home

Anti-Abortion Madness

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 11:43:20 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

TChris wrote about the proposed South Dakota bill, introduced in the wake of the Supreme Court decision to rehear a case involving the legality of a partial-term abortion law, that would ban all abortions, except for those in which the life of the mother was in danger.

Jane at Firedoglake Lake devoted Thursday to abortion law posts. You should read them all. Markos of Daily Kos picked up on one of Jane's posts and ran with it.

With the news out of South Dakota, it's obvious that a woman's right to choose is in graver danger today than it has been in decades. (SD has passed an outright ban on abortion, as opposed to the "partial birth" case which the court will hear in the next session.) And one of those reasons is the replacement of pro-choice Justice Sandra Day O'Connor by Samuel Alito.

Joe Lieberman had the chance to take a stand on behalf of critical privacy issues, but abdicated.

With respect to the filibuster vote, as you may know, I was a member of the Senate "Gang of 14" that last year worked together to save the right of Senators to filibuster judicial nominations. As part of that agreement, I agreed to filibuster only in extraordinary circumstances. To me, this situation did not meet this extraordinary circumstances standard.

Lieberman then went on to cast a meaningless vote against Alito. Shockingly, NARAL couldn't contain its excitement at Lieberman's meaningless "no" vote. The Connecticut chapter of NOW understood the lack of significance of Lieberman's vote and issued a press release about it:

Senator Lieberman turned his back on this country''s women by refusing to support a filibuster against the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Judge Alito was confirmed yesterday by a vote of 58-42. While Connecticut NOW recognizes the 42 senators who voted against confirmation, the crucial vote happened the day before, when senators voted on whether or not to end debate on this nomination. Since the Republican leadership had enough votes to confirm Alito, a filibuster was the only way to prevent his confirmation.

"Connecticut NOW applauds Senator Dodd for his support of the filibuster. Shamefully his colleague, Senator Lieberman, demonstrated a lack of respect and concern for the women and girls of Connecticut and the nation by his refusal to support the filibuster. Senator Lieberman pointed out that he had studied Samuel Alito''s record carefully and so he was aware of the threat Alito poses to a woman's most basic constitutional right: to control her own body and decide whether or not to bear a child. As reported by The Hartford Courant, Senator Lieberman stated that he did not support a filibuster because Alito's confirmation vote did not meet the standard of "extraordinary circumstances" decreed by the Senate "Gang of 14." "This is a slap in the face to every woman of this state, no matter her political beliefs, economic status or race," stated Rosemary Dempsey, President of CT NOW. ""What could be a more '`extraordinary circumstance'' than when a woman''s right to make her own reproductive health decisions is seriously threatened?"

Bottom line:

His failure to support women''s rights at a time when they are most severely threatened by a Supreme Court Justice whose record is replete with contempt for same, makes it highly unlikely that CT NOW will support Lieberman in his bid for re-election.

Jane is asking her readers to contact the CT NOW chapter and urge that they support Ned Lamont in the senate primary. Markos thinks it's a great idea.

Connecticut National Organization for Women
135 Broad Street
Hartford, CT 06105
860.524.5978
860.524.1092 fax
www.ct-now.org
ct_now@yahoo.com

Kathleen Sloan, Executive Director
Rosemary Dempsey, President

I hope TalkLeft readers will take the plunge and reach out to CT Now and offer donations for Ned Lamont's campaign.As I've said many times, Joltin' Joe, it's time for you to go.

< Ghost Air Made 74 Landings in Canada | Libby Hearing Today on Motion to Compel Documents >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Anti-Abortion Madness | 86 comments (86 topical)
    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#1)
    by aw on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 06:33:06 AM EST
    Time for all the men here to start in on the endless debate about abortion again. Women, as usual, will be ignored or patronized. In the last few threads about this I decided not to waste my breath. So here's to the boys club: I had a safe, legal abortion. I got away with it! I had sex without being punished! Nyah, nyah!!!

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#2)
    by Peaches on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:32:40 AM EST
    It's time for Democrats and leftist to start thinking about life after Roe vs. Wade. This fight has been lost. Now, it is a matter of time. I support woman's right to choose, but I won't bang my head against the wall on this one. Here's why. I think democrats should use the repeal of Roe vs. Wade as an opportunity. Once the anti-abortionists win this one, there is no reason to stay with the republicans far-rightist. The coalition between conservative Christians, and neocons, breaks down. This is where leftist should pick up the ball and start really preaching about the sanctity of life. The sanctity of peace. The sanctity of unwanted (and wanted) children living in poverty. The sanctity of affordable health care for all. Finally, Democrats are not caught in a contradiction and they can really talk about valuing life and christian ideals at the same time. And, maybe we have learned enough to have sane debates in the states legislatures about abortions. If there is a silent majority out there in South Dakota and other conservatives favoring abortion in some circumstances but definately not all circumstances, then they will get out there and vote new members into the legislature who will support sane legislation. Yes, I am a man. Yes, I believe, ultimately, a woman has the right to choose. but, this argument doesn't work anymore when debate on abortions has been divided by two extremes talking past each other. The left needs to understand that defending abortion in all circumstances as the rights of individual (woman's)choice is an extreme position. Society has a right to regulate it and, soon, it will be up to individual states to craft that legislation and eventually, congress might have to determine legislation on a national level.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:23:11 AM EST
    Peaches You are very wrong on one issue. The right to privacy and the right for a woman to control her body is not, I repeat NOT an extreme position.You have bought into the Religous right's propaganda. There is No taking of life with an abortion. Abortion is a medical procedure and should be kept that way. Govt should stay the hell out of a womans right to control her own body. Keeping religion out of politics is not an extreme position.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#4)
    by Peaches on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:38:00 AM EST
    Ed, There was a time I would have agreed with you. In fact, maybe I still do. However, the majority of Americans have some ethical issues with calling abortion just a "medical procedure." That makes your position extreme. Whether you want to admit it or not, there are ethical issues with this that do not necessarily have to be at root, christian or religious. And Ed, you don't know me and I don't know you. We can have a debate without casting aspersions. I come to my opinions by informing myself on all sides and listening to as many positions as possible. To say I bought into propaganda because I hold an opinion or view differing from you only reflects on your intellect and not mine.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:51:40 AM EST
    Time for all the men here to start in on the endless debate about abortion again. Women, as usual, will be ignored or patronized. In the last few threads about this I decided not to waste my breath.
    While the human life being extinguished by abortion is also usually ignored here, I agree with aw in that these threads are a waste of breath.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 11:30:00 AM EST
    In other news, South Dakota also banned vasectomies and masturbation.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#7)
    by Peaches on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 12:05:08 PM EST
    I agree with aw in that these threads are a waste of breath.
    The reason it's a waste of breath is because the debate has been defined as between these two positions. 1. Abortion is always and everywhere murder. vs. 2. Abortion is simply a medical procedure. I have no respect for either position. I agree that having a debate on abortion that springs from either position is a waste of breath

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#8)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 12:19:10 PM EST
    It helps to see the humnor in the situation. The push to overturn Roe will succeed in redneck America, and that push means one thing and one thing only: putting the thing to a vote. And putting the thing to a vote amounts to women needing to beg "permission" from their neighbors to do as they will with their bodies. Which is so insulting that even in states where neighbors grant "permission," it makes a mockery of our entire culture. The great thing about Roe was precisely the thing that infuriates so many on the Right: it said this conversatio is over. Your approval is neither sought nor required. It was so simple, so beautiful, so in line with the idea of civil liberties as inalienable, that in America it could only fall to the wayside in time. No wonder so many women feel as aw does, resenting even those men who defend their rights. These women understand that they shouldn't need people like me defending their rights to control their bodies. Smell that? It's the slow and deserved death of patriotism, one oppressed American after the other.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:23:25 PM EST
    How can the Supreme Court allow states' rights to ban abortion but disallow states's rights to allow marijuana?

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#10)
    by Peaches on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 02:18:33 PM EST
    Whose side are you on, Peaches? Pick one.
    What? And waste my breath? Sometimes people are so disappointing. Are my expectations for intelligent discussion just too high?

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 03:01:58 PM EST
    Peaches Odd you post a comment then you become insulted and indignant when you're challenged. The you say you don't want to Waste your breath? Well excuuuse me! You wasted a lot of other peoples time by engaging us in the first place didn't you. Speaking from the moderate center on the abortion issue, I must say your comments have been the pits.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#12)
    by aw on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 04:04:07 PM EST
    Are my expectations for intelligent discussion just too high?
    Let's discuss this Peaches: I was young, I was drunk, and the guy and I hated ended up hating each other. I was three weeks late and I found a very nice clinic (combined with another type of practice as cover for security reasons). They questioned each woman to make sure they wanted an abortion and were not being pressured or coerced into having an abortion. I told them how I felt about it, which was this: I felt like there was a monster invading me and I wanted it out. I've never regretted it and never think about it unless the subject comes up. Murder or medicine? Which is it?

