Not Sarah Palin
Digby is at it again:
Yesterday Debbie Wasserman-Shultz came out swinging against the latest GOP assault on women, calling the new requirement that only those who are the victims of “forcible” rape be entitled to government funded abortion, “violence against women” and she’s right. This is a strong element of the abortion debate and it gets to the very essence of the anti-abortion argument, namely that pregnancy is God’s punishment for female sexuality. (That’s so twisted, it’s hard to even wrap your mind around it.)
What is even more twisted is Digby saying that when it’s not true. The “very essence of the anti-abortion argument” is that abortion is the killing of a human being.
I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian church and I still have contacts on the inside. When Roe v. Wade legalized abortion I was still in junior high. I didn’t escape from Holy Rollerism until my junior year in high school. I was in my twenties when the pro-life movement began to pick-up steam.
In the past forty years I have watched, listened to and occasionally participated in countless formal and informal debates about abortion. I have read thousands of articles and editorials from both sides of the argument. In all that time neither side has budged an inch. It’s still the pro-life oranges versus the pro-choice apples. One side argues the sanctity of human life while the other side talks about autonomy and a woman’s right to control her own body.
I have never in my life seen a pro-life advocate argue that “pregnancy is God’s punishment for female sexuality.”
I’m not saying that no one on the pro-life side has ever said it. Some of them fundies are nuttier than a box of Payday bars so I’m sure that there are a few out there that would agree with that statement. But whenever I have seen that argument or others like it the source is invariably someone on the left claiming that it is what people on the right believe.
So what is the point of misrepresenting the pro-life argument?
You’re not going to change the minds of any pro-lifers because they know that’s not what they believe. That would be like trying to convince Hillary supporters that they are racists for not supporting Obama.
Our country is politically polarized and abortion is one of the “wedge issues” that drive people apart. Neither side wants to resolve the issue, they just want to use it to demonize the other. It’s kind of hard to demonize the pro-lifers if you concede that they are motivated by a sincere belief that a fetus is a human being. But just because they are sincere doesn’t mean they are right.
The debate over abortion will probably never go away. It involves religion, philosophy, human sexuality and morality. It’s not a problem that can be resolved by using the scientific method. Many people feel conflicted over the issue because they agree with both sides. But just because we can’t resolve it doesn’t mean we have to keep allowing the issue to be cynically used for partisan politics.
BTW – Demonization and civility don’t mix.
The Crawdad Hole 
There’s misrepresentation going on both sides. The anti-choicers took a hold of the language, making the discussion revolve around abortion instead of the right of choice. So, I am not crying for them too much on that one.
Thursday tabloids are out
My background is similar to yours, but I disagree. It’s not said loud and clear by respectable anti-abortionists. And it’s not a punishment for sexuality as such. Just for promiscuity, and/or ‘unprotected sex.’
Not loud and clear, but it’s an easy sub-text of certain comments.
“If you make an exception of rape, isn’t that killing a child also?” — “Well, in that case the woman has suffered enough.”
I am “tepidly” pro-choice. I believe a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy, but I can’t understand how she could do it unless her life is at stake. Kind of like shooting someone. When someone shoots someone else in self-defense, we don’t call it murder. Most true pro-lifers that I know don’t want to make an exception for rape, but they understand that not to pretty much dooms their case for making abortion laws stricter.
If abstinence was the absolute law of the land, would abortion take on a different role?
I can’t count the number of men I’ve known through my life who demanded abortion when their girlfriends got pregnant.
Is abandoning the pregnant girlfriend a form of abortion by the father?
I’m solidly prochoice, and always have been. I don’t pretend to know what’s best for other people when they find themselves looking at the rest of their lives doing something they don’t want to do, or don’t believe they can do. It’s their decision to make.
I don’t think it’s necessary to understand other people’s choices. It’s necessary for them to understand their own choices.
The young post wave feminists talk a lot about being attacked by the right for their promiscuity…for exercising their sexual freedom and empowerment as they would say. I don’t spend enough time with the political right to know how big a deal abstinence is or how puritan their views are on sexuality in general. But I assume it’s there.
Digby has turned it into a big strawman in any case.
Digby must have a whole barn full of hay, because there’s a lot of strawman building over there.
Digby is definitely wrong on the essence of the right’s argument, but she’s not wrong on the effect, or that part of the reason for many anti-abortion views is that we STILL hold women responsible for all their evil sexuality. It was Eve tempting Adam with the apple, don’t forget.
There’s often a big difference between motivations and the reasons people give for their beliefs. Obama says he wants hope and change, but is actually motivated by his corporate overlords to help them to all the country’s (world’s) wealth. You will never hear him say that. And even if he sincerely believes he’s working for that illusive hopey changey hopiness, the effect on all of us is we’re a whole lot poorer.
