understand the difference between punishing someone for criminal behaviour after the fact and punishing them before any crime has been committed?
You deserve your share of the credit, and a 4, too, for the civil tone of this discussion.
Ah, that it could always be so. Maybe all of us on this thread should get together and host a national seminar: “How to Disagree About Abortion Without Having to Call 911.”
Booman runs a nice study hall, doesn’t he? 🙂
You’ve got to draw lines somewhere. The same question could be posed about other things: voting age, drinking age, age of consent, etc. Do you think all such “arbitrary” markers should be abolished? Furthermore, as I noted previously, there is a medical difference between a first trimester abortion and the induced “birth” that must be done after that point.
Nice little dig about the “slippery slope”, but I believe that term was coined to describe a fallacy. I don’t believe all concerns about such “slopes” are fallacious, but they often are. The American people are never going to accept a ban on first trimester elective abortion. Neither are they (and of course I’m talking about majorities here) going to accept the extreme position that we find in abundance within the Democratic base, that there should be no restrictions on abortion.
So if my constitutional amendment were put in place, it would be very stable, both because it is hard to change the U.S. Constitution, and because this level of restriction would be more like a stable valley than a slippery slope. Extremists on both sides would grouse, but the vast middle would be satisfied.
As for how I came to this position, it has been a long road. I was once appropriately pro-choice as I had been essentially taught to be. But I always thought “I can’t really denounce the pro-lifers, the way I can the polluters or the greedy capitalists, because it really is a tough issue and they are just standing up for a defensible moral position.”
It was after having children, though, that I came to the position I hold today. I’m intimately familiar with what I called a “baby” but is technically a “second trimester foetus”, as I slept nestled up to one every night for six months total. It isn’t just our intention to carry the pregnancy to term that made their lives worthy of protection, just as we progressives are always supposed to fight for the powerless.
I believe I addressed your other questions in previous posts.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Of course not. I simply believe that the limits of fetal viability should be determined by science, instead of being imposed by emotion.
As someone who has witnessed a great number of second trimester abortions — two, in fact, just today — I again assure you that this is simply not the case. The procedures you refer to are performed in the third trimester, and therefore in the previously mentioned cases of extreme necessity. Second trimester procedures in the United States are almost always performed by a surgical method called Dilation and Extraction, and are completed in 10-15 minutes.
My mistake.
But do you not agree that (per Wikipedia) the most common method of surgical abortion, suction-aspiration, can only be used in the first fifteen weeks? That’s pretty close to being congruent to “the first trimester”.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Many OB/GYNs who provide abortion care use D&C aspiration until about that point, but that isn’t a fixed guideline, and varies according to the level of skill and experience a physician might have, and according to his or her particular preferences.
The clinical policy guidelines of the National Abortion Federation, a membership organization for providers, recommend preparatory cervical dilation with either osmotic dilators or medication after 15 weeks, defining abortion after that point as a second trimester procedure.
So I’d say that’s a pretty fair place to draw the line between the first and second trimesters; even though it’s a week or so past three months, it does represent a trimester of actual gestation, as opposed to the time elapsed since the last normal menstrual period, which is how pregnancy is more often and more traditionally measured.
That being said, the procedure employed has no real relationship to the viability of a fetus, since medication abortion in the first few weeks of pregnancy, an induced miscarriage, bears a much closer correlation to labor and delivery than does either surgical procedure.
As soon as men have to get governmental bodies to approve vasectomies, thus preventing births . . . then we’ll see how well that works and talk about trying it for women.
It’s all medical procedures, to be determined by medical practitioners.
(Except for the only one of those in Congress: Frist.)
Well Alan, I think it is my right to decide that you should have a vasectomy after your second child is produced. Hooray for France. If you enjoy their laws so much, perhaps give a thought to living there where predominately white european males can decide what to do with women’s bodies. France also believes in health care, and many many other advantages that we do not enjoy in the US. You should be equally as thrilled about them, shouldn’t you?
We do not need to forever argue over what, where, when or why someone should have the right to choose what to do with their own body. Your body, you choose. It really is that simple. I won’t force you to choose what I might choose, and you won’t force me to make your choice. Simple.
I remember the diary too. It was “lively” to say the least.
I would like to live in France, actually–but it’s not as easy as just wanting to.
And yes, I am “thrilled” about France’s national health care and other progressive policies. Why wouldn’t I be? Do you assume that anyone who doesn’t support late term abortion is some kind of right winger? Please, if you want to know exactly what I stand for, click the “Maverick Leftist” link in my sig.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
until you think a bit more about it. And just because it is a law somewhere doesn’t make any more so.
When I got pregnant with my oldest son (unmarried and not even in anything resembling a relationship at a time), I was already more than 10 weeks pregnant…
This isn’t about me personally though, the point I’m trying to make is not EVERY woman misses their periods in the first trimester, not every woman (especially with a first time pregnancy) knows what the signs are — a missed period can also be due to stress, etc. Bottom line on this point is that not every woman will know that she is pregnant in the first trimenster. So shoudl she be prohibted from having an abortion becuase she found out 7 days past the deadline??
Oh, I could think about other examples, but to be honest, I really don’t know why I am posting here…I don’ think there is any political resolution on abortion but to keep the government out of it…on this and many other “values” issues, I suppose I am firmly in the libertarian camp (though I have no idea whether American Libertarians actually support choice or not, they seem to vote with Republicans…)
I do think the fact that it is already the law “somewhere” (France is a pretty major country!) speaks a lot to its realisticness (if that’s a word).
Couldn’t sexually active women, especially one who does not have a very regular cycle, perhaps take a home pregnancy test if she hasn’t had a period in a couple months? Doesn’t seem to me to be an incredible burden to bear, and it should be something women ought to do, just for moral and practical reasons, whether the law is changed or not.
I’m definitely no libertarian. I’m a civil libertarian, big time, but I do believe the government has the right to set all kinds of strictures from minimum wage (which should be much higher) to workplace safety to environmental protection, etc.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
is already the law “somewhere” — and in some of those somewheres the “realisticness” of maternal mortality statistics in the 21st century beggars belief.