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#13)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 04:34:25 PM EST
    Peaches, Hang in there. I see your point. I'm pro choice but would not perform one unless mom is dying. And it is just natural law that you preserve the life of the mother, who can reproduce again. Sorry if that sounds so callous. My personal issue is with the fact that our technology is so advanced that we (or those wonderful neonatologists) can keep a premature fetus alive after only 24 weeks of gestation and support it during the remaining gestational period. These advances only further complicate the issue. It appears to me that eventually we will be able to remove a fertilized ovum from a woman and support it in vitro through the entire gestational period. Now here's my conundrum. I believe that human tissue does not necessarily constitute a human being. Embryonic stem cells do not equal a central nervous system, or a heart, or a stomach. These are no more human beings than an egg is a chicken. If so, then the three minute egg has got to be one of the most barbaric acts that has ever been committed against another living thing. And yet, this poses another huge question. At what point in the gestational period does the "blob" of tissue become a human being? There are defined stages of human gestation. Zygote, blastocyst, ovum, embryo, fetus, newborn infant. Since we do not have the technology to decide exactly when an individual gowing inside another is a sentient being, IMO the final decision belongs to a well informed individual whose body is being affected.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#14)
    by jen on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 05:11:00 PM EST
    We will always have a choice. The only question is how safe will society make it for the poor women and young girls. Also, Legalizing abortion means fewer late term abortions, since illegal abortions are illegal so why bother counting weeks. South Dakota women with more money will simply leave the state for the procedure. Poorer women will need more welfare. The SD congress better be getting ready to raise welfare.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#15)
    by Johnny on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 10:12:56 AM EST
    SD will never raise welfare, too many dumbass conservatives in this state. Remember, this si that state that feels an income tax is evil and yet has the second to last lowest paid teaching staff in the union. This is the state that had a domocrat senator for years until bishoes little gaunt boy (thune) came along and said "well, boys are kissing"... Look it up. As usual, rich, fat, white men are making sweeping laws (illegal laws as in this case) involving everyone but themselves. Nice.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 10:30:09 AM EST
    1. Abortion is always and everywhere murder. vs. 2. Abortion is simply a medical procedure. I have no respect for either position. I agree that having a debate on abortion that springs from either position is a waste of breath
    Well, Peaches, since it was my comment you were responding to, I guess I should respond to it. Most folks recognize that - at some point - that bundle of cells becomes human life. Excising a bundle of cells has much different moral, legal and emotional ramifications than excising human life. Please tell us what we're all missing in this debate so that we may be worthy of your respect.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 02:47:43 PM EST
    Che' Peaches, Hang in there. I see your point. I'm pro choice but would not perform one unless mom is dying I almost hate to say this...but I agree with you. The main problem most anti abortion people have is that it's being used as a form of birth control (as AW described) and that's just wrong.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#18)
    by Peaches on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 03:01:48 PM EST
    AW
    Murder or medicine? Which is it?
    I wouldn't know. Let's try this one. Hunter and gatherer societies often practiced infanticide when resources were scarce and the mother already had another infant to care for. Murder? I don't know. Che,
    And it is just natural law that you preserve the life of the mother, who can reproduce again. Sorry if that sounds so callous.
    No need to be sorry
    And yet, this poses another huge question. At what point in the gestational period does the "blob" of tissue become a human being?
    And this is the ultimate question. We can pick anywhere from the moment of conception (absurd) to the moment an individual becomes aware he or she is an individual entity--possbily as late as 18 months or so (also absurd). Obviously it is going to fall somewhere in between and this is what most Americans agree with. Most Americans are appalled by the idea of partial birth abortions (even if they rarely or never take place--why would we defend the practice?)or any abortion that takes place in the third trimester for that matter. When a blob of tissue becomes a tissue has to be decided by social consensus and there is no way to satisfy everyone. But, a discussion has to take place and there is no reason that it should be defined by the two extremes. As far as being in favor of a woman's right to choose. We all make decisions within parameters determined by society everyday. There is no contradiction in believing women have a right to choose an abortion, but...(say, only in the first trimester or whatever consensus our democratic and legislative process can come up with.)

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peaches on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 03:03:28 PM EST
    When a blob of tissue becomes a tissue has to be decided by social consensus and there is no way to satisfy everyone
    oops When a blob of tissue becomes a human has to be decided by social consensus and there is no way to satisfy everyone

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 03:45:20 PM EST
    Well said Jesurgislac. I would add the the sexist freaks want to limit and control a womans entire sex life. A woman is a mere vessel for those men to reap.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#21)
    by Peaches on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 05:49:27 AM EST
    I would add the the sexist freaks want to limit and control a womans entire sex life. A woman is a mere vessel for those men to reap.
    Although there might be a small minority who fall within this class, we can dismiss them as sexist freaks. But putting every one (or man) who opposes abortion in some (or many) circumstances and considers the decision to abort a cancelation of a human life and who also might actually have a sex drive, to callthem sexual freaks is another example of being an extremist from the other side and not wanting to have a discussion on abortion because of a delusion that they are inherently right and a discussion is not merited.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#22)
    by Peaches on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 06:12:41 AM EST
    Oh, Peaches, you give yourself away. So, women who think that we deserve to make decisions for ourselves about our own bodies are "deluded"? You're not pro-choice
    Once again, Jesur, you disappoint me. Your criteria for intelligent discussion does not meet my expectation. I am sorry if I sound elitist. Maybe, I have just had one too many philosophy classes and read one too many greek tragedies. I never sid you were deluded for making decisions about your own body. I was making a comment on those who would place a label of sexist freak on any man who believed that some restrictions should be placed on a woman's right to choose an abortion. See the difference? Come on now, rise to my expectations.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#23)
    by Peaches on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 08:50:56 AM EST
    Well, sexist is certainly appropriate, as I'm sure you'd agree - a man who thinks women can't be allowed to make decisions for ourselves is unequestionably sexist. Is it the word freak you object to? You don't feel that sexist men are freakish?
    You are a piece of work Jesur.
    Peaches, you don't disappoint me, but that's because I have very low expectations of men who argue that women can't be allowed to make decisions about our own bodies.
    Talk about wasting my breath. Oh boy. You are exactly what the left has to run away from. Every incremental loss in public opinion on Roe vs Wade is because of individuals like you. And to think I was at one time in your corner. What a freakin waste. You want to define this argument on your terms, again, as if you either support Women's right to choose an abortion no matter the circumstances, because it is always a private decision between her and her doctor or you are not pro-choice (you are a sexist freak /gender elitist). This argument is another version of the you're either with us or against us-- choose. I wonder where I heard that before...hmmm...

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 09:31:45 AM EST
    Peaches, I retract my February 25, 2006 11:30 AM comment above - I totally misunderstood where you were coming from. My appologies.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#25)
    by Peaches on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 09:45:00 AM EST
    NP Sarc, It is totally understandable, most of the time I don't even know where the hell I'm comin' from.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#26)
    by Peaches on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 11:44:04 AM EST
    Well, yes. That is the definition of being pro-choice.
    Well, if you don't know by now you will soon find out that this definition of prochoice does not fit within mainstream America. And, because you don't want to use the term prochoice liberally, you are willing to dismiss a large segment of the population who does not wish to see abortion outlawed but who you don't want to consider your allies in your prochoice movement.
    It's interesting that sexist men who start out by saying they're pro-choice rapidly turn hostile and aggressive towards feminists who point out that this does mean being pro-choice:
    I am truly sorry if you interpreted my arguments as hostile or aggressive. I am a practicing pacifist who wishes no harm to anybody. But, when making intellectual points, it cannot be helped that one must come accross as aggressive at times. Mostly, I am exasperated at your insistance that this be a black and white issue and disregard all gray areas. Your certainty in your position makes you an extremist and a fundamentalist. I have always been a crusader fighting against fundamenalist mentalities wherever I find them.
    You appear fairly typical of the species
    Did you mean gender? or are you placing me entirely in another specie category? Seriously, Jesur, I wish you the best, but you have a long way to go.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 12:42:54 PM EST
    Peaches-your abstract thinking about other peoples body reflects the big problem in the abortion debate. It is a class issue. To criminalize abortion is horrific. This will only affect the poor and will make unwanted pregnancy more difficult for women who can afford to get an abortion. If all the people legislating about what a woman can or cannot do with her body were poor and female this issue would be a non-issue and marginalized to entitled pseudo-philosophers like you.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#28)
    by Peaches on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 01:14:56 PM EST
    Squeaky,
    your abstract thinking about other peoples body reflects the big problem in the abortion debate
    A nice start, but what do you mean? Did I propose a mathematical equation? Was there sometime of abstract logic--if A then B. All I was asking was for people to look at this with an open mind. To acknowledge the complexity in making a decison about when life begins. That is not that abstract.
    It is a class issue. To criminalize abortion is horrific.
    If you want to make it a class issue, go right ahead. Class may play an important role, it might even be pertinent to the debate, but it most certainly is more than just a class issue. I have not asked to criminalize abortion. I have said that in some instances society can decide that abortions are not acceptable, and most Americans agree with this-->partial birth abortions as one example.
    This will only affect the poor and will make unwanted pregnancy more difficult for women who can afford to get an abortion.
    Actually, regulations on abortions would affect everyone, but possibly disproportionately the poor, like many laws. We this is a concern we should always take into consideration.
    If all the people legislating about what a woman can or cannot do with her body were poor and female this issue would be a non-issue and marginalized to entitled pseudo-philosophers like you.
    But that is not reality, is it? You actually believe that all women believe as you do and that is the problem. I am speaking for the majority of women, who want the right to choose an abortion, but don't agree with it in all circumstances. This is reality. Once a mother, or father, holds a new born baby in her or his hands, it is difficult to believe that a blob of tissue in the third trimester is not a human being. That said, they also don't have the same ethical conflicts with a woman choosing an abortion early inn her pregnancy and want this right to be preserved. These are the gray areas you don't want to acknowledged. I could care less what you do with your body and the rest of America in the majority couldn't care less either. But the rest of America also values life and makes a distinction somewhere in time during the nine months of pregnancy between a blob of tissue and a human being. The challenge is to determine where to make this distinction. If you say it is when the baby leaves the wombe, then you have to defend a partial birth abortion when the baby is almost fully formed. If people want to outlaw this practice they are doing out of concern for the life of the unborn and not because they want to control your body. If the choice is between making the world black and white such as you wish to do, and being a pseudo-philosophers, I'll take being a psuedo-philosopher.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 02:10:39 PM EST
    Peaches-Your abstract thinking comes from not being a woman who would be forced to terminate a pregnancy with a coat-hanger or have a unwanted and unaffordable child. These are the people that should be informing legislation with when big talk of criminalizing abortion comes up because they are the ones that will be harmed the most. Do you think that these woman do not experience the 'hallmark card' puppy love situation you describe. Take off the rose colored glasses for a sec. Most women, and their partners if applicable, struggle with the difficult moral dilemma and tremendous loss that comes with terminating an unwanted pregnancy. For some women, and many men, it is not a big emotional deal which is fine by me as well. I never claim to speak for all women. My argument is that you and people like you have no business legislating or preachng on their behalf. Your phony claim that you do somehow speak for all women is laughable. If all women believe that late term abortion should be avoided then there is no need to legislate against it. If you are not advocating for the criminilization of late term abortion then what are you advocating? That is is a difficult choice for those involved? Wow how insightful. The argument that you support is one step away from making abortion illegal and two steps away from making birth control illegal. This is a clearly documented strategy of those who see women's function limited to the kitchen, bedroom and nursery. If you do not know that you are naive or a propaganda operative from the religious right

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:52:48 PM EST
    Subtract from the movement everyone who implicitly states by thier championing of the economic status quo that children living in poverty deserve what they get; the ones who arnt concerned about the anti-life potential of cluster bombs; the ones who characterize those who advocate for non-fetal life forms and the biosphere as "enviro-nazis" and how much of a movement do you have left?