The same with abortion. Digby wrote her point badly (suprise) but there is a valid point there.
I think that was broadly true of many in the pro-life movement 40 years ago. As time goes on, I think it has become less and less true for all but a handful.
I think one of the mistakes we pro-choice advocates make is that we keep trying to slay old dragons that are no longer the primary opponent. Not that they are not there at all, but no longer the prevalent mindset of the opposition and their arguments.
So long as we’re trying to slay someone and not just hold hands and sing kumbaya.
EXACTLY. The right hit on a secret truth when they said that Liberals were secretly socialists- they were pushing for the re-distribution of wealth. Well, hell, WE ARE. We want less in the pockets of CEOs of huge corporations and more in the pockets of the working poor and middle class. It’s not politically popular to admit it, but its DEFINITELY true. So let’s admit some of these, dirty little truths- and this is one of them. That abortion is NOT about whether or not babies die- it is about controlling morality and trying to hold back change by controlling women (specifically, yes, by punishing them for their sexuality).
I am Rabidly, used-to-volunteer-for-a-clinic Pro-Abortion (think that the pro-choice framing was a mistake), and yes that is goddamn well the undercurrent. Hell, I was told by a close friend only a few days ago that the reason she chose not to abort was that she felt that she needed to bear the consequences of her irresponsibility. This was someone raised in a pretty fundie environment who’s come around as an adult, btw. But YES, I have had that argument made to my face, many times.
I am and always have been pro choice. When I was young, it was much more black and white. Now that I am a bit older, I realize (especially after working at a clinic at a hospital) that all too often, abortion is used in lieu of birth control. This generation has become lazy. When we were young, the bc choices were few. My daughter just mentioned a song by Lil Wayne where he raps about using a condom. I asked her how many kids he had – she thought somewhere in the neighborhood of 9. My first thought is, it took 9 kids for him to get it???
What bugs me about the anti group, is that I don’t see enough alternatives offered to women who might want to consider adoption. Why aren’t they putting their resources to better use? Help the girls now…make it easier for them to choose life.
I have always told both my son and daughter – both partners practice safe sex- don’t rely just on the condom alone or the pill alone. Another area that is sadly lacking….parental communication and education.
Oy, I could go on and on and on….
See, for me it was getting older and working at a clinic that made me MORE rabid about making abortion available to everyone at all times. I MET those girls who used abortion as birth control. If they can’t be trusted to protect their own safety, I don’t particularly want them to be in possession of a child, even for nine months. You can do a lot of fucking damage to a kid in utero.
I agree with you. It’s a wedge issue used by both sides. And civility? Oh that’s so last week.
Obama is giving another major speech right now. It’s on faith. He’s at the National Prayer Breakfast. Didn’t he snub that event last year? And the year before that? hmmm….too close to re-election I guess. They’re playing a clip from “Braveheart” and he’s watching with that chin in the air pose. MO is there too….she wasn’t looking in the same direction as Barry. Looks like she’s not watching but they probably have multiple screens.
Most wedge issues have turned into wedgie issues for me. Uncomfortable and annoying, but basically a distraction.
But for those that care about it, the wedge issues are used by pols as choke collars, not just to separate but to control.
You can be aware of that and still care about the ISSUE though. Gay marriage and abortion aren’t going to dictate my vote, but I’m still going to donate and volunteer and push for actual action on that front by ANY and EITHER party.
Donate and volunteer to actually USEFUL orgs. Not the parties.
I agree. Support the single-issue orgs rather than the pols who try to use them for votes.
Super Bowl oddity: No cheerleaders for Packers or Steelers http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2011/02/a-super-bowl-oddity-no-cheerleaders-for-packers-or-steelers/1
Wonder if it has anything to do with QBs from both teams being involved in harrassment scandals in the past year.
News to me. I didn’t think either of those QB’s had those issues.
Nope – Heard on the news that the steelers have not had a professional squad since around 1970, I think they said.
And the packers have not had one since sometime in the 1980s. Or some such.
There are also a few other NFL teams without squads too.
Roethlisberger and Favre (former packer) have both had harrassment controversies. They must have gone away.
OT on Egypt, lambert is still blogging the feed on corrente http://www.correntewire.com/live_cairo_9#more
I prefer the AJ live blog as a source — sometimes watching video gets too emotional for me.
My my gut feeling:
Mubarak has to go, at this point, the USA keeping him there, or being seen to prop up his regime, will only further unrest in the neighboring countries and increase the legitimacy of the radical islamic elements.