And many women continue to have apparently normal menstruation during the first several months of pregnancy, especially those who use hormonal birth control methods such as the pill, since these contraceptive methods induce hormone-withdrawal bleeding unrelated to normal menstruation every fourth week.
So Brin says:
…not EVERY woman misses their periods in the first trimester
So, then Alan says:
…Couldn’t sexually active women, especially one who does not have a very regular cycle, perhaps take a home pregnancy test if she hasn’t had a period in a couple months?
Could it be any clearer that you don’t understand female menstrual cycles, and that you are not listening? Let me break it down for you:
For a woman with an irregular cycle, 2 months is nothing. Some go 4-5 mos without menstruating. What your saying is that a woman who is irregular, and is sexually active, should just take pregnancy tests constantly. Sounds pricey and irritating to me. Two months makes no sense, in this context. Two months from when? The last period is in no way an indicator of when the next is due, if you’re irregular.
The first trimester begins its countdown from your last period, even though pregnancy normally occurs 2 weeks later, during ovulation. In some cases, even though that woman is pregnant at that point, it won’t show up in a piss tests for a couple more weeks, and she may even still have a period, after conception. Yes, that’s right. Some women still menstruate, even after they get pregnant.
In fact, some women will continue to have light, spotty periods all through pregancy, which they may confuse for, well, not being pregnant. I’ve heard of women not realizing ’til they began to show, at about 5 mos, for this reason.
But, let’s assume that she followed the normal sequence of events, except that she had a period, after she’d already conceived. Now, assume she’s not having dramatic symptoms like morning sickness, not all women do, and she is still completely in the dark until another month passes, and now her period is late. She’s already more than 2 mos pregnant and she’s had no objective indicator that she is pregnant. Perhaps she’s got a lot of work stress, and she’s a little late, but maybe she didn’t mark it in her calendar — not all women actively track — so she thinks she might be a little late, but the stress could account for it, so she’s not worried about it. Meanwhile she’s over 2 mos pregnant, the clock is ticking, and she has no idea. See how this could begin to cut a little close to that 3 month mark?
So, should the government mandate that women take pregnancy tests, say monthly? Should there be a law that all women must journal their menstrual cycles? How would this fit into a social libertarian platform exactly?
I think I’ve been married long enough to be familiar (probably more than I’d like, LOL) with menstrual periods. And I thought I was clear the first time, but yes: if a woman is sexually active, and knows her cycle is irregular, she could take a “piss test” every couple months. To argue that this is “pricey and irritating” when it is much less of either than any contraceptive method I can think of, speaks volumes about the disregard for a developing human being. I mean, do you really think a human being is magically created at the moment of birth (often scheduled to fit an OB’s calendar these days), and seconds before that was just undifferentiated maternal flesh?!?
Alan
Maverick Leftist
“More than you’d like, huh.” Why? Why wouldn’t you want to know everything about them? I mean you feel very confident in telling a bunch of women you don’t know how to manage theirs. And you haven’t answered my question. Should monthly or bi-monthly pregnancy tests be mandated by law?
So my not wanting to take monthly pregnancy tests demonstrates “disregard” for “a developing human being.” That’s right. I’m really just a walking womb, and my every other thought should be on the potential to bring life into the world. If I’m enjoying a regular sex life, this procreative possiblity should be something I am just always conscious of, and micromanaging of. Let me tell you that as a wife, and mother, I find your presumptuousness astonishing. Do you think about proceation as much you expect women to? I’m just curious.
Because they’re kinda yucky, don’tcha think? My wife certainly thinks so, as does every other woman I’ve been intimate enough with to know how they feel about menstruation.
No, the tests should not be mandated by law, as long as women are prepared to deal with the consequences of not taking them.
No, you’re not just a walking womb, but it is one of your attributes.
Uhhh…yeah. Isn’t that what they teach in the sex ed classes we both presumably favour? (That is, not the bogus “abstinence” crap Bush and the religious right try to push.)
I do think about it quite a bit, as a proud and loving father. But ultimately, nature has made it so that, right or wrong, women do have to pay the most attention to it. This will no doubt be treated as some kind of horrendously sexist statement, but it’s no more so than pointing out that women are ultimately the ones who need to decide whether to use a tampon, a pad, or “The Keeper” as my wife now does (is that TMI? sorry).
Alan
Maverick Leftist
So, menstruation is “yucky.” That’s purely a societal construct. In many ancient agrarian cultures it was considered a sacrament. Women used to sit in the fields and bleed to share their fecundity with the gestating crops. There are tribal cultures that collect menstrual blood to use in medicinal poultices. I’m actually a bit offended that you find a natural process of my body, “yucky.”
So, I’m not just a walking womb, but one of my attributes is that I’m a walking womb. Dude, I know you don’t think you’re sexist, and you have a right to define yourself as you see fit, but to me you sound like someone who wants an awful lot of control over women’s bodies and reproductive destinies and, in my book, that makes you sexist as hell. What you are talking about is incredibly intrusive and judgmental.
I took sex-ed, and, no, I was not taught to obsess about my womb. And, frankly, I’d rather not. I have other things that require my focus, like being a good mother, for instance. My days are quite full enough. Why don’t you take some of this mental energy and focus and devote it to figuring out how men can grow wombs. Then you can plan and test and micromanage the whole thing to your heart’s content. Just, for the love of god, leave me out of it.
C’mon, that’s silly. My body has a lot of natural processes, too. I find it hard to believe that you wouldn’t find any of those yucky!
Yup, and one of my attributes is that I’m a walking fertilisation machine. So, what’s the big deal?
Sounds like you wouldn’t like my position on breastfeeding and the use of formula, either. Ah well…
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Sounds like you wouldn’t like my position on breastfeeding and the use of formula, either. Ah well…
I’m fairly sure that I would not.
C’mon, that’s silly. My body has a lot of natural processes, too. I find it hard to believe that you wouldn’t find any of those yucky!