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#31)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 09:13:33 AM EST
    Squeak,
    Your abstract thinking comes from not being a woman who would be forced to terminate a pregnancy with a coat-hanger or have a unwanted and unaffordable child. These are the people that should be informing legislation with when big talk of criminalizing abortion comes up because they are the ones that will be harmed the most.
    And this is the problem with the whole abortion debate. Nobody is allowed to think for themselves. Instead they are supposed to stick to slogans from highway billboards and bumper sticker slogans. The reason the majority of Americans support abortion in some circumstances is because fo the reasons you cite. As appalled as they are about third trimester abortions they are equally horrified by women visiting back alley abortion clinics. Hey, I could care less. I've given up. I am just trying to wake you up to some realities. People don't want to see abortion outlawed. These people consider themselves pro-choice. But, they also understand don't trust that women in all circumstancres will make responsbile choices. This is why they want it regulated. For the same reason people get upset over pregnant women smoking, drinking or taking drugs. All the sudden it isn't just only a private decision, because another life is at stake. So, the bumper sticker slogan, you want to continue to base your position on (Get your laws off of my body) no longer holds up.
    Ooh, passive-aggressive "apology", not even acknowledging that you were being hostile and aggressive, but apologising for my interpretation. Nice one. Very typical of your average sexist male getting affronted at having his aggressive, hostile behavior named as such.
    Jesus, you are pathetic. I feel sorry for you. You poor little girl. (Now you can take the passive prefix off the front).

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 09:58:10 AM EST
    Peaches-
    These people consider themselves pro-choice. But, they also understand don't trust that women in all circumstancres will make responsbile choices. This is why they want it regulated
    "These people" must mean you and your people. How paternalistic that you don't trust that women will make responsible choices. It is none of your business what these people do. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Pro-choice but only for those you decide are "responsible"? Sounds very dishonest to me.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#33)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 10:11:49 AM EST
    "These people" must mean you and your people.
    These people refers to the majority of Americans.
    How paternalistic that you don't trust that women will make responsible choices.
    Why does this have to be a feminist issue. Is every woman who has views similar to my own or, even more likely, considers themselves prolife, are they also paternalistic? Or do you just distrust men in all regards?
    It is none of your business what these people do.
    Name any society or community who didn't take an interest in what other people do. This is the definition of community.
    Pro-choice but only for those you decide are "responsible"?
    Selective reading. I said previously:
    There is no contradiction in believing women have a right to choose an abortion, but...(say, only in the first trimester or whatever consensus our democratic and legislative process can come up with.)
    I am happy to leave the determination of when abortions are responsible to the democratic process and legislate through state or national congress.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 10:23:40 AM EST
    Peaches-
    These people refers to the majority of Americans.
    Interesting way to support your argument that abortion should be criminalized. I think that you are engaging in self serving opinion presented as fact.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 10:36:37 AM EST
    Squeaky, what is the point, in your opinion, at which human life begins?

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#36)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 10:42:54 AM EST
    Interesting way to support your argument that abortion should be criminalized. I think that you are engaging in self serving opinion presented as fact.
    As I said, I would be happy to leave it to the people--also called democracy. There are legal faults in Roe vs. Wade which the bumper sticker slogan --get your laws off of my body--pretty much sums up. It is not solid legal ground, because it means a woman has the right to do anything while pregnant irregardless of the damage that might be done to the child. All I am promoting is that the Left prepare for an inevitability. This means that the left begin to craft legislation in the event Roe vs. Wade is overturned. But, before the left does that, it would benefit them to know what the American people support. I am not being self-serving, other than I don't want to see this country drift any farther to the right. But it is the unreasonable position of some on the left, such as yourself and Jesur, that doesn't give a pro-choice individual with reservations in some (or many) instances an option or alternative to support, so they drift to the prolife position. I guarantee that more people fall in this category than under your extremist position. But, again, I'd be happy to leave it to the democratic process.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 11:26:46 AM EST
    Peaches-
    I guarantee that more people fall in this category than under your extremist position.
    As I suspected: talk is cheap as is your so called guarantee. Your willingness to guarantee that most Americans would criminalize abortion is absurd, and very weak as a support to your argument as it is your opinion and not fact. As you know late term abortions are extremely rare. When a woman decides to undergo this type of very difficult procedure and is made a criminal because of it two lives will be lost. Anyone that has more compassion for a embryo than a human being is obviously hypocritical.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 11:30:36 AM EST
    Anyone that has more compassion for a embryo than a human being is obviously hypocritical.
    Squeaky, you might have missed my question above, but, in your opinion, what is the point at which an embryo becomes a human being?

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:04:27 PM EST
    suo-
    Anyone that has more compassion for a embryo than a human being is obviously hypocritical.
    I would add 'or fetus' after embryo to be clear.
    S: (n) homo, man, human being, human: (any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage)
    link
    From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48: Embryo \Em"bry*o\, n.; pl. Embryos. [F. embryon, Gr. 'e`mbryon, perh. fr. ? in (akin to L. ? E. in) + ? to be full of, swell with; perh. akin to E. brew.] (Biol.) The first rudiments of an organism, whether animal or plant; as: (a) The young of an animal in the womb, or more specifically, before its parts are developed and it becomes a fetus (see Fetus).
    A fetus is a developing mammal after the embryonic stage and before birth.
    link

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:37:04 PM EST
    Squeaky, I'm not going to play games with you over fetus/embryo, that is not my intent. I infer from your response that for you a "human being" is a born human. Fair enough, for others a "human being," "human life", whatever, exists before birth. Because of this fundamental belief of yours, you define the issue as you do, and your position is perfectly defensable based on your beliefs. And because of other's beliefs, they define the issue as they do, and their position is perfectly defensable based on their beliefs. Since neither of the parties is open to changing their fundamental beliefs, ie., when this mass of cells becomes human life/human being, aren't we just wasting our breath as aw mentioned upthread so long ago?

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#41)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:52:16 PM EST
    As I suspected: talk is cheap as is your so called guarantee. Your willingness to guarantee that most Americans would criminalize abortion is absurd, and very weak as a support to your argument as it is your opinion and not fact.
    Two can play at that game. Talk is cheap and what you say is only your opinion not fact. Jeesus, brilliant Squeak. Define fact.
    As you know late term abortions are extremely rare.
    How rare? link please.
    When a woman decides to undergo this type of very difficult procedure and is made a criminal because of it two lives will be lost
    Most Americans also are willing to let these diffiuclt decisions be made in consultation with a medical doctor. Again, this can be legislated. I would support it being criminal if the difficult decision to abort a healthy fetus from a mother whose health was not in danger was done in late in a preganancy, because of convenience or due to the laziness because the mother (rich or poor) couldn't get herself to a clinic earlier. But, again, what I support doesn't matter. Let's see what America would legislate. And if we leave it to you, who would make no comprimise in your position, the decision is going to be much harder to live with and much further to the right.
    Anyone that has more compassion for a embryo than a human being is obviously hypocritical.
    Well, that is some nice reasoning. difficult decison > Criminalize > two lives lost > more compassion for embryo than human. Was I missing something in there? I have compassion for all living beings, but that is beside the point. Again you are trying to dictate the terms of the debate. Either I acknowledge that an embryo is not human or I can't be prochoice, so I should just go join the protest at the local abortion clinic and become prolife. You see what you are doing yet?
    A fetus is a developing mammal after the embryonic stage and before birth
    All right. Your point? Its a definition. Not necessarily even an inaccurate one. So, we are going to make legal decisions based on Wiki--that there should not be any moral dilemma, let alone outrage, because of the above defintions. You're kidding, Right? If not, well,... we can let this go now.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#42)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:17:11 PM EST
    Let's see what America would legislate
    After sifting through all your equivocations and justifications etc., Peaches, I found this sentence from your latest post to be most representative of what you're saying. So let's roll with it. Yes, indeed, let's see what would happen if, in the area of civil liberties, the Courts were bypassed altogether and all that mattered was what "America would legislate": In almost every state: Flag burning and other "offensive" forms of expression would be banned. Spying measures far more sweeping than those Bush has employed would be implemented. After all, if you aint got nothin to hide, why would you be against it? In lots of states: Criminalization of homosexuality period, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars. Lots and lots of restrictions on reproductive rights, too, and exactly acording to your rubric: judgmental as they are, American citizens would love nothing better than to find themselves in a position of deciding which women qualified as "lazy" and which qualified as "deserving." In about half the states Utter abrogation of First Amendment ramifications during "wartime." How dare somebody "pick at a President" during war? In a few states The death penalty to abortion doctors. Criminalization of teaching evolution in Science classes. Officially sanctioned prayer sessions during class, during school functions, etc. The list goes on. But the point is, Peaches, the Court is the only of the three branches of government specifically empowered to, among other things, uphold and protect civil rights regardless of public opinion. That is why, dear Peaches, the "States' Rights" cry is nine times out of ten a plea for bigotry. Americans are nosy and think lots of things is their God-given almighty business. So what "they would legislate" doesn't really matter to me, when it becomes a clear cut choice between that and liberty and justice for all.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#43)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:46:34 PM EST
    Glanton, Finally, some intellignet counterpoints and all very valid. I also have spent many years losing sleep over the points you mention and I can't tell you what course liberal thinking people should do. We are at a crisis point in America in terms of politics. I am sure you know that the right wing also understands the points you have made and they have made a systematic effort to change our court system. And, they are doing it effectively. Here is all i have left as a suggestion. Let it go. give up the fight. Because what we have are divisions being drawn up in America between right and wrong and the my way or the highway mentality from both sides. I am called a murderer from the prolife movement and anti-choice (or sexist freak) from the prochoice side. Frankly, I am tired of the polarization and I wish to promote a more liberal aganda, when liberalism was synonymous with enlightenment. When democracy was part of the liberal movement and when we believed that decisions were made through social consensus and rhetorical persusaion that went beyond billboards and bumpersticker slogans. Where people's attention span is longer than the super bowl commercial. I know I am talking about a fantasy world, but tell me you aren't also disgusted with the mentalities on both extremes--including Squeaks and Jesur's even if you feel their work is necessary to counteract the far-right agenda. If we are to continue pursuing the American and liberal dream of democracy and I believe that liberalism and democracy go hand in hand because democracy is something to achieve or strive for, not something to protect (because we haven't achieved it), then we have to challenge extremist and fundamentalists on all sides. Point, well taken though, Glanton