The delicate question is how to help make sure this goes peacefully without letting the wolves rule.
I am pretty sure that behind the scenes the USA & EU is doing its best to twist Mub’s arm into leaving while the going is good.
My guess is they are going to ask the VP to be interim President until Sept elections.
I’m following. Reform might be more possible with an improving economy (and visa versa), but would that happen with new leadership. Not seeing it. In any case, nobody should be in power for 30 years in our times.
“‘Death Panels’ Revisited”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703960804576120103417920260.html
wow, a “SP was right” column on wsj. *boggle*
Don’t agree with the Journal’s preference for private healthcare coverage system. But the piece does remind me of this tweet from yesterday.
@fredthompson: Obama mocked individual mandate on Ellen show. Used to mock Bush tax cuts, too. Does this guy pass EVERYTHING he makes fun of?
Sadly, that’s good. Why do these “new Dems” make that so easy for Repubs. It’s as if they’re being paid to be the court jesters.
‘Death panel’ is a good description of Obama’s FOCCCR, which would make an enforceable standard nationwide for what care could be paid for in what circumstances (eg no new knee for a terminal patient). But no one would even be allowed to appear before FOCCCR to plead their individual case.
Things got muddied when it was applied to a consultation between patient and doctor about Living Will etc.
Still not sure how SP meant to apply it.
I’m prochoice, but I can have a reasonable discussion with prolifers. There is actually quite a bit of common ground.
The conflict reminds me a little of the womens temperance society versus womens right to vote. Everybody was trying to improve the quality of womens lives, some people thought you could do it by banning alcohol, some thought all would be well if women could just vote. Of course, neither legislative achievement delivered equality, but they both paved the path to get us closer.
The left is completely capable of misogyny too, and of punishing women for their sexuality. Obama himself said he didn’t want women punished with a baby. Far too often men on the left advocate choice because they don’t want to be burdened with child support, with evidence of a sex scandal, with the inconvenience. To add insult to injury, they often toy with abortion rights simply to score political points, with little or no thought about the women involved. How easy it is to just negotiate away in a health care bill when you genuinely don’t give a damn.
I think when Obama let slip that little bit about not wanting his daughter “punished with a baby,’ he was speaking for a fair segment of the so-called pro-life movement. I remember two many young women being punished for having a baby: forced into hasty, unwanted marriages, disowned by their parents or hustled out of town “to visit her nana in Cuernavaca” for a semester or a year.
I have heard pro-life women complain that “I had to have my baby, why shouldn’t some other girl have to have hers,” so yes, the idea of a child as punishment is at least a current amon the anti-choicers. I think the most monstrous thing I ever heard, though, was a (male0 member of my then-church who argued that perhaps “God wants a certain child to be born and rape was the only way that could happen.” (He got no sympathy from the priest and left the church shortly after that; Episcopalians were way too liberal for him.)
Yes, but it’s not anymore supportive of women’s rights to have people on the left saying things like “I’m not going to use a condom, the stupid %%@ can just go have an abortion.” Or ridiculing Bristol Palin as if she made the “wrong” choice. Or any other numerous misogynistic statements that don’t support women being the ones who get to make the choice. Far too often abortion is presented as an important convenience for men, rather than an example of women’s bodily autonomy.
Not sure it is “presented” as a convenience for men, but often enough taken that way.
First off, the guy who won’t use a condom, unless the couple is deliberately trying to conceive, needs to be put out the door as fast as he can get his shorts on. Selfish asshat, probably a lousy lover.
Which said, I’ve never seen this presented as an argument for abortion by left or right. It may be an attitude or an intention among some men, but I doubt political affiliation has anything to do with it.
As far as Bristol Palin goes, her choice has nothing to do with the ridicule from lefty doods. She’d be equally attacked, as a hypocrite, if she’d had an abortion. Her “sin” is being her mother’s daughter, nothing more nor less. If you doubt this, imagine Malia Obama six years older and pregnant. If she had an abortion, she’d be cheered, by exactly the same idiots who ridicule Bristol,as a liberated woman; if she had the baby, her courage and love for her child would be celebrated.
“There is actually quite a bit of common ground.”
Certainly. SWMNBN looked for that, saying she was “all about contraception” and promoting sex eduation in schools.
Both sides can agree on those preventatives (except for some vocal extremists). Imo then the discussion should go to why the currently available contraceptives aren’t doing the job, and how to get better ones developed (or made more available).
Btw, I have a wild hope that if SWMNBN actually became POTUS, she’d go after the drug companies to do their job just as she went after the Alaska oil companies. Contraceive here, contraceive now. 😉
SWMNBN? Do you mean Palin? It actually takes longer to type SWMNBN than to type Palin. Why bother? The boycott strikes me as idiotic, I must say.