Please try to respect those who are offended by what you say. The previous poster was genuinely disturbed by what you had to say and you should not minimize or discount those feelings.
You’ve been married long enough to be familiar with ONE WOMAN’s menstrual cycle. The point above is that thatere are as many different menstrual patterns as there are premenopausal women.
You sat down.
You put a lot of time and thought into this.
You agonized over it, trying to reconcile your beliefs on personal liberty, inherent human rights, fairness, your principles, and other angles I’ll never guess
You reached a decision.
So far, you’re no different than anyone who’s thought about abortion, really.
You came to a conclusion. Yours was that first trimester okay, beyond that only in medical emergency.
My questions to you:
Nevermind that you made this decision somewhat detached from the experience. It was an intellectual exercise, detached from any personal consequences to yourself.
Are the interests of the state more important than the interest of the potential mother? Are the interests of the state worthy of deciding the entire future of this woman and her family?
Are you really so sure of your solution, that you would impose it and its consequences on everyone else who disagreed with it?
would that I had more than one 4 to give to this comment!
Yes.
Anyone who is never willing to try to make their value judgments into law, if there is anyone out there who might resent the strictures the law would represent, is an anarchist or maybe a libertarian. I am neither. I fight for what I think is right, and others can do the same. Some of us will win, and others will lose. That’s politics!
Alan
Maverick Leftist
I respectfully disagree.
By your logic, the Religious Right has every right to tear down the wall between church and state, if they can break the filibuster. And you’re basically saying its honorable, to boot.
I’m neither an anarchist nor a libertarian. I fail to see any real interest of the state in the matter of what a woman does with her body during pregnancy that warrents criminal or civil sanctions.
I have many very close friends who are pro-life. They’d be absolutely unhappy with your compromise. They’d push it as “that’s politics” as they gleefully banned both abortion and contraception under any circumstances.
Obviously, you don’t find that too acceptable. Its way outside the bounds of your proposed solution.
Notice I didn’t offer my own counterproposal to yours? That was very much intentional. I don’t think its my right to dictate how other people should run their lives when it doesn’t affect mine.
I’ve got plenty of opinions on how things should be run that do affect my life. Or the lives of others, if the idea is to give them control over their own lives.
The inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence used to only apply to white land-owning men. We’ve grown, thankfully. Now non-landownders, women, minorities all have those inalienable rights.
I don’t see how the hell it follows we should have to entertain extending them to blastocysts or first trimester fetuses.
Until we do, the state has no interest in a woman’s body, and there is no other person with inalienable rights involved, so why is it even a legal matter?
I’m not saying the government can’t interject itself in there, it puts itself in lots of strange places. I’m saying I don’t see whose rights are being defended.
I know the war is going badly, but we don’t need enforced birth to keep up the troop levels just yet.
You really want the government involved in this business? Tell me, what good will come of it?
You say you’ll fight for what you believe is right. Well, doesn’t that describe all of us? So tell me, what’s right about your proposed abortion law?
Because I can tell you, its not going to placate the critics.
I would say they can do what they have the power to do–not that it is “honorable”. I don’t believe there is any absolute test of “right” and “wrong” that we can get everyone to agree on. So we’ve got to decide what we think is right, and use politics to get as close to that as we can. I suppose I’m a “ends justify the means” guy to an extent. If I could get living wage legislation or universal health care passed by bribing some officials or rigging some voting machines, I’d have no compunctions about doing so. By the reverse token, I don’t consider the right wing agenda (at least, most of it) to be “honorable” even if they were to follow all the rules in enacting it.
When is it no longer just “her body” that’s involved? Is it really just “her body” the moment before birth? Come on.
Yes, exactly my point! Someone famously defined a compromise as “when both sides are unhappy”, and I think that’s just right. You are proving my point: that I am a moderate on this issue. I guarantee you, if I had the money to conduct a poll, I’d get more support for my proposal among the public than for either the “ban all abortions” or “no restrictions on abortion” positions. (Not that the majority is always right; but it is helpful for my cause that in this case I do believe the majority would agree with me, if we could get past the impasse created by the extremists on both sides.)
Of course, neither do I–but I do want to extend them to second and third trimester foetuses. I find your point here odd, as it seems to bolster my case more than anything. Yes, we have extended the reach of the Bill of Rights to many groups, including children and the disabled. What I propose follows quite logically!
Fewer of what I (and millions upon millions of others) consider unborn, sentient children will be killed. At the same time, women will not be forced to go through an entire pregnancy just because they have a fertilised egg inside them. That’s quite good on all counts, as I see it.
I certainly hope so!
I do believe it would placate a lot of swing voters who are otherwise sympathetic to our party (though its political benefit is only a side benefit, not the main reason for my advocacy). And the fact that it wouldn’t placate right wing fundamentalists would be a political boon for us. The debate would be shifted back to making them out to be the clear extremists. The way things are now, our side looks more extreme.
Have you read Sarah Wildman’s excellent op-ed piece in the American Prospect, in which she says “the Democratic defense of abortion makes [her] cringe”? I strongly urge anyone who has not seen it to check it out. There’s tons of good stuff in there, but one poll finding she cites is quite interesting:
How far do you suppose that 55 percent figure drops if you bring in the second trimester?
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Mr. SlackerInc, why do you feel the need to make medical decisions for women (that you do not even know)? Why do you feel that a women and her doctor should have their judgment overrode by your so-called ‘realistical’ amendment that, by your own admission, makes no-one happy except yourself?
I missed this one Theresa. Thank you for reposting it.
Thanks for reading.
Glad to see it again. Thanks.
I remember this, and it’s nice to be able to read it again without all the shouting that was going on in the original. (IIRC, I got called a Santorum supporter there for having Pennacchio in my sig line!)
Thanks for re-posting it. :^)
If women get their act together those tin pot bullies can call you anything they want, because they will no longer be in charge.
it is true. But it is a weak majority, and it depends a lot on the existence of pro-choice Republican women to get there.