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:11:38 PM EST
    Peaches-Here is a quote from an interview by Larisa Alexandrovna with Michael Leeden:
    ML: I describe myself as a democratic revolutionary, I don't think of myself as "conservative" at all. Indeed it seems to me that most self-described leftists today are reactionaries, and have lost the right to describe themselves as people of the left.
    He is of course full of crap but after reading your posts here and particularly your advice Let it go. give up the fight. his version of Left=Reactionary sounds like it may apply to you.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#45)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:16:47 PM EST
    Peahces, First of all, I agree totally about the culcute of bumper sticker slogans and soundbites. But to suggest that the blame for this culture falls equally on all parties is absurd: the military industrial complex has facilitated such a culture to a far greater extent that PETA ever could. All hail the concrete jungle. Like Bill O'Reilly's (sorry for the comparison but it's not personal), your argument seems to be "it's the left AND the right, one's no more guilty than the other." That's baloney, though. First of all it's baloney because what is considered "the Left" by most American idiots is actually pretty damned conservative by the standards of most civilized places. O'Reilly has called the NY Times a "far-left paper," for God's sake. With Squeaky and Jesur you make a very similar mistake. Neither of them, in taking a hardline stand on the principle of women's rights, deserves to be branded an extremist. They are only painted so by the likes of Fox and, increasingly, the NY Times. Further, I would suggest that given recent trends in posting on TL, both Squeak and Jesur will be amused to see you appealing to me as some sort of moderate trying to effect change, in contrast to the two of them. For the last week they have both lamented in their own way the fact that I have essentially given up on this country. Those points I listed, which you praised: think about them again. If you really agree with what I wrote than you're absolutely right to give up, because what I'm saying is the game is over and the bad guys won. Both Squeak and Jesur, by contrast, would still probably recognize the people of South Dakota as their countrymen and women. Perhaps they would even call them civilized and feel sorry for them in times of distress. Not me. The two you denote as "extremists" are far, far more "moderate" and "open to change" than I, friend.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#46)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:43:01 PM EST
    You are close Glanton, but not quite. Oh, I agree with your characterization of the right demonizing the left. Yes, it is true. They are experts. It is not equal by any means. They are winning, no--I agree--they won. However, they also win by playing to the polarization. You think the military industrial complex gives one rip about the abortion debate. Like the neocons are really losing sleep over the loss of life. They performed a master coup on this one and the left is left sitting scratching their heads, by linking with condservative christians and rural working class America, playing to their disappointments and telling them they have a right to be outraged. Just look what the left wants to do, they want to kill your babies. Here is example one (Squeak, unreasonable defense of partail birth abortions) here is another example (jesur unreasonable defense of partial birth abortion). and they all fall in line and vote republican not having a clue what they are doing. You are open to change, but you just believe it is beyond reach and I couldn't agree with you more. However, Squeak and Jesur are far from moderate and defending all attacks on Roe vs. Wade is not open to change, because we could (in an ideal world, true) legislate a more sane law that is true to American ideals. But, like you, I also gave up the fight. The last election was the last stand. They won and they have done too much damage to the American ideal. However, I hold out one last hope. That we have sank to the bottom and people will realize what has happened. The overturning of Roe vs. Wade will be one of many opportunities for this silent majority of Americans (who are not idiots) to get off their asses and start taking matters into their own hands. I hope, perhaops only dream, that they will stop giving power to the interest groups and begin strong local movements dedicating to making thier lives and communities sustainable. I hope, no dream, that the repeal of Roe vs. Wade will mean no one votes for an individual who is in the back pocket of large corporations that hold the military industrial society together and will sell their constituents down the river. I think we have closer views than you realize. Maybe we take slightly different tactics. I should give up, my rational mind tells me they have won, but something still keeps me going despite loss of hope. So I search desparately for alternative ways--ways that have not been tried. Maybe it is hopeless, but we should start to fight this from themiddle and sell abandon the Squeaks and Jesurgs and form an alliance with the Christians --because Dammit, they are just too many of them and they all vote the same goddamn way-- and then appeal to ideals Jesus actually espoused. If that means I have to read the goddamn bible--by God, I'll do it. How is that for desparate?

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#47)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:59:59 PM EST
    Squeak, I agree with Michael Ledeen that he is not conservative. The Neocons are not conservative. I consider myself conservative in the mold of Wendell Berry or Aldo Leopold. Somethings need to be preserved and life is a precious thing. But,I am liberal in thinking and follow more closely fin-de-siecle thinkers such as William James, John Dewey, and Thorstein Veblen. Yes Michael Ledeen is full of crap, but people like you do not represent the left. At least I don't want you representing me. Mostly, because I think you don't appeal to anyone besides your other extremists on the left. You don't know hiow to reach the middle. This has left the middle within frim grasp of people who have no right to call themselves conservative, such as Ledeen (since we know he is full of crap, and he really does identify with modern American conservatism--neoconservatism: which isn't really conservatism at all)