It’s ironic, since SP = Voldemort on many lefty blogs.
I view all rape as forceable.
What bothers me about people so upset about this forcible rape thing is that they must believe that there is something like non forcible rape.
The FBI, cops, legal documents all have used the term “forcible rape” to include things like incest and date rape. It’s redundant, but it’s common terminology. To complain about the term seems to imply that some people believe there can be non forcible rape, which bothers me. Whoopi’s “rape-rape” definition isn’t any better then what the Republicans are being accused of.
If the new law covers incest, date, and drugged rape, it may be statutory rape they are debating about.
I brought up the “legal term” thing below. If the bill was written by a lawyer (as many are), then the use of that term may have no sinister overtone at all. Or it might. But one can’t be certain based of the word “forcible” alone.
How is the bill in question using the term “forcible”?
Because my understanding is that many state laws use that term for all rape. If it’s a drug in her drink, they still call it by that term, legally. So one can’t assume that this would exclude all but violent rape.
legally, without consent is forcible; that includes date rape (there is no consent if you are unable to consent), statutory rape (where no legal consent is possible until a certain age), etc.
I don’t buy that all or even most pro-lifers are all about controlling sexuality, or punishing promiscuity with a child. I know too many of them to buy that,
They really do believe that they are fighting for human lives, and are no less sincere in that belief than those who tried to end slavery.
As for exceptions for rape being proof that they are – well, not necessarily. They view pregnancy as a choice, and that choice (to potentially have a child and accept responsibility for it) takes place when one chooses to have sex. They allow a rape exception not because the woman is “morally pure” in that case, but because she never exercised any choice.
Our laws require that men have to support their offspring. We take the position that the moment he made the choice to be a father is the moment at which he had sex. Whether or not he intended or wanted to produce a child is not considered relevant – he’s still responsible for it. Yet we don’t say that we are “punishing men for having sex”.
One can disagree with the pro-life platform and still understand the gist of their reasoning. And apart from some real wackadoodles, most are not about sexuality. They sincerely care about what they view as human life.
that choice (to potentially have a child and accept responsibility for it) takes place when one chooses to have sex
I am pro-choice and I agree with this. Children are the natural result of sex. All contraception is a form of thwarting nature, and nature can be pretty darn wily and stubborn.
I think sex is a big deal and if you’re going to have sex, pick someone who you wouldn’t mind being a fellow-parent with it. (an argument for Levi Johnston to enter a monastery)
I am pro-choice primarily because of my libertarian bent. I don’t agree that at no point is that a human life until after it’s born. That’s a denial of reality, IMO. It may not be at conception, but somewhere along the line it becomes an aware human being. I’ve been in the medical field for too long, and know too much about fetal development to buy that.
I’m pro-choice because I believe in both life and liberty as equally fundamental rights. And even if it is a human life, one human being is not entitled to the use of another’s physical body without their consent. I have no problem with acknowledging that one is choosing to end a life, at least in later stages. I have no problem with anyone arguing that it’s a selfish thing to do, and ought not be done (if that’s what you believe). Argue away, and try to persuade not to do it.
I just believe that the State cannot force one human being to give over their body for the use of another human being.
Life begins when they graduate from medical school. 🙂
Imo this sort of thing (“somewhere along the line it becomes an aware human being”) is basically a RELIGIOUS issue, on which every individual woman has a right to her own opinion.
bemused leftist, it is no more a solely religious issue than society deciding at what point life ENDS is a solely religious issue. We make those sorts of judgements all the time, in protocols for withdrawing life support, based on science coupled with gut feeling coupled with public consensus. We try to make some determination, imperfect though it may be.
Science has a place in the discussion. “At some point”, yes it is a life. Unless you are going to contend that what we would consider human consciousness and human brain function miraculously appears upon transiting the birth canal. The science does not support that.
WCMB, we’ve had this discussion elsewhere.
I’m sorry, but your argument uses several premises which are in the province of religion, not ‘science’.
The decision, and the premises it rests on, are matters for each woman to decide for herself.
WCMB, I’m trying to make this short and inoffensive. So here are some shots from various anglel, and I’ll use the old term: ‘soul’.
Science can’t prove the absence –OR the presence — of a soul. Appealing to ‘science’ to support your opinion is just as harmful as appealing to ‘The Bible’ — it bullies others away from their own gut feeling and their own freedom.
You say: “protocols for withdrawing life support, based on science coupled with gut feeling coupled with public consensus.” But consensus is based on gut feelings, which are based on religious teachings. (I’m using ‘religious’ in a broad sense to include atheism, ‘deep ecology’, whatever.)