We know it’s weak, because since pro-choice has been officially part of the Democratic platform, we have been consistent losers. In fact, the only times we have won the presidency since abortion became the big issue in 1980, we won with less than 50% of the vote.
Why? I believe it’s because your pro-choice women don’t vote pro-choice. They prioritize other issues. Like economics. Pro-choice Republican and independent women voted for George Bush, of all people, twice in a row now — even though John Kerry spent enormous political capital (his Catholic turnout) to emphasize his support of abortion rights. That evidence is why Democratic leaders like Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, whose pro-choice and feminist record is simply unimpeachable by any reasonable person, are realizing that the Democratic Party needs prominent pro-life leaders.
Casey’s candidacy is NOT about Pennsylvania. Everyone knows that a pro-choice politician can win there as well as a pro-life one. Instead it is about Ohio, and Kansas, and New Mexico, and Montana, and the rest of the red states and rural counties where being pro-life really IS the big deal and is where Democrats lose most elections. We can’t govern the country without the support of enough predominantly pro-life counties, so we need Casey’s pro-life tag line when the news shows start reporting the results of the 2006 election.
Furthermore this recent poll shows that women may now be LESS likely then men to favor Roe v. Wade. Obviously the question of whether abortion really is a necessary right for women’s equality is still up in the air for a lot of women.
Slavery was a losing issue too. We cannot allow political expediency to dictate our morality.
To equate the condition of human beings who were put in lifelong bondage, treated as property, whipped, beaten and raped, put through back-breaking labour, their families torn apart and generally treated worse than animals should be, to equate that with a few women who don’t manage to get their abortions before the second trimester…that’s disgusting and insensitive. Why don’t you go shop that slogan around to black America? Looking at this mini-thread, one might almost think your pursuit of the “pure” was some quixotic quest to see whether you can sink Democratic support to single digits!
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Ah, so now it’s a matter of whose rights were denied more, is it? But again, we come back to the basic question that you still haven’t answered. If supporting abolition would “sink Democratic support to single digits”, would you oppose it? If you wouldn’t, why do you not hesitate to condemn women who make a mistake to the pain and fear and danger of a back-alley abortion? Or to being beaten into a miscarriage by their frightened boyfriend? Or being desperate enough to attempt to operate on herself with a coathanger?
And if, as you say, there are “a few” women who don’t manage to get their abortions before the second trimester… Why is it such a big issue for you? If there’s so few of them, surely, by your own argument above, the numbers are so insignificant as to not matter.
I don’t care about Democratic support. I don’t care about purity. I care about what is right. The only sensible, moral position on abortion is the hands-off pro-choice position. Anything else restricts the right of the woman to make her own choices, through the very scary step of introducing the idea that the woman is not competent to make her own medical decisions, which is a hair’s breadth away from the claim that the woman is not competent to make any decisions at all.
It is not a poor comparison. Your restrictions on abortion actually diminish all women to second class citizens who do not actually have control over their own bodies. Women are not to be treated as breeding stock.
so I’m wondering if someone could explain why this comment has a low rating. I can see where most of the folks on this thread disagree with SlackerInc, but from his perspective this seems like a perfectly rational comment.
He may be right, after all- I’m not a black American, myself, but I’ve read anecdotal evidence that such analogies don’t play well either in ‘black America’ or in other American communities with cultural memories of slavery.
See my comment above – I think that explains it pretty well, combined with his “2”-rating of my first post in this subthread, and continued to 2-rate all posts that he disagreed with. Though apparently he was so offended by my attempts to determine what values, exactly, he would be willing to sacrifice for the good of The Party that he has ceased responding to me.
I think I must chalk this up as another victory for the pseudo-Socratic method.
Though I’m still not quite sure what to chalk Slacker up as.
should be briefly addressed for the sake of the record, though it’s true that I won’t continue a debate with someone who uses such tactics.
(1) I did not “continue to 2-rate all posts I disagreed with”. You got that one 2, and Teresa got one for accusing someone of being a liar when she had absolutely no cause to do so. There are dozens of other posters on this thread, many of whom directed pretty pointed remarks at me, and none of them got 2s (or below, for that matter).
(2) Your characterisation that I am out to sacrifice values “for the good of the party” is also false. The proposals I have made come from my values, and it is a happy coincidence that I believe they would also help the party. I have other values (such as agreeing in principle with Michael Newdow about the Pledge of Allegiance) that would not help the party, and which I do not consider make-or-break, and so I do keep those on the back burner for the sake of the bigger picture. But not so with abortion.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
So what are your values? You have yet to answer that question.
Secondly, why should you be allowed to make this decision? What makes you qualified to make it and women not qualified? What gives you the right? Why should you, who must never face the consequences, be able to deny a woman an abortion, if she believes it to be moral?
Nice hit and run flame, by the way. That comment had almost scrolled off my front comments page.
I should note that I ask about your values because, above, your primary reason for opposing a pro-choice stance is that it loses elections. This seems to be a very amoral viewpoint – the morality of the situation is irrelevant to you, the only thing that matters is the effect on The Party. Also, you have yet to elaborate on how, exactly, forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy is any different from forcing a black man to grow crops. Note that your elaboration must be reality-based – if it relies on asserting that the pregnancy is a human life, you must produce scientific evidence showing that it is a human life, with all the things that entails. (Showing that it is even alive may be difficult.) If you cannot produce such evidence, you must produce evidence that you are somehow more qualified than the pregnant woman to decide whether or not she may terminate her pregnancy.
My rhetorical device is perfectly valid; I contend that you refuse to reply because your “values” have no answer to the questions I raise.
As that TAP piece I referenced earlier points out:
And this also means that pretty close to a third of pro-lifers voted for Kerry–but within the Democratic base, this group is treated as pariahs. Drive them away, and you’re not going to get those pro-choice Republicans on your side, you’re just going to have a party that gets slaughtered by thirty points or more in every national election.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Would you advocate the same position if it were gays whose rights were being denied?
How about blacks?