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#48)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 03:09:09 PM EST
    Peaches, For the sake of truly understanding one another's positions, it is crucial that you understand I am no less vigilant in defending Roe than either of the "extremists" you deride. As far as "partial birth abortion" goes, it isn't even a medical term for crying out loud. The whole thing was designed to rile up the Dobson/Robertson crowd, and along the way to fool a few Democrats into believing that there was this regular and fully sanctioned practice of babies being killed during delivery. The only time such things have ever gone on record as having happened have been when the mother's health was threatened, and in any case they have been so rare as to be infinitessmial. Yet that's what the Rethug machine has managed to frame this whole conversation into: they don't talk about abortion anymore, but "partial birth abortion." On principle this hijacking of rational conversation must be dismissed and/or publically called out as ignorant prattling, which is exactly what I have seen Squeaky do time and time again. You're right on the money, of course, in indicating that the military industrial complex has used red herring social issues to fool "Red State" voters into perpetuating their own exploitation. I used to despise the manipulators for it. More and more, my disgust turns towards those who allow themselves to be fooled. Who was worse in South Carolina 2000: Bush, for spreading among GOP primary voters the rumor that McCain had sired an illegitimate "black baby," or the knuckleheaded folks who thought that rumor reason to vote for Bush? It might be easier to blame Bush, but anyone with half a brain would have simply hung up on the push callers as soon as they saw what was going on. As for joining the evangelical oppressors because there so many of them, I'm a little sickened at that thought. Neither strength of numbers, loudness of voice, nor colorful ways to drool on public television translate into what is decent. And BTW: I find reading the Bible to be a pretty rewarding experience; blaming the book for the behavior of the dogmatic droolers is unfair. Finally, make no mistake about it, Peaches, but the Democratic Party sold out/abandoned people like Squeaky long before now. Witness what happened to, what the media helped the Dems do to, Dean. Witness too the recent Virginia gubernatorial election. So that's the new model for Democratic hope? Blech. GOP Lite, through and through. I cannot speak for Squeaky, she does a great job on her own, but it doesn seem to me that she honestly wants to participate in getting decent thoughtful people to reclaim the Democratic Party, though I don't think she'll be able to do it. But I respect her for her faith that it is possible, and am a little in awe of her faith in American decency, which I hardly share.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#49)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 03:10:28 PM EST
    In the last paragraph there is an important typo. I meant "it does seem to me that she honestly wants to participate in getting decent thoughtful people to reclaim..." So there's no confusion.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#50)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 03:22:09 PM EST
    Wait, Wait, wait,
    For the sake of truly understanding one another's positions, it is crucial that you understand I am no less vigilant in defending Roe than either of the "extremists" you deride. As far as "partial birth abortion" goes, it isn't even a medical term for crying out loud. The whole thing was designed to rile up the Dobson/Robertson crowd, and along the way to fool a few Democrats into believing that there was this regular and fully sanctioned practice of babies being killed during delivery.
    I know this. And this is why the mother$%^&ers won. This is what is wrong with ROE vs. Wade. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It is inherently flawed and it took the antiabortion floks to make up this procedure to prove their point. and they did it! Democrats couldn't say they would outlaw it, even it the procedure never happens, because legalizing abortion through the courts required using the right to privacy. Thus the slogan "Get Your Laws off of my Body." They couldn't afford to let this exception be law because it erodeed the very foundation ROE vs. Wade is built upon. See, you have to hand it to them, they were brilliant. Okay, maybe I'm still sore about being put into a group that would be protesting at abortion clinics, lumped in with sexist freaks for even bringing up the idea that Americans might have the right to put some restrictions on abortions--suchas outlawing a horrific procedure that doesn't exist--simply so they can feel better. Perhaps there still is some utility to the squeaks of the world. But, they are going to have to learn how to reach out. The left has given up on the Squeaks of the world. Maybe I am not describing correctly what I have in mind. When I say take the fight top the middle, I am not endorsing the moderate presidency of Bill Clinton. I am talking about something much more radical, because, ultimately, I think AMerican ideals are radical. I am talking about appealling to everyday Americans. I am trying to figure out how to put a fire under their ass, so they take matters into their own hands.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#51)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 03:38:14 PM EST
    Okay Jesur, I heard ya...I know..I know...You hit it nerve, babe, let's not keep pounding it in.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#52)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 05:06:02 PM EST
    except that the people who want to use the power of the state to stop women from having abortions are more likely to get their way and are harder to fight against.
    Amen to that. There is no difference whaveter. Tyranny with the stroke of a pen, a smile, and a few kissed babies is still tyranny.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#53)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:33:22 AM EST
    Glanton, Here's the deal. You gave up and have decided to just get out of the way. I don't agree with your reasoning (idiots in the red states) but I can unde3rstand your frustration. So, without being disrespectful, I say good riddance. However, Jesurg and Squeak, as you say,
    Both Squeak and Jesur, by contrast, would still probably recognize the people of South Dakota as their countrymen and women. Perhaps they would even call them civilized and feel sorry for them in times of distress. Not me.
    See, the way I see it, they might be willing to hold out hope that they can change thier countrymen and women's minds. But, this is where they fail. If you want to reach your countrymen and women, you have to take a step toward them. As I said in a previous post. The partial-birth abortion strategy of the right was a hypothetical and the left performed beaurtifully (me included), by the rights standards. Let's call this thread an experiment of mine. Jesurg and Squeak merely confirmed some suspicians I have held of why the left continues to lose the middle despite holding, in my opinion, the moral high ground. Well, for one, the moral high ground is still up for grabs and we don't hold it. The defense for partial birth abortions that you give (it is so rare as tio infintisimal) fails for the swame reason it doesn't work with the administrations defense of spying and the NSA or torture. They can't defend as a rare instance, because it is immoral (it is imortant to understand that morality is decided through social consensus thus we have to live with the consensus or work intelligently (rhetoricl persuasion) to change it. What the right did and were counting on when they decided to outlaw this hypothetical practice was for people on the far left to react with--you can't do that, it is none of your business, because it is a private decsion between the doctor and the woman. this is actually what Roe vs. Wade is based on. But I can still understand your support for Roe vs. Wade. you base it on your conviction, however, and not sound reasoning. That's fine, this is what the people you call idiots do also. But, what I want to point out is that htese people are no more idiots than you are. They support legal abortions, they just don't want to be lied to (at least so blatantly. Abortion is nothing to trivialize. And that is exactly what the extremists on the right do when they make distinctions between embryos, fetus, and humans. Cal abortion what it is. A painful, but necessary decision that was the best for all partys involved. Don't demean people who think of a fetus death as a loss of life. It is a spiritual question. But, they do, in thwe majority (at least I am confident and Jesurg supports me on) think abortion should be legal. Now, I want to address what you asked me to do. Think about the points you made more thoroughly, because I have thought about them long and hard--and believe me when I say--I was at one time stronly in your camp.
    Flag burning and other "offensive" forms of expression would be banned.
    Maybe, but so what. burning a US flag in protest when it is not legal is an even more powerful form of protest.
    Spying measures far more sweeping than those Bush has employed would be implemented.
    They could not be more pwerfully employed than bush has propsed and implemented. We already have our work cut out on this. Flag burning, gay marriages and abortion are distractions hardly worth thinking about when you think about what the spying issue means. This is exactly why the left has to win back the middle. I don't agree that people would vote in mass for more spying. Won't happen. Here we may deiffer in our fundamental belief about the sensibilities of Americans.
    Criminalization of homosexuality period, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars.
    What you are finding support for is this defense of Marriage act. Then you extrapolate to criminalization of homosexuality period with nothing to support claim. A possibility, but not likely. But give your belief that Americans are idiots, well, I understand. As far as the defense of marriage, the way I feel about this is if they think marraige needs protection so much worse for marriage. This is kind of like feminist arguing for the right to serve in combat. You go girl. I eam marriage isn't that great, why someone is so eager for this right puzzles me. Regardless, there are way more imprtant things to worry about. The rest of them:
    Utter abrogation of First Amendment ramifications during "wartime." The death penalty to abortion doctors. Criminalization of teaching evolution in Science classes. Officially sanctioned prayer sessions during class, during school functions, etc.
    Just pure scare tactics. I have much more faith in American ideals. If you are right, then it is a risk I am worth taking, because I can't live with such a low regard for popular consensus given meaningful debate. And if it is the meaningful debate part you are worried about, meaning it will be willingly stifled, then I suggest this be where the left puts its energy, not with trying to hold the fort after the fortifications have already been breached.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:59:51 AM EST
    A very telling comment from Peaches-
    Glanton, ....You gave up and have decided to just get out of the way. ..... So, without being disrespectful, I say good riddance.
    Saying good riddance is always hostile no matter how you qualify it. Glanton an example for us all of patience and good temper caught it first by discrediting Peaches use of the propaganda term "partial birth abortion" We have seen stealth operators here before, and we will see them again. Religious right? Place your bets. The jig is up Peaches.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#55)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:08:31 AM EST
    Well, Squeak, Come on now, Squeak, I was on this site long before you were. I had many tussells with ppj and others leading up to the election. Think about it. I am posting on one thread. I am not throwing something out on every issue like ppj bb and others. jBut, if you want it, I'll tell you what I think. We are all trolls on here. There is no good debate. This whole blogging thing is a waste of time if you want to see decent results. Hell, I might be sitting in the next cubicle. We might even go to lunch later. Just passing the time. Did you catch the without being disrespectful. Glanton said himself he has given up. But, go ahead. Stay locked up in your little world.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:34:19 AM EST
    Peaches-My world is not that little. BTW- Why good riddance to Glanton? A friendly joke? I think not. One down and how many more to go? Seems like you are deeply committed to making abortion a crime. Your tactic of arguing that abortion is not an important issue comes with the advice that the left should follow Glanton's example and give up. Sounds really disingenuous to me. Transparent lip service to veiling your stealth anti-abortion agenda.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:37:19 AM EST
    If the kukluxkristian taliban thinks that merely getting Roe overturned is gonna send this Country back to Pleasantville they're more whacked than they think I think they are. First of all, that's far from a sure thing, and second of all, the majority of people don't buy your act. They may concede to some limits on abortion in later trimesters but they don't want it outlawed and they sure as heck don't want the likes of you runnin' their personal lives for them or their families thank you very much. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. If you don't like sex, mind your own damned business. Oh, and by the way, the number of abortions went down under Clinton. They've gone up under Shrub. So much for the idiotic notion that people use abortion as a means of birth control. That's like saying they use amputation as a means of halting the spread of infection.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#58)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 10:19:45 AM EST
    Charlie (love the acrynomym, btw. Huge Clash fan and Apocolypse Now) and Squeak, I promise you both I will go away soon and then you can say good riddance to me.
    If the kukluxkristian taliban thinks that merely getting Roe overturned is gonna send this Country back to Pleasantville they're more whacked than they think I think they are.
    Oh, charlie, I am a long way from a kykluxkristian, but you know what they say about protesting too loudly. Hey I apologize, sincerely. I was tugging your chain Squeak, Jesurg, and now Charlie. I wanted to see who would bite. I was trolling. But, I was trolling with a purpose. I wanted to see how vindictive those on the far left on these issues could be. I found out. Now, I won't feel guilty as I step away and move towrd middle America. Sorry for using you all has guinee pigs. So long.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#59)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 10:57:42 AM EST
    To answer your Question Squeak,
    BTW- Why good riddance to Glanton? A friendly joke? I think not.
    No, you are right it wasn't a friendly joke. It was meant to be sincere. Glanton has taken the mistaken, but understandable postion that people who voted for Bush are just plain idiots. If they have been duped he doesn't even feel sorry for them. I say good riddence, because like you, he makes the rights job easier. When they talk about elitist on the left they are refering to attitudes like Glantons. When they talk about extremists, they refering to people like you. Although I was trolling, if you read my posts there is a lot of good advice in there. I mean everything I said. Roe vs Wade is going down and the left has to begin crafting legislation to replace it if we don't want to go backward in time. And, if we aren't willing to make some consensions, such as partial-birth and late term abortions when the mother's health is not in danger, then you are going to lose the battle with the extremists on the right who want a total ban. You will lose because they have made taken too many steps to prepare for this day and they continue to rely on individual like you to get the masses worked up in tithey. From today's time's heres Alito. It gives me the creeps too.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#60)
    by glanton on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:15:38 AM EST
    So, without being disrespectful, I say good riddance.
    You know, I didn't take this personally, but it did occur to me that I've heard it before under a slightly different set of terms. Where was it? Oh, yes, I remember now! It was what Gore essentially said to us all in 2000 when he nominated Lieberman as his running mate. And I daresay he felt pretty good abnout how "tactical" he was being, right up until the moment that Nader cleaned his clock in New Hampshire anf Florida, to name only two. Of course, it was those of you in the "middle" who protested so loudly about the election being "stolen." Did it ever occur to any of you that if the Democratic Party stopped sending out GOP Lite candidates that maybe whole new blocks of voters, who have so far given up, might emerge? Onto other things...
    burning a US flag in protest when it is not legal is an even more powerful form of protest
    That is not the point and you know it. Play fair if you want good debate.
    They could not be more pwerfully employed than bush has propsed and implemented.
    Oh, really? So far as I can tell, there is no evidence that the Feds are spying on Domestic-to-Domestic communication; and even if they are, they're only doing it on the sly. But my point was that in     many states, voters have already indicated their cheerful willingness to let such things pass.
    What you are finding support for is this defense of Marriage act
    No, Peaches, for all its hooplah, the "Marriage" thang is a side issue. Ever hear of Lawrence v Texas? That was just a few years ago, friend: not some archaic ruling of yesteryear. People down here squealed like stuck pigs when that decision came down, and a lot of them are stilled po'd about it. And while Texas occupies an exterem end, there are several other states that share this fundamental attitude.
    Just pure scare tactics
    Again: Oh, really? Are you telling me with a straight face that Americans have not been deprived of their First Amendment rights during wartime? Ever hear of Woodrow Wilson? And remember, for that one and the other "scare tactics" I said     a few states. Which leads me to the death penalty for abortion doctors. Were you unaware that this was a plank on which Tom Coburn was freely elected by the Okie voters? Maybe you were unaware. Look it up. Science and religion in the classroom... are you telling me you don't know there are a number of stater populaces that would love to reinstitute prayer in school? What about Kansass? What about Alabama, where Roy Moore is not only taken seriously, but even adored? I could keep shredding your Leibermenian call for centricity but one grows tired; it's too easy. But I do want to address this: you write
    When they talk about elitist on the left they are refering to attitudes like Glantons.
    Yes. I love that one. Did you know that there were whites during Reconstruction who opposed lynching black folks? Or that there are those today who don't think "If you aint got nothin to hide you shouldn't be worried about spying" is an attitude tghat deserves respect? Or, Peaches, did you know that there are thosew who realize that while it takes a liar and a demagogue to publically accuse McCain of siring an illegitimate "black baby," it takes a fool and a bigot to be moved to action by those kind of words. Damned elitists..... they think they know everything.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#61)
    by aw on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:29:47 AM EST
    Wow, I didn't realize there was anything still happening in this thread. For the record, I wasn't intending on using abortion as birth control. I would define using abortion for birth control as repeated abortions. Abortion is a bit more expensive and physically demanding than other methods and no one that I've ever known has used it as a method. Murder or medicine? You say you don't know. So how does anyone else know? The people in our statehouses don't know any more than you do. So why should they have any say in peoples' intimate, personal, or medical decisions. Maybe I confound some of you because I'm not solemnizing the decision I made, or that I didn't even find it an agonizing one. It was a practical decision to rid myself of what I saw as an abominable mistake. No man on earth has the right to impose their morals on women who want an abortion, whatever the reason. PS: I later had a child who was/is wanted and loved very much.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#62)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:52:42 AM EST
    Strawman all around Glanton, but I'll take them one at a time.
    You know, I didn't take this personally, but it did occur to me that I've heard it before under a slightly different set of terms. Where was it?
    You were right the first time. But then you stewed and came up with that. I meant it as it was intended. Simply supporting your decision to give up on Americans (the idiots), but advising that this position gets the left anywhere. On flag burning:
    That is not the point and you know it. Play fair if you want good debate.
    I was playing fair. I was simply telling you I am not that concerned with flag-burning one way or another. It's a symbol, that some people conside3r sacred. I don't, but I won't belittle those that do. As far as burning it, the right, it is a very small issue that the Right uses to gain voters. I am willing to let them have their ban, because it isn't that big a deal (at least not as big a deal as those on the left make it out to be).
    Ever hear of Lawrence v Texas? That was just a few years ago, friend: not some archaic ruling of yesteryear. People down here squealed like stuck pigs when that decision came down, and a lot of them are stilled po'd about it. And while Texas occupies an exterem end, there are several other states that share this fundamental attitude.
    We can find lots of examples of legislation in the recent past that should make all of our hair stand on end. But this could be used as evidence for what I am suggesting also. We are losing, while trying to hold fast to positions. I say let some of them go and walk toward the middle. Appeal to Christain compassion. Have a higher regard for human nature and American ideals. People will always dissapoint when given complete freedom, but in the end, as our forefathers (should I not use father?) taught us, we have to place trust in the general consensus. It is a sloppy process though.
    Again: Oh, really? Are you telling me with a straight face that Americans have not been deprived of their First Amendment rights during wartime?
    Never said that!
    Which leads me to the death penalty for abortion doctors. Were you unaware that this was a plank on which Tom Coburn was freely elected by the Okie voters? Maybe you were unaware. Look it up.
    Did he get elected? Was there protest? Are you implying that Oklahoma is filled with idiots?
    Science and religion in the classroom... are you telling me you don't know there are a number of stater populaces that would love to reinstitute prayer in school?
    Again, I never said that. But have you noticed how these states have also been going the other way as people become conncerned about the quality of education in the public schools. Democracy wins.
    What about Alabama, where Roy Moore is not only taken seriously, but even adored?
    Has he won an election, yet? Could happen. I hope not. But, that is a risk you take in a democracy. But, again, this is where faith and the true test in democracy comes in. These radical movements, you hope, work themselves out in time, and sane minds prevail. what you don't do is belittle a whole populace for voting in a certain direction.
    I could keep shredding your Leibermenian call for centricity but one grows tired; it's too easy.
    Of course it is easy, because you are aiming at Liebermen. Yes. I love that one. Did you know that there were whites during Reconstruction who opposed lynching black folks? Or that there are those today who don't think "If you aint got nothin to hide you shouldn't be worried about spying" is an attitude tghat deserves respect? Or, Peaches, did you know that there are thosew who realize that while it takes a liar and a demagogue to publically accuse McCain of siring an illegitimate "black baby," it takes a fool and a bigot to be moved to action by those kind of words. Damned elitists..... they think they know everything. Leave a Comment HTML Tags: Bold = Bold Italics = Italics linked text = Linked text Please Only Click The "Post" Button One Time. URLs Within Comment Body Not In HTML Format Will be Deleted. Thanks for signing in, Peaches. Now you can comment. (sign out) (If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.) URL (optional): Remember me? YesNo Comments: Strawman all around Glanton, but I'll take them one at a time.
    You know, I didn't take this personally, but it did occur to me that I've heard it before under a slightly different set of terms. Where was it?
    You were right the first time. But then you stewed and came up with that. I meant it as it was intended. Simply supporting your decision to give up on Americans (the idiots), but advising that this position gets the left anywhere. On flag burning:
    That is not the point and you know it. Play fair if you want good debate.
    I was playing fair. I was simply telling you I am not that concerned with flag-burning one way or another. It's a symbol, that some people conside3r sacred. I don't, but I won't belittle those that do. As far as burning it, the right, it is a very small issue that the Right uses to gain voters. I am willing to let them have their ban, because it isn't that big a deal (at least not as big a deal as those on the left make it out to be).
    Ever hear of Lawrence v Texas? That was just a few years ago, friend: not some archaic ruling of yesteryear. People down here squealed like stuck pigs when that decision came down, and a lot of them are stilled po'd about it. And while Texas occupies an exterem end, there are several other states that share this fundamental attitude.
    We can find lots of examples of legislation in the recent past that should make all of our hair stand on end. But this could be used as evidence for what I am suggesting also. We are losing, while trying to hold fast to positions. I say let some of them go and walk toward the middle. Appeal to Christain compassion. Have a higher regard for human nature and American ideals. People will always dissapoint when given complete freedom, but in the end, as our forefathers (should I not use father?) taught us, we have to place trust in the general consensus. It is a sloppy process though.
    Again: Oh, really? Are you telling me with a straight face that Americans have not been deprived of their First Amendment rights during wartime?
    Never said that!
    Which leads me to the death penalty for abortion doctors. Were you unaware that this was a plank on which Tom Coburn was freely elected by the Okie voters? Maybe you were unaware. Look it up.
    Did he get elected? Was there protest? Are you implying that Oklahoma is filled with idiots?
    Science and religion in the classroom... are you telling me you don't know there are a number of stater populaces that would love to reinstitute prayer in school?
    Again, I never said that. But have you noticed how these states have also been going the other way as people become conncerned about the quality of education in the public schools. Democracy wins.
    What about Alabama, where Roy Moore is not only taken seriously, but even adored?
    Has he won an election, yet? Could happen. I hope not. But, that is a risk you take in a democracy. But, again, this is where faith and the true test in democracy comes in. These radical movements, you hope, work themselves out in time, and sane minds prevail. what you don't do is belittle a whole populace for voting in a certain direction.
    I could keep shredding your Leibermenian call for centricity but one grows tired; it's too easy.
    Of course it is easy, because you are aiming at Liebermen.
    Did you know that there were whites during Reconstruction who opposed lynching black folks? Or that there are those today who don't think "If you aint got nothin to hide you shouldn't be worried about spying" is an attitude tghat deserves respect? Or, Peaches, did you know that there are thosew who realize that while it takes a liar and a demagogue to publically accuse McCain of siring an illegitimate "black baby," it takes a fool and a bigot to be moved to action by those kind of words.
    I really don't know who you are arguing with here. I kind of get your point, but I am not sure where it comes from. I refer to you as an elitist because you refer to the red state voters as idiots. You think they are just dumb. That's no way to reach them, and I think we have to reeach them. opinions fluctuate. People change their minds. but they do not like to be called idiots. They will hold that against you (or the left) for a long time.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#63)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:54:27 AM EST
    Sorry if the above was confusing, Glanton, this cutting and pasting then responding while trying to look like I am really working can be distracting. Hit a wrong button there somewhere.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 12:09:07 PM EST
    Peaches, to troll or not to troll, that may be the question for you but I don't fret for a second about whether it's nobler. It's no skin off my back. As for Glanton, should they stay or should they go now, who's gonna tell the nitwits to stay alert and stay with fox if they go? Somebodies gotta pin their little mittens to their parkas. Hey, I did my time in the 70s. As long as we're stickin' with that Clash thing, shrub's got this whole thing goin' straight to ... What's he gonna do next to calm the waters, send klueless karen hughes over to meet with another Muslim ladies auxiliary. She'll probably give them her favorite Texas Barbecued Pork recipes. They're Muslims, nitwit!