Can your instruments find evidence of some special Human Consciousness(tm) in a human fetus — that could not be found in an adult, functioning dog or cat (or for that matter, in a dog or cat fetus)? If not, then it’s back to preferring the human fetus, as some prefer the human fertilized egg, because of what it can BECOME, instead of what it is at the time.
WORD.
The thing is, there’s this convenient dividing line wherein the life stops being parasitic to one woman in specific and becomes something that ANYONE can care for, and that is at the point that it leaves the host’s body. Until that point, it should have exactly the same rights as a tapeworm.
I think we should walk away from the when life begins argument because it’s a strawman. A tumor is alive, a diseased limb is alive, but we still “kill” them when medically necessary. People with permanent brain damage in comas, with no chance of recovery, are alive. An intruder is alive but sometimes self defense is your only option. To get technical sperm is “alive”, at least for a little while. It gets “killed” all the time.
The reality is that people kill. We kill plants and animals for food, we kill bad cells, we kill in self defense, we kill each other in war. The bottom line in the abortion debate is do women have the right to self defense? Do they have the right to kill to preserve themselves? Are they competent enough to make those kind of moral decisions? I say absolutely, yes, especially when it comes to their own bodies and their own lives.
One more point. I’d also challenge WCMB’s dismissal of the idea that something importaqnt changes when the being leaves the womb and begins breathing on its own instead of receiving its oxygen through the umbilical cord. Common sense tells us that many changes happen then. If her ‘scientific tests’ have not been used to compare brain activity on the day before birth with brain activity on the day after birth — then ‘science’ has not explored this possibility.
Think of the difference between being in the womb vs doing ones own breathing, being exposed to outside stimuli, etc. This could easily be responsible for a big change/reorganization in ‘consciousness’. A devout and learned Jew I know, cites Genesis about the first breath being when ‘man becomes a living soul.’
Again, these are issues on the level of religion, for each woman to decide for HERSELF.
yttk, excellent point: “A tumor is alive, a diseased limb is alive” … and so is a tapeworm.
” The science does not support that.” = “The delegate math does not support Hillary’s candidacy.”
ORGASMS are a natural result of sex. Should you be able to take legal action if your partner doesn’t deliver? If your partner turns out to be infertile, should you be able to hold them as having fraudulently lured you into a relationship?
Sex is NOT just about reproduction. Our closest evolutionary relative, the bonobo uses it to navigate all kinds of tricky social situations. Homosexuality is prevalent in nature. Fetuses masturbate in utero. Sex is NOT just about reproduction, even if it comparatively often ends up with that result.
No, I’m just saying that when people with functional reproductive systems have straight sex there is always the possibility of a pregnancy – no contraceptive method is 100% guaranteed.
I think if young people realized that fact they’d be less willing to go to bed with complete jerks.
I think you’re mistaken. I know that there’s been some pretty egregious lapses in sex education in this country, but people make stupid decisions about sex for plenty of reasons, and nobody is going to reason a teenager out of behaving irrationally. Hell, there are plenty of adults who pick their sexual partners on the basis of “Would I like to Fuck them?” rather than “Would they make a good Mommy/Daddy?”. Most adults, frankly.
nobody is going to reason a teenager out of behaving irrationally
Sadly, I can seem to stop trying.
oops… can’t
It’s not either/or. A person can sincerely care about ‘the unborn’, but still have a judgemental attitude toward the mother which shows when discussing borderline cases.
There is a real problem with demonizing the other side and assigning stereotypes to them that often have no basis in fact. If our side says it, it’s good, if the other side says it, it’s bad. An example is Salon who just wrote an article about the impact of porn and how it’s harming sexuality. A couple of feminist bloggers really liked the message. And yet the day before Maggie Gallagher, wingnut extraordinaire, made nearly the same point and was dismissed as being uptight, wanting to ban sex, disempowering women, etc, etc. Perhaps she wants all those things, but the message she was supporting, the concept she was trying to communicate is the same one anti-porn feminists have been discussing forever. Rather than find common ground or try to work on the issue together, we demonize each other and porn marches on.
Yeah, I’ve seen that kind of thing too, yttik. When a liberal talks about the dehumanizing aspects of a sex-obsessed culture, and its potential for negative effects on society, we are observing reality. When a conservative does the same, they are frigid uptight do-gooders.
Yes. Sometimes I wonder how reactive people can get. If a wingnust stated that arsenic is bad I wouldn’t be surpirsed if a lefty started arguing that it’s actually a health supplement
Notice how the unborn are innocent humans that need protection according to the Pro-Life crowd?