Jews or Witches?
IIRC, that study is badly flawed. More recent and better-conducted studies, diaried here, show that a vast majority of people – close to 80% – are pro-choice.
Here we go.
I’d misremembered the percentages, but abortion was really far down most people’s lists – even the very strongly pro-coathanger don’t really prioritize it that highly. So supporting a pro-choice candidate does not lose The Party anything, and has the added benefit of being moral and right. And 44% of voters believe that the Democratic party – pro-choice, pro-gay and all – better represents their morals. Only 40% so associate with the Republican party.
In other words, it’s not the position that’s the problem. It’s articulating them. Which was, I believe, the original thesis of this diary.
are as pro-choice as you say, and abortion rights are as important to them as you like to believe, why do they keep voting for the unabashedly anti-choice party?
Uprated to counter the ratings abuse.
You don’t have to like this poster or what he says, but we don’t throw around troll ratings for disagreement here on BT.
You have just made up a lot of non information and tried to build a case.
Try and stick to facts.
That’s out of line, to accuse this poster of being a liar/fraud. Where is your evidence that any of his or her post was “made up” or not grounded in “facts”? I don’t think you have any, and are tearing down a good, well reasoned post because it doesn’t fit your ideology.
Because you have policed this thread since I posted it arguing with everyone and passing out 2s when you had no argument.
I have no intention of arguing my civil rights with you. But I am not going to take a lot of online abuse from you either.
You accuse someone, who contributed a very civil and well-reasoned post, of “making things up” without a shred of evidence, I call you on it, and it’s time to give out the “mega troll” rating?!? Pffft. Did you happen to notice that one of those I have been debating with right here on this thread told me upthread “you deserve your share of the credit, and a 4, too, for the civil tone of this discussion”?
Big difference between giving 2s (and I have not given many of those) and giving 0s. You’re the only one I’ve given one of those–and I’ve given no 1s either–for having the gall to attempt to rationalise your blatant ratings abuse.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
You have acted like a bully on this thread. There is no reason for you to make the same comments over and over to dominate this thread with your authoritarian woman hating bullshit.
Well, aren’t you sweet! 😉
I’ll leave it to others to determine who is being more “hateful” here. I’m sure they will also bear in mind the provocative tone of your diary, and the fact that you already knew when reposting it that it had stirred up all kinds of bad feelings when posted the first time on dKos. So please, let’s not try to pretend this was some peaceful little diary o’ sunshine, until mean ol’ SlackerInc came along to ruin it.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
are responses to people responding to him. If you’re tired of his comments, the solution is obvious.
So true! Yeah, I end up with a lot of posts on certain diaries. But I can’t count how many times my interlocutors have complained, “you never answered my question about…” I like jumping into the fray, and will generally stay there as long as there’s give-and-take. But as you perceptively noted, I don’t just run around being a pest, replying to everyone’s posts.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
How so? Can you flesh that out a little?
Alan
Maverick Leftist
I just told Teresa you were only responding to people who were replying to you. But then you responded to my reply to her, which contradicted my point.
No big deal, I just thought it was funny.
to you both. First of all, TeresaInPa, thank you for your diary, I read it earlier and have been chewing on the comments since then. I am a young guy and have a lot to learn about the abortion issue, so I appreciate anything that helps me to do that–your diary included.
The reason for the warning is because both of you are abusing the rating system.
Troll ratings are not to be given out when you disagree with someone’s views. Period. I agree that Slacker’s comments can raise the hair on the back of my neck sometimes, but with his voice here, it is causing a back and forth of dialogue that I have gained alot from tonight.
Slacker, the abuses will continue if people see that it is okay to retaliate with a Mega-Troll rating when they have been troll-rated themselves. I realize there are tempers boiling, but please everbody, consider the impact of this site if this type of ratings exchange perpetuates.
Thanks, and I hope you can see where I’m coming from.
Point taken, ME. (You’re pretty wise for a “young guy”–how young is young, out of curiosity? I’m 35, in between young and middle aged.) I changed my rating to a “2”–does that strike you as fair?
Alan
Maverick Leftist
not to ask anyone to change their ratings. That is up to you as a member of the community. I appreciate the understanding though. I don’t want to hijack this thread, because it’s an important topic so I’ll answer your question about me elsewhere. (I’ll figure out where as soon as I grab some water) Peace out!
troll rate him because I disagreed with him. I didn’t rate him at all until he started down rating people he disagreed with.
is there for a reason. As a warning. I’m not going to try to get into Slackers head as to why he gave out 2’s. But you should have warned him first before blasting him with a Mega-Troll rating. I’m just asking for some patience from everybody. You feel very strongly about the diary topic, it’s obvious, but it is a bad precedent to set by giving out a zero without a warning.
Disagreeing with Alan as far as I can see.
It’s easy to pass out 2s and a great way to downrate someone with out being called on ratings abuse.
to my original point made by my Thoughts on the Frog Pond diary that this is not Daily Kos. They have had a big ratings abuse problem, which we are trying to keep from spilling over here. I agree with you, that someone can abuse the system by dropping a bunch of 2’s, but call them on it, before you give them a zero rating.
Am I the one who started a diary claiming dkos infected this place? I have only posted there for slightly over a month.
I’d rather continue this at the other diary if you have any more concerns, I don’t want to further muddle your diary with the off-topic subject of ratings.
teresa, the consensus of some of us that you are out of line here. You are new to this site and Slaker is a long time member. You may not agree with his comments but he certainly does not deserve low ratings for stating his views nor for
There is no reason for you to make the same comments over and over to dominate this thread with your authoritarian woman hating bullshit./as you say above.
I am sorry but on this site we allow others to have their say as long as they respect the other person. It seems you are not doing too much /respecting
and you are trying to dominate this discussion with your low ratings. In my opinion it is uncalled for.
Frankly we oldsters on this site are a little tired of new members carry over anger to this site.
If you came here to carry on in the same way that DK does, it’s just not gonna fit.