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#65)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 12:46:20 PM EST
    aw
    No man on earth has the right to impose their morals on women who want an abortion, whatever the reason.
    I don't know, becaue I don't decide. We all do. Murder is not a absolute term. Every society makes exceptions. war, self-defense, euthenasia, capital punishment, and of course, abortion. I don't have any problem with the decision you made. I, myself, was part and parcel, to consulting with a signiifcant other in a past relationship, where we came to the same decision. My argument is simply that there is no absolute moment when we can decide that tissue of human origin becomes human. As you know, that newborn child you later had, was also a lump of tissue, but you felt an overwhelming bond to it. I don't take that feeling lightly. If someone else feels that abortion is murder, who am I to say it isn't. I just want to leave to society to decide. Especially, now that we can see the end of Roe vs. Wade. So, in regards to your above comment, I agree, in the case of man. But if society say's (Through legislation) that late-term abortions are illegal when the mothers health is not in jeopardy (something I would support--and many women also) then that is what we have to live with. Until the next law. Start working on that your own legislation, because that is what is going to come too.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#66)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 12:56:32 PM EST
    Ouch, another nerve. You get some pleasure out of this, honeybunch? Cause, Man, you are busting my ..., I better not say that in the presence of a lady.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#67)
    by glanton on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 02:18:47 PM EST
    What I meant by not taking it personally is, it doesn't matter to me if its personal or not. And I find it interesting that you ignored my lead point, re Gore/Leiberman. I see you did so because you think its not relevant to your position. But oh, how relevant it is! Gore abandoned the very people you want abandoned, and then when Nader shredded him for it, there were all these protests about how Bush "stole the election," when in fact Bush stole nothing. So you should be happy on that score, Peaches, because the Dems have long ago done exactly what you want them to do. Tack as far Right as possible at all times. But still, that doesn't stop hosts of idiots from referring to someone like Kerry as "the Left." But then that's what idiots do.
    I was simply telling you I am not that concerned with flag-burning one way or another.
    Right, because it doesn't affect you. Only flag burners should care about that right, yes? Just like only women should care about women's rights, and only homosexuals should.... well, one hopes you see my point. Each erosion of liberty counts, even if it doesn't impact your own personal little world. Coburn, by the way, of course was elected. And there weren't many protests because, one can only gather, the message, death to abortion doctors, resonated with Okie voters. You ask, does that make them idiots? Well, whatever it makes them, it aint pretty. And if its an elitist thing to say so then thank God for elitism. As far as "states going the other way" re education: yeah, right. These states occupy the lower strata. Kansas aint exactly eliciting much envy from anyone in the civilized world in terms of education (unless you count Alabama and Mississippi), and their solution is to treat "ID" as Science. But then we come to your main point, in my view, and the place where you and PPJ marry ideologically (ouch!):
    we have to place trust in the general consensus
    And of course the answer to that is: not when it comes to civil liberties we don't. There are bedrock, inalienable guarantees that no majority can wipe away. Such as freedom of speech. Such as a right to privacy. And on and on. Let me put it this way. May of us don't like Paris Hilton. What if there were some movement to imprison her ust because we're tired of looking at her. Suppose a majority voted for it. Do you respond with, "oh well, that's the general consensus?" If you do, then you might be a redneck. Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 02:26:51 PM EST
    Jesurgislac-
    Self-admitted troll, too. Ick.
    Did not think anyone noticed. Thought it got lost in the volume of BS that no one bothered slogging through. I agree ick. Experimenting too.... Wonder what other kinds of human experiments he is into.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 02:53:16 PM EST
    glanton, could you clarify your position for us? Do you believe that an "un-born" (to use an as neutral as possible term) is never, not ever, human life? Or do you believe that un-borns are - at some point, anyway - human life, but you are willing to let their right to life always be subservient to the mother's rights?