That is unless the womb that fetus is in resides above oil reserves or another natural resource we decide we can’t do without.
I like to point out that the end result is the same if it’s done in a clinic or by a 500 lb piece of ordinance.
Good point, Mr. Mike!
djmm
Abortion seems to be a political excuse for being able to righteously pass judgment on others. Look at all the subtopics it can create, and all come back to treatment and rights of women.
The decision to terminate a pregnancy for any reason whatsoever should be between the pregnant woman and her doctor. If you aren’t one of those two people, it’s none of your business. Plain and simple.
The decision to terminate a pregnancy is made by the woman. She hires a doctor to perform the procedure.
The biggest problem with demonizing opponents, especially on issues where there are broad swaths of the populace who disagree with you, is that it ends up making you look the idiot and hurts your case in the end.
Demonizing can sometimes work for public figures, but it never works long-term for segments of the public. Why? Because most americans have family, work with, have neighbors, etc, who are part of that demonized group.
When the left starts touting characterizations that are “awful evil mouth-breathing fanatical selfish crazy woman-hating” the average person raises eyebrows and thinks “You are the ones who sound unhinged to me. I know Jane-my-conservative-hairdreser, and that doesn’t describe her at all.”
*shrug* You might get a temporary bump from that kind of thing, but eventually the credibility you destroy is your own.
Yes, people do make themselves look ridiculous, and as you pointed out above, if you demonize your enemy, you’re trying to slay the wrong dragon. Know your enemy and all that, so you can combat their actual, real arguments, not the arguments you project upon them.
OT- Every time I refresh this screen Linda pops up first.
Dude – That movie scared the CRAAAAP out of me.
LOL! My sister has never forgiven me for what I did to her when that movie came out.
She had gone to see it with friends one evening. I hid under her bed (which was a rickety old antique brass thing), waited til she was settled in in the dark, then reached up with hands and feet and started shaking it. She almost had a damn heart attack.
I was bad.
LOL-
That may be funny now – But I would have about DIED.
I would have had the last laugh. I’d have peed all over you when I wet myself.
Laura Ingraham apparently missed the civility memo.
My discussions with pro-lifers have been more like this one:
The “safe, legal, and rare” phrase used for years by Dems is wielded as a weapon by Ingraham.
Big surprise.
oops no “embed” for me, evil supporter of baby murderers that I am. One more try:
To answer Laura, what other constitutional right should be safe legal and rare, how about self defense? People should have the right to shoot an intruder when all other options have failed, but it should remain a right that is safe, legal, and rare.
Good one. Turn it around to guns.
Unfortunately it’s impossible to “win” these arguments as they’re mostly religious arguments. And it’s especially tough if you have a shark like person on the other side who is agile and ruthless.
Years ago after one of my miscarriages I asked a priest, ” if life begins at conception, why can’t you baptize a miscarriage?” He could not give me an answer. At that time the church taught that an unbaptized baby went to limbo.
Pro life have to learn to value the child’s life after it is born. Example family needs help to support the child, give it.
Pro choice have to learn that choice means yes if I want to I can have a child.
Turning back the clock to before roe-vs- wade will just cost more women their lives.
Learning responsibility when having sex will lead to less abortions.
Abortion is not a step to be taken lightly. It is not to be used as a form of birth control.
Adoption should be made easier in the USA. People going to other countries to adopt when we have children here who need a home because of unnecessary regulations is just wrong.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE CHATTERING PEOPLE RULE
Now the UN says end population growth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12338901
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE CHATTERING PEOPLE R ULE
Joan Walsh has some effective marketing working on facebook. Meet Mubarak’s American fan club. Agree with me, or you’re a Mubarek lover like these monsters!! Reminds me a bit of some of their race baiting tactics.
Lovely. This is “the left” that the public gets to see. Talking about torture for conservative judges and “stringing up” Clarence Thomas or “sending him back to the fields”.
Is it any wonder that we are losing ground? Yes, the videographer goaded them. But the words came out of THEIR mouths, not his. It is completely understandable that the american people are beginning by and large to want nothing to do with the left. Because regardless of the issues, they are behaving like hateful, arrogant, hypocritical assholes.
disgusting – I stopped watching after he said Clarence should be sent back to the fields and Alito back to Sicily.
I sent this to a couple of friends, asking them to help call it out, and got told that I’m “always attacking my own side”. *sigh* This was my response:
I cannot count, over the years, the number of conversations I’ve had with my fellow liberals regarding the right’s responsibility to call out and reject their racists, their haters. And anytime they have failed in doing it vigorously enough, we have opined that it’s “proof” that they are in league with that lunatic fringe, that they are all the same monolithic hateful group.