This is the third or fourth fight I have seen today and you wannna know the last time we had one here (before this week), about 2 months ago. So settle this in a civilized manner, please. Agree to disagree is the best way to deal with this and then move on…..
The point of this diary is not to argue the same old positions about the imorality of women (women must be told what they can or can not do because they are not capable of making their own moral choices). The point is that there are more pro-choice women than any other group in the party and refusing to recognize that is a mistake. I never rated him at all, in fact I ignored him until he started downrating people he disagreed with.
Well I can see that you have a point as far as he rating others down., now I will go back and talk to him and see if we (oldsters) can mediate this.
I can never understand why men want to wade into the abortion debate in the first place. There should be a warning attached to every abortion diary.
My apologies for not getting the full story. But I do believe we can work this out.
well this man has been deep in the subject of abortion for years. And it is very understandable why I and a long history of men have been involved and had useful things to say.
.. but nice work sorting through the ratings matter. I appreciate your patience persistence on this.
I first met Teresa over on Kos, when she troll-rated my politely written, but disagreeing posts.
Since then I have given her 4s on everything she writes that I agree with, and recommended her diaries.
I do notice though, that she complains a lot about being troll-rated while she gives more low ratings than most others.
Teresa, you’re missing something important here. And we love you too.
the only 1s you ever got from me were for personal attacks and ganging up on people who dared to criticize Clark. Most of the time I am not even aware of you.
The evidence is there for anyone who wants to see it.
According to the survey done for Votes for Women 2004, of 10 possible priorities that women wanted the next president to focus on, abortion came in only number 8. It was beaten out by, in order, health care, education, the economy, pensions and retirement, prevention of violence against women, women’s equality under the law, and equal pay for women.
An earlier survey that showed similar lack of prioritization of abortion rights is what so unnerved abortion rights activists that it led them to organize the million woman march to give abortion more air time for women. The Nation columnist Katha Pollitt reported on it extensively early in 2004.
Eastside, when will you stop making things up? 😉
(sorry, couldn’t resist)
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Women mistakenly believe their rights are secure.
This is a general comment. . .not particularly directed at any one person.
If you go read slacker’s diary, about ratings abuse, I think you will understand. Slacker states that he likes to agitate and as long as people respond to him he continues. And of course he feels his views are most important.
The obvious solution here is not to respond to his comments if you find them not to your liking. Every time you respond directly to him, you encourage him to continue, by his own admission.
So, carry on your conversation around him if you feel he has already made his point and you don’t wish to engage him any further.
until he started passing out 2s.
If agitating on purpose isn’t intentional disruption I don’t know what is.
But you make a good point and I appreciate it.
And Teresa, this isn’t directed at you personally (because we discussed it at the other diary and seemed to come to terms) but at others who may read this at whatever point:
I gave out only a single “2” (to someone who had repeatedly called me “immoral” and was essentially comparing me to a slave trader in the post I rated) before Teresa and I got into our little war (which I think we both regret). I gave out lots of 4s, though, and a few 3s (which I consider positive ratings, that I give to posts I want to acknowledge as having something pretty cool in them, but perhaps alongside something not so cool and thus the post is “good” rather than “excellent”).
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Oh, I compared you to a slave trader, did I? Care to produce a quote showing this? A quote mentioning slavery is not applicable, you must find a place where I call you a slave trader.
What I actually said was:
An honest question. If you’re willing to sacrifice on morality for the good of the party, then where does it stop? After all, you’ve already said that you’re willing to allow the state to force women to bear children – a form of slavery to the state. Should men be forced to conceive children? Should people who can do a certain sort of work – research into biological weapons, say – be forced to? Where, exactly, does your loyalty to the Party over morality stop?
You are using the answer to one question to justify the answer to another question. And I’m not exactly sure what point you are trying to make. In the Survey Votes for Women 2004 the surrvey question asked was for women to prioritize what they wanted the president to focus on. That abortion made the top ten is pretty significant. Of course abortion rights activists would like to see choice given a higher priority. I would too. But maybe Maslow’s Hierarch of Needs partially explains the results.
As to the Quinnipiac University survey, the question asked was about Roe v. Wade. If you scroll down a little and actually read the paper you’d see who actually believes that abortion should be legal. Check it out. Five percent more women than men believe that it should be legal in all cases. The total number of men who think abortion should be legal is more than the total number of women. However those results fall within the margin of error. I’m not a statistician but if what you are trying to say is that women are becoming less interested in their reproductive rights, your facts don’t back your assumption.
I’d love to stick around and debate. But <sigh> I’ve got to clean the house
; ) no really …. : (
is the diarist’s thesis that pro-choice women are in the majority.
I agree with her that, according to most polls and surveys over the years the appears to be true. However, that fact has not stopped the unabashedly anti-choice party from consistently winning elections ever since being against abortion became part of the Republican platform and being pro-choice became part of the Democratic platform.
In order for this to be true, at least one of the following must also be true:
To respond to your questions on the statistical validity of the points I’ve made, you are correct that more women then men responded that abortion should be legal in all cases, but in the same question on the survey, more women then men also responded that abortion should be illegal in all cases too. Women were just more absolutist then men on this issue. Also, the +/- 3% margin of error, does mean that those responses do provide evidence in favor of the points I have made, although it is true that there remains a chance — probably less than 10%, given 3-5 point difference between men and women on those questions — that the results are not true.
I’m a newby and just learning, but I wonder something about polls about abortion. Could it be a matter of semantics, rather than priorities? I most certainly would say I don’t want more abortions….but would never, ever say that a woman doesn’t have a right to chose her own solution to a pregnancy. Perhaps the polls are somewhat skewed in terms of mentioning “abortion” as the issue, rather than choice? In reality, isn’t this whole issue about choice rather than the physical act of an abortion itself?
Just wondering….
Sue
Yes indeed. Often, “anti-abortion” is translated as “anti-choice”, and “pro-choice” is translated as “pro-abortion”. For me, and for most pro-choice people here I’ve talked to, the main issue is indeed choice. We are not necessarily for abortion, but believe that the woman is the one who has the right to determine whether or not it is ethical for her to have an abortion. I do not see how anyone can oppose this idea and call themselves progressive, as it seems to stem from the very basis of progressive politics.