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#71)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 02:59:57 PM EST
    Squeak,
    Did not think anyone noticed. Thought it got lost in the volume of BS that no one bothered slogging through. I agree ick. Experimenting too.... Wonder what other kinds of human experiments he is into.
    I had slightly higher expectations out of you than Jesurg, but not much, so I can't truthfully say I am disappointed. BS is a matter of taste. This all is BS. The experimant I am taking part in is the same one we are all taking part in. Democracy is a new thing. We tried it first here in America 230 years ago. You ever read the Declaration of Independence. Most Americans haven't. You know why? Because it is a very radical document. It took courage to write it and even more to sign it. Well, we are about to let this experiment fail. Not only that we have destroyed the planet at the same time. BS? I suppose. It won't be the first time I am accused. Sometimes I hear it from the people I am closest too. I hope it is BS. I pray it is. I would shut up just to see that you are right. But you are not right. You don't even know a friend when you see one. That breaks my fricken heart, it really does. Not because of me, but because of all the other people, mostly women, who will suffer because of willful stubbornness and a refusal to listen--to show some respect to an opposing view. Before you say anything, remember, the moral highground is what you are after.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#72)
    by glanton on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 03:02:31 PM EST
    Inalienable rights is why we are in Iraq.
    Yes, you do hear a lot of that from Fox. But I am not talking about rights dispensed from God. I am talking rights laid down in the Constitution and, for that matter, in the Declaration (not a legal document but supposedly the spirit in which that document was written). Our Constitution mandates that we Americans do in fact have certain inalienable rights. When the mob ignores those guarantees, they damn sure don't deserve empathy or a strategy to reach out to them. If the country has descended so far that the mob wins hands down, then it's not worth fighting for in any case. And contrary to what my post may have indicated, Nader was never "my guy." I voted for Gore, stupidly. But then and now I knew exactly where Nader was coming from. And he's absolutely right that there's little difference between the Dems and the Rethugs these days. And the fact that he was right cost Gore votes from people a lot more true to themselves at the time than I was. Gore lost Florida the old fashioned way: he earned it. Now, BTW, Gore's a different Gore, it seems. I find myself inspired by the words he says. But I guarantee you that if he runs for high office again, he'll come right back to where he was in 2000. He talks big now because he has nothing to lose. Every time you say flag burning doesn't matter, I will feel compelled to remind you that you feel this way because it doesn't affect you. What a sad way to think, by the way. As for what do I do? Don't think just because I don't vote any longer that I do nothing. There are already organizations budding in Texas and I would assume elsewhere to facilitate transportation for poor women when the shackles come down on their bodies as we travel back in time. My money, my time, and my car if necessary, will be part of those efforts to get women to free states. Finally, you write:
    Americans are outraged by spying,
    I just haven't seen any evidence of this. I have, on the contrary, seen lots of polls and talk shows and focus groupd where people indicate that they wish Bush would go further. But not for these blights of skin to worry: they got their wish re civil liberties, in the form of judicial reshaping. Now there is no branch of any kind dedicated to protecting minorities. Well done, Rethug voters! Well done, Democratic Party, for offering up candidates so unseemly as to make even the most rabid Rethug hater hold their nose before casting their very blue vote. Ta.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#73)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 03:17:44 PM EST
    Glanton, We are outraged by the same things, we just see different ways out. I've been where you are at, perhaps you have been where I am at. Perhaps you are sicjkened by the idea of ever ending up where I am at.
    just haven't seen any evidence of this. I have, on the contrary, seen lots of polls and talk shows and focus groupd where people indicate that they wish Bush would go further
    where did you see it? Fox? Don't believe it. I don't. The mob is a fickle thing, but the minute you turn away your F$&#ed. You can't control the mob, but you can give it little stingers and offer little carrots. That's what the right has been so effective with. There was a huge difference between Gore and Nadar and between Kerry and Bush. It set everything back years. Gore doesn't lose and Bush is never--i mean never--president if Nadar opts out of race and endorses gore. Too much was at stake in 2000 and Nadar never admitted this. He did a lot of people wrong. Of that I am sure.
    Every time you say flag burning doesn't matter, I will feel compelled to remind you that you feel this way because it doesn't affect you. What a sad way to think, by the way.
    You are right about the affect me part, but wrong about sad way to think. Whether or not it is illegal to burn a flag will not matter one iota on my decsion to burn it. It takes extreme courage to burn a flag whether it is illegal or not. Even where it is illegal, you have to be aware of the mob. I said it is not important now. By, that I mean we have much more important things to worry about and we need to get busy. The flag burning issue and school prayer, and even evloution/sciece should be put on the backburner, partly because I think these issues are in safe hands with the majority of Americans. But, mostly because there are much more scary things to be concerned about

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#74)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 03:26:28 PM EST
    Even where it is illegal, you have to be aware of the mob.
    should say even where it is legal

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#75)
    by Peaches on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:47:35 AM EST
    I said:
    We are outraged by the same things, we just see different ways out.
    I meant : While I am trying to map a way out you have taken the defeatist attitude that there is no way out.
    My money, my time, and my car if necessary, will be part of those efforts to get women to free states.
    As I said, I'd rather not see it come to this, so start prparing for life after Roe vs. Wade. THose free states will be far from free by the standards of the far left. So, before you plan your trip, you better make sure you have a substantail supply of cash, because the free states are not going to subsidize abortions form your state. And, if they are a minor, don't forget to get her parents signiture. Oh yeah, get there in the first trimester of her pregnancy, no later. one more thing, bring some money for a hotel room because you will have to spend a night due to a 24 hour waiting period. That will be the free states that you will be coveting. Wouldn't it just be better to start getting legislation that the people in Texas can support, than preparing an undergound railroad that is doomed to a financial train wreck. How many women will you be able to help? One? Ten? One Hundred, tops. While, your defeatist strategy has left be thousands (if not millions) out in the cold. That's the legacy of Nader.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#76)
    by glanton on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:19:50 AM EST
    Peaches, Nobody said that less civil liberties would make things easier. But thanks for the warning. But you know, reading this whole thread again, I have to say I'm not sure why you aren't absolutely ecstatic with the current direction of the Democratic Party. You want what you call "hard lefters" abandoned? Did not both Gore and Kerry do precisely that (this of course was my real point in invoking Nader, though you deftly swung the conversation into an attempt to indict Nader rather than recognizing my point about the power structure of the Democratic Party)? So you want "the left" abandoned? What the heck do you call this recent Patriot Act vote? You want the Dems to stop catering to the pro-choice "extremists"? How exactly do they cater to them? By electring Ken Salazar and goold ole what's-his-name from Missuori and now tghe new trend re Virginia? By nominating Casey to take on Santorum? In short, my friend, politically you ought to be happier than a pig in dung. In terms of social issues, there is no way you can deny that the Democratic Party tacks further to the Right with each cycle. Andc whether its out of cowardice or out of "tactical stategery" makes no difference to me. It does, however, allow me to find humor even in suck dark atrocities as a Bush electoral victory followed by the incessant complaints of "centrists" who felt they were robbed. You wanted us abandoned? You got it. Now go out there and "win" without us. Maybe your next President will be remembered for "welfare reform," too.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#77)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:38:32 AM EST
    glanton, I had asked you, above, to clarify your position on when human life begins. It's not an attack nor anything like that. I asked Squeaky pretty much the same thing on this thread, and (kinda) got an answer from her, which I understand, this is a difficult issue - has any thread lasted a full week on TL before? Anyway, for you, at what point does human life begin?