I call out hate on my side because it is my fucking responsibility to do so. Because silence is agreement, and will be perceived as agreement by the voting public. It is my responsibility as a liberal to say as loudly as I can THAT SHIT IS NOT WHAT LIBERALISM IS ABOUT.
Quite frankly, one of the reasons that conservatives are on the ascendance in this country is because they have learned that lesson well, and generally call out true hateful speech quickly and loudly, and isolate their spewing lunatics from the movement as a whole. And if we don’t start doing the same on our side, we are sunk, no matter how much the MSM covers for our asses by ignoring it.
The public is watching, and if we don’t get on the ball, we are ALL going to be tarred with the brush of the people in that video.
We have to refudiate them.
For the pro Obama left, if you support Obama you can’t say anything wrong, if you don’t support Obama you can’t say anything right. That’s an over generalization but directionally true. For the more radical left that doesn’t necessarily support Obama, I rarely if ever see them calling out hateful speech from within their ranks.
The Obama left and the Hayden style left will not refudiate those people. But the rest of us should and loudly!
Just wondering–could you name me a conservative or two, apart from Barry Goldwater, who habitually called out Jerry Falwell and his wingnut religious bretheren for their anti-woman, anti-gay spewings and such nuggets of “Christian” preaching as “blow ’em away in the name of the Lord?”
John McCain in his maverick days.
Jake Tapper:
RT @camanpour: Just spent 20 minutes interviewing President Mubarak at the palace. Details to come.
Mubarak tells @CAmanpour “I was very unhappy about yesterday. I do not want to see Egyptians fighting each other.”
More Mubarak to @CAmanpour : “I don’t care what people say about me. Right now I care about my country, I care about Egypt. “
Mubarak told @CAmanpour he’s fed up, he’s had enough, he wants to go. But if he resigns today there will be chaos.
Mubarak tells @CAmanpour: “I never intended to run again, I never intended Gamal to be President after me”
@CAmanpour asked Mubarak how felt after Mon speech saying he would not run for President again. He told her he felt relief.
I haven’t turned on the TV at all yet today to watch footage. Still hoping some sort of sanity will prevail.
Chaos benefits no one but power-seeking bad players who see opportunities to seize control.
I hope Mubarek will really step down, and that the military can back some sort of interim govt. Something has to fill the void if an autocrat steps down. “Tear it down” is only half the answer. What goes in its place is the other half, and is just as important.
Something has to fill the void if an autocrat steps down.
Agree.
I am getting a bit annoyed at some leftish comments which seem to jump past optimism into blind pollyanaism. They are basically saying the USA has to openly pressure Mub to leave so democracy can prevail and everyone gets a pony. It’s not that simple. He has to leave but how it happens has real consequences.
Pollyanna is right, or just airheady…very responsive to the slightest emotional hook, not interested in details so long as they are on the right team…because there can only ever be two teams, the right one and the wrong one. A detained western journalist becomes the most tragic thing in the world, never mind the dozens of Egyptians that have been killed so far. Juvenile reactive emotions, get tired of seeing it.
Call me cynical but I’ve come to believe over the years that, without luck and hard work, the power grabbing cretins will take over at least initially. Hopefully that can be avoided in this case.
A little poly might not be a bad thing. 😉
The pony days are over. This is all going to end very badly I am afraid. Regardless of whether he goes now on his own accord, or in Sept, or is forced out, the results are going to be extremely unpleasant for all. Women of course will be getting the raw end of whatever deal is struck.
Last I heard, this Nobel guy doesn’t really want the job anyway. So he might be a good interim choice. Motivation to work himself out of a job. Win/win.
Pro-choice here. From teaching too many years, I have seen too many poor girls have babies because they needed someone to love them. And they had no means to take care of them. It is a conflicting issue–but I wish the anti–abortionist seemed as concerned for life after birth. Maybe that is my liberal indoctrination coming out.
Btw, the pic at the top of this post is terrifying.
Yes, that’s Regan from the Exorcist. Believe that’s there to keep people off the lawn. 🙂
If you look at the population at large, there’s a sort of middle of the road opinion about abortion. They are majority pro choice, but they don’t like third trimester abortions and they support parental notification laws.
There was a book called Freakonomics from a few years back that correlated the drop in crime in the early 90s to the decline in unwanted births due to the Roe v. Wade decision. The reality is that, left alone, most pregnancies will result in a human being. The other reality is that life will tend to be on a low rung of the socioeconomic ladder, be part of a broken parental structure and likely lead to to a low quality or even criminal life for that person.