Personally, I’d like to see a reduction in the number of abortions, and the best – nay, only – way to do that is to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies. Which also means improving their economic situation…
and how you ask the question can lead to different results. The polls I’ve cited were done for the express purpose of determining how women vote, and how important legalized abortion is, and they are generally accepted as pretty non-biased. For example, the Votes for Women 2004 survey, asks women how important abortion is an an issue compared to nine other issues, but responding that it is important does not imply being either for or against legalized abortion. Women who responded that it was very important are against abortion, and some women who responded that it was not important are for it.
The terms pro-life and pro-choice are also politically loaded and are often inappropriate as well. For me the question is whether you are in favor of abortion rights or against them. I’m against them, but that does not have to mean that I think abortion should be criminalized. Likewise, many who are in favor of abortion rights are personally opposed to abortion in practice.
…on this diary, by one person in particular. I won’t deign to answer all of the ridiculous distortions of facts and flat-out lies here and there, but will rather do it in one place.
First, the right to control one’s own body is a fundamental right. Only in totalitarian states do people not have the right to control their bodies–this is a fundamental right from which all others flow.
Second, in the 2004 election, the abortion rights issue was NOT a major factor in deciding people’s votes.
The answer to THIS poll question–
“What one issue mattered most to you in deciding how you voted for president?”
–was abortion–3%.
That’s right, only 3% of all voters said that Kerry’s or Bush’s positions on abortion was THE issue for them.
Source: http://pollingreport.com/2004.htm
In response to THIS poll question–
“Which of the following best represents your views about abortion? The choice on abortion should be left up to the woman and her doctor. Abortion should be legal only in cases in which pregnancy results from rape or incest or when the life of the woman is at risk. OR, Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.”
–55% of the respondents said abortion should be left up to a woman and her doctor, which means it is considered a private matter and not one for public enquiry.
Thus, from the viewpoint of human rights, and from the somewhat less important viewpoint of political expediency, pro-choice is the right position to take.
that polling results depend to a great extent on how they phrase the questions.
My own completely unscientific poll of thousands of women and their loved ones over the last dozen years has absolutely persuaded me that just about all Americans approve of safe and legal elective abortion in three circumstances: rape, incest, and ME.
The problem is getting them to repeat those opinions outside the walls of an abortion clinic.
That’s why I chose the poll questions I did from the many that were available–because I thought they were the ones that elicited the most honest answers.
The poll question I’d like asked and answered is, “Do YOU want access to abortion for yourself (if you are a woman) and your family members (whether you are a man or a woman)?”
Some of these questions do ask that, but in a less direct way–and the answer is always a majority in favour of choice.
Not only that, but since this is a human rights issue, a majority is desirable but not necessary–after all, what if a majority of Americans favoured putting black people back into slavery? Would that make it o.k.? Moral? Legal?
Endorsing an anti-choice candidate to support a pro-choice party requires a blind-faith trust that that party’s advocacy for choice will be strong enough to offset the candidate’s advocacy against it. Markos felt that that trust in the Democratic Party was warranted; and I’m willing to concede that he was probably right.
But what he didn’t consider is that any group advocating for a particular issue outside the party is implicitly founded on the assumption that blind-faith trust in the party isn’t warranted. When faced with a decision, NARAL must do more than determine what policy best supports abortion rights — they must determine what policy best supports those rights assuming that the Democratic Party is not the most dependable advocate. They have to start with that assumption — it’s the basis for their own existence as a separate entity.
What Markos should have been asking isn’t “is NARAL doing the best thing for abortion rights”, but rather, “how can the Democratic Party earn enough trust from abortion rights supporters that groups like NARAL won’t be necessary?”
Their policy is to support the pro-choice candidate and when there are two, they support the incumbant for loyalty. That is the policy of every single issue advocacy group.
If they did not follow that policy they would not be trustworthy.
Besides the democratic party is showing themselves to be very UNtrustworthy on matters of choice.
If the Democratic Party were the undisputed best advocate for every issue, there wouldn’t be single-issue advocacy groups. That’s why all such groups support candidates before parties — because they have less than perfect faith in the parties.
That is why the anger at NARAL is a waste of time. If the democrats would stop trying to replace pro-choice republicans with anti-choice democrats, they might have the seats they want already and NARAL would be endorsing them.
Personally, I don’t believe in elective abortion (abortion not mandated by medical need) after the medically accepted standard week of fetal viability. If the fetus is capable of surviving outside of the womb, I believe abortion crosses the line into murder. I have arguments with my husband about it; he doesn’t believe there should be restrictions on abortion at all.
I also hold the very unpopular opinion that decisions on abortion regulation shouldn’t be made by men. It doesn’t affect their bodies, and all too many men, when they realize that fatherhood wasn’t what they wanted – leave. Men hate that opinion. A lot of women do, too. I don’t much care. No, there’s no legal way to enforce that opinion of mine, but I hold it anyway. And nothing bugs me more than a man telling me what decisions I should make about a pregnancy.
Not trying to start anything, just offering another stance held by a Democratic woman.
Women don’t abort after viability unless it is a matter of their health or life or in the case where the fetus is not viable with life. In other words if the fetus is going to kill them, cause sersious health problems or die at birth women can’t abort after about 24 weeks.
Oh, I never assumed that abortion after that time was a common choice, and I can’t imagine a society in which it would be. I’ve known women who’ve had abortions and know that it is never an easy decision, no matter how devastating the effects of a child may be at a given time. I just don’t voice my opinion all that often. So much of the abortion debate is difficult because of the relativity of opinion, and I’m honestly still working mine out. I feel I need to have a definite idea of what I think the laws would be in my ideal world, so I can make decisions based on the world we actually live in.