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#78)
    by glanton on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 10:48:48 AM EST
    suo: See, that's the whole problem that I have with this debate. It is not really relevant what any individual's persoal/spiritual beliefs are regarding "when life begins." That includes me. It is ridiculous to suggest that a woman would need my "blessing." She's already got her own conscience, her own needs, her own doctor. That's enough. The last thing she needs is the rest of us, through legislation, forcing her to heed our own beliefs. It is an inherently unanswerable question; and like the choice of religion it is a private matter. Incidentally: Roe, as you know, didn't just clear all hurdles to the procedure from conception to delivery. This is merely a myth perpetuated onto the gullibles. What it did guarantee was first trimester unfettered access, and set strict guidelines on other forms of regulation. But as it stands, lots of states have some sort of regulation or other.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#79)
    by Peaches on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 11:05:30 AM EST
    But you know, reading this whole thread again, I have to say I'm not sure why you aren't absolutely ecstatic with the current direction of the Democratic Party.
    Fair enough. I am not satisfied. I am pissed. I've been pissed for a long time. But, I'm not really advocating a centrist position. When I say I have been where you have been, I'll give you an example. The politician I spent most of the time being angry at, believe it or not, was Paul Wellstone. I felt like he was betraying his base everytime he didn't take up one of our postitions and run with it. I felt he was leaving the people who supported him the most when he didn't challenge Clin on don't ask don't tell. Man, it's been so long now, and I've cried so many tears, I don't even remember any specifics of why I was so mad at him, but a lot of us were. What Nadar did was inexcusable, and I voted for him in 1996 and 2000. The right politicians are reaching toward the middle all the time and their base, the wingnuts and wackos, always hve thier backs. Sometimes politics is about comprimise. If you can't compromise, you will not make it anywhere. The far left should not be ab andoned. Their ideas are more important now than ever., But, they need to understand politics also. They have to understand what it takes to get and stay elected. But, I say most of what I say out of desparation because I don't have any other answer to the rightward drift, than to appeal to the senswes of average Americans, if you can clear away all of the hyperbole. This is where my cynicsim begins. The money in politics and the control of the media and the standardization of our deucation system leaves one with little hope that we could ever return to0 the day when the average American was literate enough to read and make sense of Thomas Paines Common Sense. And then could apply it to today's world. I'll make a deal. I won't abandone the far left, if you won't abandon the American people (the mob). Step into the mob, it's not that scary. These are real people. They aren't idiots. Engage them in conversation, don't belittle them. This isn't a centrist position. Its common sense.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 11:12:20 AM EST
    Fair enough glanton, while I agree it may be a private matter, I can't agree that it's irrelevant. For example, many whites during slavery believed blacks were not human, but, clearly, whether others believed they were was very relevant. (I know, I know, you probably can't draw such defined parallels between the two, but for me there is enough similarity to at least explore the point of whether the morality/legality/whatever of one's actions are defined only by that person, or by society at large.) But I can see that if you do believe it to be irrelevant, then the issue is exclusively only about the mother's rights. Seems pretty absurd to me - and I'm sure the flip-side seems just as absurd to you - but hey, I guess that's what makes the world go 'round.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#81)
    by glanton on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 11:20:32 AM EST
    It was always provable and seeable that the slaves were human beings. It was never a matter of opinion or conviction; it was however a matter of bigotry mixed with paternalism mixed with economic exploitation and on and on and on. No way your analogy holds water. Indeed, if anything, going the other way with the analogy makes a lot more empirical sense: women as property, not agents. This is what you are upholding as "a viewpoint just as valid as yours..."

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#82)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 11:39:10 AM EST
    I certainly recognize the humanity of blacks, and I expect/hope all of us do. And I expect/hope that at some time in the future we will all also similarly recognize - at some point during gestation, anyway - the humanity of the un-born.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#83)
    by Peaches on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    Glanton, When I said:
    But, I'm not really advocating a centrist position.
    I want to elaborate a little more. I mentioned earlier that this was an experiment. as you say, although it is not quite true, close enough for out purposes:
    What it did guarantee was first trimester unfettered access, and set strict guidelines on other forms of regulation. But as it stands, lots of states have some sort of regulation or other.
    What I advocated was a position that wouldn't vary in the least from the above. I merely said that society does have a right to regulate abortion in some cases. Squeak and Jesurg reacted predictably. I understand their convictions, but they are just that convictions. The belief in some, let's say, imaginary existent of some natural rights or even constitutional rights. Roe vs. Wade is weak law, but its implications are huge--so the emotion attached to its overturning are, of course, very strong. But, it is a mistake to throw outrageaous claims on someone who is attacking the rational for Roe vs. Wade, even though the results would not be any different, as long as we wrote new legislation. I was saying that the woman's right to privacy was not sound reasoning for making abortion legal and the right exploited this reasoning. For if a woman has this right, one could also make the argument that single mothers whose life and health are affected can end the life of thier child before the age of, say 2 years or 1, pick an age. The reality there isn't much difference between a fetus that has been in the womb for eight months and a new born baby. Private decision of the mother? How far do we want to take this. Society has a say, and most people, men and women, aren't comfortable with distinguishing between a fetus and a human as the moment of birth, just as most aren't comfortable with believing life begins at the moment of conception. So, what was my point, I advocate a reasonable position, and I am called sexist. THis is what democrats face from the base. If a politician from the left, be he Joe Liebermen or Paul Wellstone, if that politician takes a wlk toward middle America and comes back to tell the base, "you know, what they are saying is not that unresonable, we have some room to work here." Well, what he is going to get is "Sell Out!" "Repug LIte!" "Sexist" "Homophobe", and they will be abandoned. This is not smart politics. No, I don't advocate a centrist postion, but things got a lot worse when Bush beat Gore. Now, it is even harder for Democrats to manuever. They have to go talk to their voters. The left needs to put pressure on them, but the left also has to talk to the people. They don't talk to them they preach at them and call them names. That was my point.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#84)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:20:48 PM EST
    This is not smart politics. No, I don't advocate a centrist postion, but things got a lot worse when Bush
    beat Gore. Now, it is even harder for Democrats to manuever. They have to go talk to their voters. The left needs to put pressure on them, but the left also has to talk to the people. They don't talk to them they preach at them and call them names. That was my point.
    Ya got a point to a point, Peaches. Then again, I don't recall the right shuttin' up with the sanctimonious sermonizin' in the last 30 years. I don't think they've so much as come up for air. The independents are finally starting to come to their senses about these wacks though. This taliban stuff that reared it's ugly head during the schiavo fiasco really scared them. Sure, it would've been handy if they'd become enlightened six to eight months earlier, but better late than never.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#85)
    by Peaches on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:45:12 PM EST
    Then again, I don't recall the right shuttin' up with the sanctimonious sermonizin' in the last 30 years. I don't think they've so much as come up for air.
    You might be right Charlie. But, I am not so sure. The right and the left will always be at each other's throats, and calling each other names. What I am talking about is how we talk to the ones who haven't made up thier minds. The ones who might agree with my position on Roe vs. Wade. I don't think the right calls them idiots and they definately don't call them sexist. They sort of placate and cajole them. They say, "See those guys over there, they think you are an idiot. We don't. We will chastise you, if you have an abortion, but we don't hate you. We hate the left and they think you are an idiot. Would you rather vote for people who have no respect for you? Come on, join us." and many do. And many will feel betrayed. But, as long as the left has no respect for them. What do you think they will do?

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#86)
    by glanton on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:25:20 PM EST
    sarc: Perhaps you already realize you are on shaky ground with the slavery analogy. But if you do not, I seriously invite you to reconsider the ramifications. I mean, if you really want to talk parallels, look no further than the fact that the entire Presidential map broke down as an almost exact replica of the slave state/free state divide, and you will find the the abortion controversy in many ways breaks down along similar lines. What is the connection? Much of it has to do with the demonization of, belittling of, the Other. Female sexuality as something beyond the control of the status quo white Protestant male has clearly become something infuriating to the same people, ans in the same way that civil rights were infuriating in the 60s.

    Re: Anti-Abortion Madness (none / 0) (#87)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:55:33 PM EST
    glanton, you may analyze the political ramifications, Rep v. Dem, Lib v. Con, etc. v. etc., of my analogy to your heart's content but it is of little interest to me. As I think I said once to you once before on the same topic, I think we should all decide for ourselves when human life begins and let the chips fall where they may. My point above remains; similar to our now "enlightened" recognition that blacks are human beings, I expect/hope that, in time, we will recognize that at some point during gestation the un-born are also human beings.

    Anti-Abortion Madness | 86 comments (86 topical)