Pro-choice supporters do a lot about legal and safe, but rare gets less attention. The pro-lifers will take care of the mother until they give birth, then cut her loose and keep the baby. Each side seems to be more invested in policy goals than making the situation of a pregnant woman who needs an abortion less common because she would actually have a support structure.
Very interesting breakdown of the factions within Egypt from an Arab Studies prof (via Lex at corrente)
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/516/why-mubarak-is-out
Very informative article, thanks votermom! I like how he dismisses the simplistic, dualistic western narratives projected on to Egypt, and then manages to make the complexities of the various threads leading into Egyptian current events understandable. Fascinating.
I’m fascinated by his breakdown of the national capitalists vs the crony capitalists.
agreed, here’s the key section…
That was a good read. I have no idea what the best solution is over there, so I’m just watching like everyone else.
Very interesting read. Thx votermom.
I haven’t had the TV on all day, and just flipped it on and saw the footage of the govt security vehicle deliberately running over protestors. Sickened.
How many reporters were targeted and beaten up? I know they put an ABC guy and two FOX reporters in the hospital.
lambert just posted a link of that, coincidentally
http://abcworldnews.tumblr.com/post/3089328425/weve-compiled-a-list-of-all-the-journalist-who
Oh, good, I’ll go look! I was perusing one of the Egypt threads over there earlier. Sounds like everyone is just as sickened as I am.
Are they getting rid of the media so they can crush the revolution without any witnesses?
“The revolution will NOT be televised”
Looks like it, myiq. Friday is the day when the largest protests were promised. It seems they want the cameras gone before then.
Friday afternoon after mosque is when jihad always starts, I’d say tomorrow will be the big day. The U.S isn’t airlifting anyone out tomorrow but they will resume the day after.
Oh, and internet has been restored. So the revolution will apparently be live-blogged.
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/traffic/?r=EG&l=WEBSEARCH&csd=1295702997009&ced=1296246600000
Pingback: Bros Before Hos, TraumPolitik And Obama Versus Hillary Clinton In Egypt, Part I — Hillary Is 44
Here’s the latest statement from Hillary.
Turned on cable news for the first time in what feels like months. Couldn’t watch any of the channels for more than a couple of minutes.
My background is similar to Myiq’s. I have met a broad array of “pro-life” individuals over the years. Some are truly pro-life. They are mostly genuinely concerned that a fetus has a soul from the moment of conception and therefore abortion is murder. Some will argue that the soul comes with the DNA (but backtrack when reminded that identical twins have the same DNA).
But some are also strongly against anyone having sex outside of marriage. But even some of the latter get their daughter abortions if they get pregnant in their teens. Others are simply supportive of them.
I have often asked anti-abortion foes these questions: do you support educating all about how their bodies work and about how contraceptives can allow them to plan pregnancies? Do you support making contraceptives freely available to those who cannot afford them? Because there is nothing better to limit the necessity for abortion. Some say yes; others say no. I do assume the second group are against sex outside marriage. But I consider those in the first group reasonable. There is much we could agree on and progress we could make.
I have had friends get pregnant unexpectedly (condoms are not perfect and the pill and tetracycline do not mix). When a few of them decided to give birth and keep their child, I have seen other liberal friends, usually men, get mad. “Why doesn’t she get an abortion!” “Remember, it’s her body, her choice,” I reply.
There can be unreasonable people on both sides of this issue.
djmm
The anti-contraception crowd has just shifted to anti-abortion because they can’t win the anti-contraception battle. Same people, different strategy.
The Vatican still says the only legitimize sex is to make babies.
In similar news of demonization and civility not mixing.
The DCCC is broke. Insulting half of your party doesn’t work well for donations.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/258817/dccc-debt-could-consume-campaigns
I found a truly tasteless photograph, a photograph I *must* share with someone. But who? And then I thought of myiq. Here it is, someone has “leaked” the police evidence of the Julian Assange Wikileaks broken condom. It’s not what I thought it would be.
http://gawker.com/5750486/pictures-of-julian-assanges-famous-leaky-condom-leaked?skyline=true&s=i
This condom is dedicated to myiq, who once gave me some good advice when the unthinkable happened and I almost fell in love with an Obot.
I didn’t click, euwww, you said leaky condom, or something like that ? 😉
Though I did hear Assange/wikileaks got nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize today?
Pictures of Julian Assange’s Famous Leaky Condom Leaked:
It’s a police report, fer cryin out loud, if yer lookin fer cheap thrills, this ain’t it.
Although the *click to enlarge* part sounds interesting.
Although the *click to enlarge* part sounds interesting.
heh
A Norwegian paper now has the state department cables, obtained independently, and is publishing them on their own schedule with newspapers from three other countries.
If you look at the second picture sideways, it’s a face. What’s up with that?