I was sitting here thinking about whether I would actually vote for abortion restrictions, and I can only see myself doing so if we had a spectrum-vote, with options from entirely banning abortion to no restrictions at all given on the ballot. But until then, I will vote choice over restriction every time.
I’m largely just thinking on the keyboard, I suppose would be the brief way of saying all of this.
Teresa, I wrote my thoughts on the whole Casey/Santorum issue here. While I totally agree with you that we should have had an honest primary process here in PA, it just plain hasn’t happened, and isn’t likely to.
Maria
It’s Cabin Girl’s diary, you have to scroll down a bit to get to my comment. Not sure how to link to a specific comment.
I also feel that in matters of women’s civil rights Casey is no better than Santorum and if women accept that “at least he is no Santorum” we can forget having more influence in the future. Power respects only those who will use it.
So if it’s Casey vs. Santorum, you’re just going to stay home? How is that using your power? Seriously, I don’t mean to be snarky. I just don’t see how abstaining or voting green and ending up with 6 more years of Santorum is better or more powerful than holding one’s nose and voting for Casey.
It sends a statement to the Democratic party that compromising on women’s rights and forcing them to bear children is not acceptable.
I have to respectfully disagree. Far better to send someone who will vote for access to birth control, who’s on the record as being supportive of child care, and other issues important to real families, than to spend the next 6 years being represented by Santorum, who talks the “pro-family” line while supporting proposals that hurt families.
Are you sure he’ll vote for access to birth control? Absolutely?
Also, I’m not so sure it is better. Not only does it create the abovementioned slow erosion, legitimizing Santorum’s position, but if it’s not part of a wider progressive offensive, it does nothing for the issues you mention (as there is no Democratic majority) and helps the Republicans destroy human rights. (And control over your body is a human right.)
This is part of the problem with the focus on swing states. We need a wider offensive that does not compromise on morality, instead of focusing on individual battles so much that we get annihilated everywhere else. Santorum’s irrelevant. The larger drive for progressive values is important, and Pennacchio is a part of that. Casey is not. The choice is clear.
As I said in my comment on the other diary, the claim for access to b/c comes from Hafer’s endorsement statement. Don’t get me wrong, I think Pennachio best represents my views and I’ll vote for him in the primary. But I think it unlikely that he will win, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that the average voter west of Harrisburg doesn’t know who he is.
So, let me get this straight. If Pennachio doesn’t win the PA primary, which in all likelyhood will be the case, you think that pro-choice PA voters should stay home rather than vote for Casey. Am I stating your position correctly?
I just wanted to throw in my favorite line:
IF MEN COULD GET PREGNANT
ABORTION WOULD BE A SACRAMENT
In the Daily Telegraph of the 8 June there is an article about the move underway to not rescussitate babies born at 24 weeks. (sorry could not post link)
Before Roe, women who did not have access to illegal abortions, would drink inordinate amounts of Gin, take Quinine tablets, jump off furniture and yes, ask someone to punch them hard in their stomach. I know, cos I did the first three, couldnt find anyone willing to do the last for me. They did not work so I was condemned to a life time of worrying and grieving for my child who I unwillingly placed.
I wish all who are now trying to undermine the Democratic position on abortion would pay close attention to the policies espoused by the right.. Adoption is the answer to abortion for these folks. The $1.4 B annual Adoption industry are big contributors to Prolife…any connection?
Instead of trying to stop a woman’s right to choose, why dont we spend more time on prevention, with sex education and contraception available to all.
Just the thoughts of an old gal who lived in the “dark ages” of women’s rights.
Rosalind
When I was pregnant the secound time I considered all of those options. Abortion was legal then (1982)but the shame still makes a good option almost impossible for too many women.
Don’t want to disrupt the flow of this diary again, but I just had to drop in here to day with full apologies to you. I am so sorry to have rushed in here without all the facts and please attribute that to my weariness. No excuse of course.
I have a tiny suggestion if you don’t mind but perhaps you should start a part 2 of this diary and continue the discussion there. The diaries get very hard to load over 100 comments and I am on cable.
Again, please accept my apologies.
BTW I dreamed of Booman trib last night during the 4 hours of sleep I got. My dream was full of millions of diaries and my task seemed to be to read them all.
Could be your browser/system, too. What browser are you using? Does your system have at least 512 megs of RAM?
I am using Opera generally with 1/2 of rams above. but normally I can load anything in seconds, now it has been taking minutes, so it’s really a small complaint and I am spoiled I guess. I have had to switch back and forth with firefox, it’s working better on this site, but I prefer the features on Opera.
Working on the rams thing, hope to upgrade soon. Thanks.
I don’t know much about Opera, so I’m not sure how to improve that. Are you using the default Nested view for comments?
Try Ram Booster, Diane.
I also use either Opera or FireFox (have cable modem), and life online still rips the “innards” out of the poor ‘puter!
http://tinyurl.com/aqslf
I am already using free memory pro, isn’t that the same thing. Normally my computer is very fast and problem free but there has been a band width server problem with Boomantrib that he is working on, he wasn’t expecting growth this fast and hasn’t switched to bigger server yet. That’s what I get from some comments he has made previously.
So glad to hear from another Opera user, do you like it, say I have an old computer diary, do you want to come there and talk computers so we can take it off this page and not widen it too much.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/4/21/21447/8706
Just glanced at it again and it has my whole computer history, lol, so if you like go there and we can chat more.
I was not sure that it was okay to do a part II but I will. I am having trouble opening it and I have cable access.
No apologies needed Diane. Thank you though. = )
We are in the habit here of doing part 2 and so on because most of us it seems are building a collection of subjects topics, which we hope someday to be able to put in an more accessible format, for reference.
I am on high speed interenet even and ususally have no trouble on this site, but then there was little traffic. Recent coments seems to be my bugaboo lately. I am wondering how that will work when the numbers of comments increase. Didn’t mean to start this computer, loading stuff here but, I guess I did.
Maybe I will come to your diary to add a comment on your subject as I had some thoughts last night while mulling this whole thing over.
Here http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/6/11/92747/3616